Antecedentes de la Educación En El Salvador

As reflexivity exhibits different behaviors (West, 2000), reflexivity indicators were mapped on to cognitive behaviors SA and TMS for examining their occurrence in team communication to answer research question 1.11. It is to note that none of the numerical data presented in the cross-tabulation section could undergo a statistical analysis. There was an inability to assign team members either randomly or by counter balancing to reflexivity observations, which resulted in the same sample pool participating in some of the

observations but not all. This violates the independence of observation assumptions critical for statistical analysis (see, Parush et al., 2014). The cognitive behaviors of SAE were cross- tabulated with reflexivity, see Table 33. Descriptive results display reflexivity to exhibit high levels of cognitive behaviors. Examination of potential differences of SAE cognitive behavior by reflexivity indicators revealed that the occurrence of SAE cognitive behavior perception was to majority presented in reflexivity indicator review, indicating teams to review what they are perceived in the environment. Descriptive results for SAE comprehension shows that

143

the behavior was mainly displayed in both reflexivity indicator strategy development and implementation.

On the other hand, reflexivity indicator projection was to majority present in

reflexivity strategy development. Descriptive results revealed SAE cognitive behavior action to majority to occur in reflexivity indicator strategy development and implementation. Similar to the descriptive results of SAE cognitive behaviors, SAT cognitive behavior perception was primarily identified in reflexivity indicator review. Descriptive results for the SAT cognitive behavior comprehension and SAT projection were to majority communicated during strategy implementation. Moreover, SAT cognitive behavior action was to majority identified in strategy implementation and strategy development. Table 33 presents cross- tabulated results of Mean and Standard Deviations.

Table 33. Means and Standard Deviations of Reflexivity by Cogntive Behaviors.

Reflexivity mapped on to Cognitive Behaviors

Review Strategy _{Implementation} Strategy

Category M(SD) N M(SD) n M(SD) N SAE Perception 0.3(0.6) 64 0.2(0.4) 41 0.1(0.3) 22 Comprehension 0.3(0.7) 68 0.5(0.9) 118 0.6(1.4) 149 Projection 0.0(0.3) 8 0.1(0.5) 21 0.0(0.1) 5 Action 0.1(0.4) 22 0.5(1.0) 124 0.1(1.2) 115 SAT Perception 0.5(0.9) 114 0.1(0.4) 28 0.1(0.3) 23 Comprehension 0.2(0.7) 56 0.7(1.2) 174 1.4(1.5) 344 Projection 0.0(0.3) 8 0.1(0.2) 12 0.3(0.7) 62 Action 0.0(0.6) 71 1.0(1.4) 259 1.4(1.4) 334 TMS Specialization 1.0(1.3) 243 0.5(0.9) 127 2.0(1.9) 481 Coordination 0.3(0.7) 76 2.0(2.2) 501 0.7(1.1) 162 Confusion 0.1(0.3) 12 0.1(0.2) 14 0.0(0.1) 5 Credibility 0.3(0.6) 63 0.1(0.9) 98 0.2(0.4) 40 Feedback 0.4(0.8) 104 0.1(0.3) 14 0.0(0.1) 5

144

Also TMS cognitive behaviors were cross-tabulated with reflexivity indicator, refer to Table 33. According to descriptive results, TMS cognitive behavior specialization were to majority communicated during strategy implementation while TMS cognitive behavior coordination was primarily present in strategy development. Although descriptive results indicate no major differences of TMS cognitive behavior confusion between reflexivity indicators, reflexivity indicator strategy development demonstrated the highest level of confusion. While the TMS cognitive behavior credibility was displayed to majority during strategy development, the TMS cognitive behavior feedback was primarily present both in the reflexivity indicator review as well as strategy development.

During the reflexivity transition phase review, team members were primarily

reviewing their awareness (i.e., SA perception) of task related conditions in the environment (external) in addition to their own team events, conditions or actions (internal). Further, team members exhibited during review cognitive behaviors of feedback in form of providing feedback about task accomplishments. To some extent during the review, the cognitive behavior specialization reminds the team members’ to review their own or other team members’ expertise such as their status or condition. See examples:

SAE Perception “yeah saved a few houses”

SAT Perception “my fire engine moved slower but refueled faster”

TMS Specialization “I don’t think any of us has enough water to put

out a big fire.”

Feedback “I thought we did fine”

During the reflexivity transition phase strategy development, results indicate that teams are more likely to exhibit behaviors of action to plan and coordinate activities related to the task environment (external). In addition, the cognitive behavior action reflects the team and team processes during strategy development. Cognitive behavior of understanding task and team related also occurrences. It exhibited and displaying cognitive behavior could project the task environment into the near future and seemed most crucial during strategy development. During strategy development, team members’ displayed to majority cognitive behaviors of coordination to plan, manage, and prioritize tasks. In addition, individuals displayed

behaviors of confirming proposed strategies, or double checking information with other team members to evaluate possible strategies. See example:

145

SAE Comprehension “I say everything is important but the edges of the

forests are first priority so they don’t even hit the towns”

SAE Action “also even when there’s a major fire that we’re

helping out with we still need to be looking out for others if possible”

SAT Comprehension “2 can get the middle and 3 take bottom?”

Action “select the vehicle near to you.”

TMS Coordination “we should divide up section that each member

can

be in charge of”

Credibility “sounds good but don't leave a fire just because

it's

not in your corner ok”

During the action phase of implementing or adapting a strategy, cognitive behavior of awareness to understand task related occurrences in the environment (i.e., external) and team related task occurrences (i.e., internal) was displayed. The action phase was also displayed by teams projecting internal events into the near future. These cognitive behaviors seem

essential for monitoring changes of external and internal events allowing the team to be highly adaptive to changes. Teams also exhibited cognitive behavior of action taking

congruent to the task either regarding the task environment or regarding the team. Moreover, cognitive behaviors of specializing in team members’ status or condition of expertise was exhibited during the action phase contributing to monitoring and tracking changes. Further, coordination behaviors were exhibited to coordinate the planned activities for achieving strategy implementation and then the overall team goal. See example:

SAE Comprehension “…patrol is from left to right across the forest”

Action ”Need somebody patrolling the town”

SAT Comprehension “keeping my truck closer to the houses but my heli

deeper in the woods”

Action “state your new position”

TMS Specialization “…My truck will be in the middle right where the

houses are.”

146

Mapping reflexivity indicators to cognitive behavior supports prior findings of displayed behavior during the reflexivity indicators of review, strategy development and strategy implementation (West, 2000). Further, these findings support Marks et al. (2001) suggestions that in the transition phase, team members frequently visit for planning and evaluation; while during the action phase, coordination and monitoring processes dominate the action phase of task accomplishment. In contrast to the author’s postulation, these results show coordination behavior to be already displayed during the transition phase that may be attributed to TMS cognitive behavior of sharing information regarding coordinating tasks and/ or prioritizing tasks. This result contributes to research as it indicates which cognitive behaviors appear within each reflexivity indicator located in communication. Being able to identify behaviors related to each reflexivity indicator in communication might also leverage reflexivity indicators in relation to these cognitive behaviors.