Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Shared Knowledge in High School Teams: Effects on Team Performance Jeff Weisman

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

SHARED KNOWLEDGE IN HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL TEAMS: EFFECTS ON TEAM PERFORMANCE

By

JEFF WEISMAN

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Jeff Weisman defended on September 9, 2005.

David Eccles Professor Directing Thesis

Gershon Tenenbaum Committee Member

Tristan Johnson Committee Member

Approved:

Frances Prevatt, Chair, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems

Marcy P. Driscoll, Dean, College of Education

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

To my parents who have provided me a great deal of support and encouragement throughout the years.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Eccles and Dr. Tenenbaum for all the hard work they have put into this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Tenenbaum and Dr. Pargman for teaching me and mentoring me during my years at Florida State.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... Page vi List of Figures ...... Page vii Abstract ...... Page viii

INTRODUCTION ...... Page 1

LITERATURE REVIEW...... Page 3

METHOD ...... Page 16

RESULTS ...... Page 25

DISCUSSION ...... Page 33

APPENDICES ...... Page 43

A Coaches’ Informed Consent ...... Page 45 B Parents’ Informed Consent ...... Page 45 C Players’ Informed Consent ...... Page 47 D DIBESTQ ...... Page 48 E General Shared Knowledge Test ...... Page 51 F Diagram Based Test ...... Page 71 G Video Based Test ...... Page 75

REFERENCES ...... Page 77

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... Page 82

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Criteria for successful and unsuccessful plays...... Page 20

Table 2: Design Summary...... Page 22

Table 3: Inter-rater Reliability Correlations ...... Page 23

Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for General Basketball Experience Variables for JV and V Teams...... Page 25

Table 5: ANOVA Results for General Basketball Experience For V and JV Teams...... Page 26

Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations for Structured Training Variables for V and JV Teams ...... Page 27

Table 7: ANOVA Results for Structured Training Variables For V and JV Teams...... Page 27

Table 8: Means and Standard Deviations for Planned Plays Sharedness and Total Diagram Knowledge for V and And JV Teams...... Page 28

Table 9: ANOVA Results for Shared Knowledge for V And JV Teams ...... Page 28

Table 10: Means and Standard Deviations for Planned Plays Accuracy and Total Diagram Knowledge For V and JV Teams ...... Page 29

Table 11: ANOVA Results for Planned Plays Accuracy and Total Diagram Knowledge for V and JV Teams...... Page 30

Table 12: Means and Standard Deviations for Guards and Forwards on Knowing Responsibilities of Positions...... Page 31

Table 13: ANOVA Results for Guards and Forwards on Knowing Responsibilities of Positions ...... Page 32

vi

ABSTRACT

This study used three high school varsity and three high school junior varsity basketball teams to examine the relationship between players’ basketball experience (with their team, their teammates, and with basketball) with shared knowledge and shared knowledge’s relationship to performance. Participants completed several measures that related to demographic information, basketball experience, and shared knowledge. The results showed that varsity players had more experience playing at their school and at the varsity level than junior varsity players. Varsity players also tended to possess more shared knowledge than junior varsity players. There was also some evidence that shared knowledge aids team performance. Finally, players whose primary position was either a guard or shooting guard reported that they understood the responsibilities of the guard positions better than they did the power forward and center positions. The reverse of this was true for players whose primary position was either a power forward or center. The results of the study support the shared knowledge concept in high school basketball teams.

vii

INTRODUCTION

Extensive research has been dedicated to define and measure group and team performance across numerous domains. The performance of teams relies not only on the individual team members' individual abilities, but also on the various components that make up teamwork. Shared Knowledge (SK) is a concept that is thought to explain an important component of effective team performance. SK is well documented in several domains but referred to as Shared Mental Models (SMMs). SMMs are documented in domains such as the armed forces (Entin & Serfaty, 1999), organizational settings (Levesque, Wilson, & Wholey, 2001), human factors (Wilson & Rutherford, 1989), and aviation (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993). The SK concept consists of the idea that effective team performance requires members of a team to share knowledge of how the team is to accomplish their various tasks (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). SK is thought to contribute greatly to teamwork, and thus aiding to overall team performance. Only recently has the concept of SK been described as being applicable to team sports (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). Basketball is an interactive sport, in which the performance of the team depends a great deal on the teamwork capabilities of the team (Cratty, 1983; Jones, 1974). Therefore, SK should be critical to performance in the sport of basketball, which is what the present study focuses on. Communications among team members is necessary for SK to be acquired. Communication for achieving coordination can be acquired during pre-process or in- process actions. SK allows more implicit coordination and less explicit coordination during actual team performance. The present study is aimed at identifying SK in high school basketball teams. SK in basketball teams refers to knowledge of team operations that is shared by two or more members of the team and has the potential to aid team performance. This includes planned plays, planned adjustments, team rules of play, codewords or encrypted signs, general basketball knowledge, having teammates that are familiar with each other's style of play, etc. It is assumed that planned plays that are executed as they were designed are more likely to lead to successful outcomes due to SK among team members than plays that were not planned or were not executed as they were designed. Thus, the utilization of SK is critical to successful performance. Likewise, planned plays that are adjusted based on team rules or general basketball knowledge (i.e., SK) is more likely to lead to successful outcomes than plays that are not adjusted according to SK. Therefore, players may possess SK but fail to utilize it on some plays leading to an unsuccessful outcome, or players may not possess SK on a particular play which makes an unsuccessful outcome more likely. The research on SK indicates that SK is acquired through experience in the relevant domain (Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy; 1993) and through experience with their team members (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997). Therefore, in the sport of basketball players

1

with more experience playing the game would tend to possess more SK, this would most likely be due to knowledge regarding general basketball principles that they would share with other experienced players. Also, the more experience they have playing with their teammates the more likely it is that they will possess high levels of SK. This is because they will have more time to learn or acquire SK along with their teammates. Another area of interest regarding SK in the sport of basketball is SK among the various positions on the floor. Volpe, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and Spector (1996) reported that cross-training team members led to improved teamwork and performance. Therefore, in basketball cross-training each player in what is expected of each position on the floor increases SK among team members even though the player himself only plays one or two positions. This in turn may help improve performance. It is hypothesized that teams at higher levels in this case high school varsity (V) will execute plays and adjustments more frequently than less experienced teams or in this case high school junior varsity (JV), and that the utilization of SK will lead to more successful outcomes. It is also hypothesized that V teams will possess more SK and more accurate SK than JV teams. Additional hypotheses are that more experienced teams will possess more SK than less experienced teams, and that players that play similar positions on the same team will share knowledge with each other better than with players at other positions. Relevant findings should provide a better understanding of the dynamics that lead to better performance in team sports.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review covers the present literature on team functioning and performance. It focuses on defining SK and showing how and why SK is critical to team performance, and how SK is acquired. It draws links from research findings on SMMs that claim SMMs aid team performance in a multitude of domains to argue that SK is an important concept for team sports as well. The specific subheadings that are found in the manuscript are teams and their functioning, SMMs, SK and team performance, communication, team training, effects of stress on team performance, preventing team performance decrements due to stress, effective team functioning, team experience, and team sports.

Teams and Their Functioning

Team is defined in the present study as two or more differentiated individuals working toward a common goal in an interdependent fashion. Team members have clearly differentiated roles and responsibilities, and hold task relevant knowledge (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993; Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992; Weaver, Bowers, & Salas 2001). Teams are also considered a cognitive or information processing unit (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). The understanding of team performance requires an understanding of the dynamical communications of its members. Several factors contribute to team performance including situational factors, the nature of the sport or game itself, team factors, and individual factors. Teams are interdependent in nature so that team performance depends not only on the individual properties of the team members, but also on factors such as the nature of the team’s coordination, organization, communication, and strategy (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004; Fiore, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Greihaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 1999; Hinsz et al., 1997; Jones, 1974; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). One critical component of teamwork is coordination. Coordination refers to the timely integration of operations performed by multiple individuals to achieve an overall objective (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). Steiner (1972) claimed that team performance is the result of its potential productivity minus its faulty processes. Consequently, faulty processes or poor coordination can result in a performance that is worse than that which is possible with a team of fewer individuals (Fiore et al., 2001; Kidd, 1961; Naylor & Briggs, 1965). Comrey and Deskin (1954) illustrate this point concluding that group performance on a pegboard assembly task involving motor skill depended as much on group coordination as the participants’ individual motor skills.

3

Coinciding with conclusions drawn on the importance of team coordination, Jones (1974) examined team coordination in sports, and asserted that as teams become more equal in terms of individual player's talent level, the complex interaction effects become more and more important to performance. At the professional level it was concluded that these interaction effects make more of a difference in basketball than in football, baseball, and tennis due to the more interactive nature of basketball. SK, therefore, should be more relevant to team performance in basketball than in football, baseball, and tennis because of how it pertains to interaction effects. A sport is more interactive when the team members have more interdependencies between each other. National Basketball Association hall of fame member Bill Bradley (1998) states in this respect that "players must have sufficient self-knowledge to take the long view-to see what any one player can do alone will never equal what a team can do together" (p. 43). Bradley referred to the importance of teamwork for a basketball team to fulfill its potential. Therefore, basketball should be an excellent sport to study the effects of SK on team performance. It has been shown that team process variables influence team effectiveness (e.g., Stout et al., 1990). Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) claimed that the appropriateness of team performance strategy and the efficient use of resources by teams are important to team performance. It has been established that effective teamwork behavior appears to be fairly consistent across tasks (e.g., Glickman et al., 1987 as cited in Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Likewise, McIntyre, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman (1988 as cited in Cannon- Bowers et al., 1993) in a review of the literature identified common teamwork skills exhibited by successful team members. They concluded that effective teamwork appears to be comprised of a set of behaviors that included closed loop communication, compensatory behavior, mutual performance monitoring, giving and receiving feedback, adaptability, and coordination of activity. SK promotes both coordination and adaptability in teams. In the present study adaptability and coordination of activity is looked at as functions of SK. Furthermore, effective coordination requires that team members understand when particular behaviors are necessary, either as a function of the task or of the characteristics, duties, or needs of other team members (Prince, Chidester, Bowers, & Cannon-Bowers, 1992).

Shared Mental Models (SMMs)

Researchers have suggested that effective team functioning requires existence of a SMM or team mental model among members of a team (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). SMMs have been used to describe various aspects of teamwork behavior. Shared mental models are often defined and used in the literature as being synonymous with "knowledge" in general (Rouse & Morris, 1986). The shared mental model construct has had a wide array of terms and definitions used to describe it in the literature (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Recently in the domain of sport psychology Eccles and Tenenbaum (2004) refer to the SMM concept as shared knowledge (SK) and define SK as part of a team member's knowledge of team operations must be at least similar to the other team members' knowledge of team operations. Thus, there must be overlap in knowledge between team

4

members, though there does not necessarily have to be a complete overlap for successful team performance. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework for the major factors that contribute to SK development, and the subsequent positive affect on team performance. These factors are in-process communication, pre-process communication, and experience which all lead to greater SK. In turn greater SK leads to better team performance. To understand SK it is important to understand what constitutes team operations. Team operations consist of several factors including task requirements, procedures, role responsibilities, cause and effect relationships, internalized beliefs, and perceptions; all of which lead to the development of SMMs. SMMs improve team performance through enhancing team coordination, especially under conditions of stress or pressure (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). One way this is achieved is through enabling team members to develop accurate predictions about the behavior of other team members (Wittenbaum, Vaughn, & Stasser, 1998). Cannon-Bowers et al. (1993) argued that this is the most important contribution of SMMs to team coordination. SMMs enable team members to anticipate the operations of the team or other team members, and thus select and take the appropriate action at the appropriate times. This should be apparent in the sport of basketball, and the present study asks high school basketball players to predict their teammates and their own responses to a number of different basketball situations. Another aspect of SK is that members of a team that interact more regularly, will share between them more specific and detailed knowledge about each other's operations (Entin & Serfaty, 1999). For example, on a basketball team it is more likely that guards (primary ballhandlers) will share more knowledge in regards to breaking a full-court press than the forwards. In the present study participants will be asked about what position or positions they generally play and then inquire about their ability to predict the behavior of their teammates at several other positions. Although, up to this point most of the research on SK has been conducted in domains other than sport, it is believed that the SK concept is useful in sport as well (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004) because of its dynamic nature and the dependence on each member’s actions on other members’ actions. This has yet to be tested in the sport psychology literature. Therefore, the SK concept will be applied to sport in the present study and more specifically to the sport of basketball.

5

In-process Pre-process Post-process Experience Communication Communication Coordination

SK

Team Performance

Figure 1: How communication type and experience affect SK and subsequent performance.

Shared Mental Models and Team Performance

Empirical research has shown that the presence of SMMs among team members aids team performance in domains other than sport. Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (2000) had 56 two-person teams participate in simulated flight- combat situations on personal computers. In their study they defined mental models as: …organized knowledge structures that allow individuals to interact with their environment. Specifically, mental models allow people to predict and explain the behavior of the world around them, to recognize and remember relationships among components of the environment, and to construct expectations for what is likely to occur next. (p. 274) In this study each team member was given different responsibilities. Team members were trained in both individual task responsibilities and basic team processes. They also completed practice versions of the missions they would carry out. The objectives of the missions were to survive, fly past a preset route that had four waypoints, and to shoot enemy planes. Two separate types of mental models were depicted in this study, team mental models and task mental models. The presence of SMMs in this study related significantly to team performance, but the relationship was fully mediated by team

6

processes. SMMs relating to the task had an indirect effect on team performance through its impact on team processes. The authors concluded that similarity of knowledge structures between two members can predict the quality of team processes and performance, thus supporting the SMM concept. Similar results were found by Entin and Serfaty (1999) who examined the effects of team training procedures on team performance in combat information center teams. The training program was based on the importance of SMMs for effective team performance. The study hypothesized that teams adapt to stressful situations by drawing on SMMs to allow effective coordination strategies. There were three different training interventions used in this study: team adaptation and coordination training (TACT), TACT+, and control. Members in the TACT were taught team strategies that enable them to better manage the increases in coordination and communication overhead that result from increases in workload and stress. They were given five strategies to help them cope with increases in workload and stress. These were: preplanning, use of idle periods, favoring information transmission over action/task coordination, anticipation of information needs, and dynamic redistribution of workload among team members. TACT+ was the same as TACT except for the addition of specific instructions to the tactical action officers on how to give brief (approximately 30s) periodic situation- assessment updates (SITREPS) to the rest of the team. Results of the study indicated that teams that received either team training intervention significantly outperformed teams that were in the control condition due to an improvement in teamwork behaviors and coordination strategies. Also, teams in the TACT+ condition outperformed those in the TACT condition and control conditions in both the high and low stress workloads conditions. The team training enhanced the SMMs for the team, and consequently, improved team process and performance. Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and Milanovich (1999) had subjects perform a simulated helicopter defense/surveillance mission. Groups were divided so that two participants worked within a larger group consisting of two experimenters. They concluded that teams that engaged in high-quality planning were able to form greater SMMs of each team member’s informational requirements, to pass information to each other in advance of explicit requests for this information during high-workload periods, and to make fewer errors during these periods (i.e., perform better). Additionally, providing information in advance appears to result in better performance when time is of the essence. Also, teams that used more efficient communication strategies were found to perform significantly better (i.e., made fewer errors) in segments characterized by high workload than teams that used less efficient communication strategies. This coincides with other studies on aircrew communication (Kanki, Lozito, & Foushee, 1989; Oransu, 1993; Oransu & Fisher, 1992). The studies examined in this section all concluded that preplanning known as pre-process coordination aided team performance. It is believed this is true due to the acquisition of SMMs. Therefore, by generalizing the results of these three studies it is expected that SMMs will aid or improve team performance in high school basketball teams as well. In the present manuscript SMMs concept has been replaced by Shared Knowledge (SK), but the two can be used interchangeably.

7

Communication

For a team to perform successfully, by displaying effective teamwork behaviors, team members must communicate with each other. Communication is critical in acquiring SK as well as using it effectively during performance. Extensive scientific effort was devoted to study the relationship between communication behaviors and team performance. It has been established that the process of communication requires the use of cognitive resources (Casali & Wierwille, 1983; Entin & Serfaty, 1999, MacMillan et al., 2002). Thus, communication limits cognitive resources for other behaviors related to performance. Also, communication benefits unstructured tasks more than structured tasks, probably because structured tasks require less decision-making (Toquam, Macaulay, Westra, Fujita, & Murphy, 1997). Communication is critical for the acquisition of SK (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). Communication can either be intentional or unintentional. Intentional communication can either be verbal or nonverbal. Codes can be used for both types of intentional information so that only the intended recipients understand the message (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). High school basketball teams as used in the present study may have a code word or a special hand sign to indicate a play or a type of defense. Unintentional verbal and non-verbal communication can provide important information to a team member about the operations of other team members without using up additional cognitive resources. For example, in basketball a look of fatigue or bewilderment on a teammate's face may another teammate to call out a play or to help that player on defense. In the present study the players are given the opportunity to write down how they use verbal and non-verbal communication during plays, this information is not found in the present literature on team sports. Communication patterns have been examined in aircrews to discover what types of communication lead to high performance (Oransu, 1993; Oransu & Fisher, 1992; Kanki, Lozito, & Foushee, 1989). Kanki et al. (1989) analyzed aircrew communication during simulated flights and concluded that higher performing crew utilized more consistent communication compared to lower performing crews. The reasoning behind this finding is that consistent communication leads to better understanding between team members, and is therefore more efficient. These results are most likely due to the fact that consistent, conventional behaviors tend to be more predictable allowing crew member expectations to be more accurate, thus aiding the coordination process. Similar studies revealed that aircrews tend to avoid intentional communication during periods of "high demand" (Oransu, 1993; Orasanu & Fisher, 1992). The present study expects similar results with high school basketball teams, and teams will most likely act out of SK that was learned prior to the "high demand" situation. Team coordination can either be explicit or implicit. Explicit coordination requires that team members communicate to articulate their plans, actions, responsibilities, etc. Although this is possible in a number of team settings, it may be very difficult or highly inefficient in other settings such as periods of "high demand." Therefore, explicit coordination in a sport like basketball is more likely to be functional during pre-process coordination, at breaks in play, during a timeout or at halftime.

8

Explicit communication during the game is more likely to be shortened for and often encrypted, therefore SK is required for teams to use explicit communication efficiently. Implicit coordination describes the ability of team members to perform effectively together without the need for open communication, which also requires SK. The successful aircrews in the above studies made use of effective implicit communication (Oransu, 1993; Oransu & Fisher, 1992). Team members must have a shared understanding of the situation and an accurate understanding of each other’s tasks and responsibilities for implicit coordination to be successful ( MacMillan, Entin, & Serfaty, 2002). The ability of a team to implicitly coordinate operations is particularly useful during periods of "high demand" (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, Blickensderfer, & Bowers, 1998; Entin & Serfaty, 1999). Therefore, aircrews who avoided intentional communication during periods of high demand could only do this because they possessed implicit coordination (Oransu, 1993; Oransu & Fisher, 1992). This is shown in the present study through the team members' anticipating the actions of their team, and then evaluating its quality. Currently the research on team sports lacks empirical investigations of this sort. Communication is necessary to build understanding among team members. Team members that possess an accurate understanding of each other's tasks and responsibilities are then able to anticipate the behavior and needs of other team members. This is similar to the idea of "running a mental model" (RMM). RMM refers to the ability of a team member to predict the results of a particular action in the model (Wilson & Rutherford, 1989). RMM enhances insight into choosing an effective behavior that will act towards accomplishing the team's goal. This should be apparent in high school basketball players. SK also is made up by anticipated knowledge, which consists of many facets such as action type chosen by one or more teammates, the timing of action initiation, and the physical properties of the action (i.e., how strong and which direction the strike will be hit) (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). This gives team members a decisive advantage in taking action to help the team's performance. Anticipated knowledge makes up part of SK. As shown in this paragraph and the two previous paragraphs implicit communication, RMM, and anticipated knowledge are all very much related. Two other types of coordination are pre-process coordination and in-process coordination. In pre-process coordination SK can be developed and acquired by team members prior to performance. For in-process coordination SK is acquired during performance (Fiore et al., 2001). Planning and routines are two methods used to achieve pre-process coordination (MacMillan et al., 2002; Stout et al., 1999). Plans involve establishing explicitly the intended courses of operations of the team, and thus its members. Teams often create a variety of plans that depend on different task statuses. Teams generally practice undertaking these plans before performance, which is part of the preprocess coordination, and aid in the acquisition of SK. Routines also develop in SK, however, they emerge implicitly through team habits and practices. Gersick and Hackman (1990) concluded that eventually teams develop patterns of behavior without explicitly planning them as responses to a given tasks. For instance, a team member consistently carries out an unassigned role within the team. In the sport of basketball a point guard may not go for an offense to assure that one player will be back on defense to help defend an opponent's . Although it may be common knowledge among coaches, athletes, and sport psychologists that players serve particular roles on

9

their teams this has yet to be shown in empirically on the research in team sports. The plans and routines of high school basketball teams will also be explored in the present study to see how they relate to SK. In-process coordination is critical to good performance due to changing task- statuses during performance (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995). In-process coordination is more successful if the team has engaged in substantial pre-process coordination because the team can switch plans or follow established routines following a change in the task status with a minimal coordination demand (MacMillan et al., 2002). During in-process coordination, communication between team members and between a coach and a team is required to change plans due to a change in the task status. Pre-process coordination and the actual possession of SK allow for effective in-process coordination. During actual performance this is often done in shortened language to enhance efficiency. It also may be encrypted. An example of in-process coordination in basketball is to have a team's guards start full-court pressing for the first time as soon as their center makes his second . This instruction would be given by the coach through intentional language. In football a may call the play that was signaled into him from the offensive coordinator on the sideline. As the team gets set, and the center prepares to the , the quarterback might realize the defense has changed their strategy on this play. The quarterback then changes the play call at the to give the play a better chance of succeeding. In both the basketball situation and the football situation, it is critical that the players who are in the game know what strategy changes their team made. This type of in-process coordination would be impossible without team members’ possession of SK, and this also will be explored in the present study.

Team Training

There are two separate tracks of behavior that are important to effective team training. Taskwork refers to the individual skills that the members need in order to perform effectively, while the teamwork training refers to the practice of coordination between team members (Glickman et al.,1987 as cited in Cannon-Bowers et al., 2001). For the sport of basketball, taskwork training involves working on individual skills such as shooting, ball-handling, defense, and conditioning. Teamwork training for a basketball team includes learning the team's offense, defense, and various in-bounds plays. For athletic teams a great deal of time at practice is spent practicing either the learning of plans or practicing playing within those plans. The amount of time spent on taskwork compared to teamwork may affect the acquisition of SK, and is therefore relevant to the present study.

Effects of Stress on Team Performance

Tasks involved in team sports can vary over time in terms of demands task work places on cognitive resources, such that some periods of a task can be termed “periods of

10

high demand.” Such periods are often caused by an increase in the tempo of operations or sudden changes in the task status. These periods also cause an increase in coordination requirements because teams often redistribute resources, and use different combinations of operations to respond to the increase in task work. Therefore, periods of “high demand” create rapid increases in cognitive demands (Bowers, Morgan, Salas, & Prince, 1993; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Patterson, 2000; Patterson & Woods, 2001). Periods of "high demand" may increase the number of errors made by team members as well as increase the discrepancy between teams with well developed SK compared to teams with less developed SK. A period of "high demand" may very well be described in the participants’ written statements. Team stressors are defined as “stimuli or conditions that directly impact the team’s ability to interact interdependently or alter the team’s interactive capacity for obtaining its desired objectives” (Morgan & Bowers, 1995, p. 267). These are variables that are thought to have a direct impact on the teams’ interaction and coordination, and thus affecting overall performance. Morgan and Bowers stated that team performance appears to be particularly vulnerable to stress due to the need to maintain individual performance as well as coordinate effectively with the rest of the team. Therefore, being on a team increases demand under conditions of stress (Morgan & Bowers, 1995). It is thought that teams possess resources that contribute to their ability to cope under stress. The individual skills required to be on a team involve cognitive resources; and additional cognitive resources are taken up by team knowledge. This additional level of demand adds to the degree of “resource strain” on a team and its members with the possibility of negatively affecting performance. A team's and team members' possession of SK enables the team to effectively cope with the "team stress," and decrease its detrimental effects. Serfaty, Entin, and Volpe (1993 as cited in Weaver et al., 2001) concluded that adaptability was the key to superior team decision making performance. SK enables the team to be more adaptable. Therefore, teams with more thorough and flexible SK can significantly better prepare and adapt to changing and difficult situations. Adaptability will also be examined in the present study through the participants’ predictions for the game film. A participant will make a prediction based on what they see on film. At times on film they will see a situation or action that causes them to make a prediction that varies from the way the play is exactly designed or the bare structure of the play. If this is based on SK it will be a positive adaptation. Another situation that is expected to occur in the present study is when a participant makes a prediction, and realizes that that prediction did not work out because of the actions of themselves, one of their team members, or based on the actions of their opponent that happened quickly in the next video clip causing a player or players to make an adjustment to the predicted actions. Therefore, their initial prediction may be inaccurate due to either a positive or negative adjustment that takes place early in the next video clip. Mistakes by players in the game will lead to predictions that do not take place in the following video clip. There is substantial evidence that team stressors can hinder team performance. For instance, Time pressure significantly degrades team performance (Weavers, Bowers, & Morgan, 1994 as cited in Weaver et al., 2001; Urban, Weaver, Bowers, & Rhodenizer, 1995). Most team sports are timed such as basketball, football, and ice-hockey, and there are certainly numerous opportunities where teams are under time pressure. The presence

11

of SK can help teams cope with such situations, by increasing the likelihood for successful performance. Similarly, Xiao, Hunter, Mackenzie, Jeffries, and Horst (1996) investigated the influence of task complexity for emergency medical care workers. They concluded that such task complexity components challenge team coordination and consequently increase the possibility of team coordination errors. They claimed that SK makes coordination errors less likely. In the present study coordination errors are looked at in terms of leading to positive or negative outcomes. Flin, Slaven, and Stewart (1996) found related results. They investigated the decision making performance of teams working in the offshore oil and gas industry when presented with stressors such as fires, explosions, and blowouts. The authors stated that a number of negative effects have been reported for personnel working in such acute stress conditions. Some of the shorter-term effects can range from aggressiveness, irritation, and apathy, to tunnel vision, reduced concentration, distorted time perception, acting more rapidly than necessary, over-reliance on familiar responses, and problems with thinking ahead. It is thought that SK helps a team cope with such stressful conditions, and therefore diminishes these negative effects and allows successful performance to continue.

Preventing Team Performance Decrements Due to Stress

Several strategies can be used to train a team to deal with stressors in an effective way. Volpe, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and Spector (1996) concluded that teams which received cross-training had better teamwork than teams without cross-training, and cross- trained teams also used more efficient communication than non-crossed trained teams. Furthermore, cross-trained teams were more effective in terms of performance. Cross- training in teams appears to improve the overlap in SK between team members, and thus resulting in better team performance. Therefore, for a sport like basketball, training players to have knowledge and experience at every position not just the one they play may help improve team performance. This is true for other sports as well. For instance, it is beneficial for a fullback in football to understand the responsibility of the left guard. On a particular pass play the fullback is supposed to go out to the left flank and look for a pass, however, before leaving the fullback notices that the leftguard has slipped badly. The fullback realizes that if he fails to the defensive end, the quarterback will get sacked. The fullback blocks the defensive end, which allows the quarterback time to locate another receiver to pass the ball to.

Effective Team Functioning

Guzzo (1995) reported that interdependent operations are those where the integration of two or more team members' tasks are necessary for performance, and they often involve a timely integration of operations by multiple team members operating concurrently. In an interdependent operation if there is a mistake made by one teammate it will subsequently hinder the ability of other team members to perform effectively

12

(Eccles & Tenenbum, 2004). An error that occurs early in a sequence of operations can affect team members later in the sequence creating a “ripple effect” across the team (Adler & Rodman, 2002). Therefore, poor performance of one team member can have a negative effect on the entire team. Cratty (1983) refered to basketball as an interactive sport meaning it has many interdependencies, and therefore a "ripple effect" can come into play.

Team Experience

As teams gain experience, SK becomes more pronounced (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997; McIntyre & Salas, 1995). Experienced teams also become more efficient in terms of intentional communication (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) pointed out that experience with the group may also have implications for the complexity or abstractness of individual and team SK. Experienced teams develop more standardized and consistent methods of communication as part of their SK, which reduces communication errors (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997; Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; McIntyre & Salas, 1995). In this regard, Rentsch et al. (1993) used a multidimensional scaling technique to measure the mental models of novice and experienced individuals. The study concluded that experienced individuals had a “team work schema” that reflected fewer and more abstract dimensions. Teamwork schemas for experienced individuals were also more similar than the ones held by novices. The more experienced high school basketball players may very well have a teamwork schema that reflects fewer and more abstract dimensions than those held by less experienced players. Therefore, more experienced players may possess more SK than less experienced players. Differences in teamwork knowledge are expected to result from individual’s previous team experiences (Smith-Jentsch, Campbell, Milanovich, & Reynolds, 2001). Renstch, Heffner, and Duffy (1994) concluded that individuals with more team experience conceptualized teamwork more concisely and in more abstract terms than did lower experience team members. Likewise, Weaver, Morgan, Adkins-Holmes, and Hall (1992 as cited in Weaver et al., 2001) suggested that experience was one variable that may moderate the effects of stress on team performance. McIntyre and Salas (1995) concluded that more experienced teams develop closed-loop communication, which is one variable that is thought to be an effective method of increasing team performance. Smith-Jentsch et al. (2001) reported that Navy personnel holding higher ranks held mental models of teamwork that were more similar to the expert model than those holding lower ranks. Higher ranking Navy personnel also held mental models that were more similar to one another than did lower ranking individuals. Also, teamwork mental models were more similar among individuals with a high degree of experience in the navy (i.e., length of time in service) than among those with a low degree of experience. McClure (1990) stated that groups in the forming stage of development manifest a less detailed or refined “collective mind” than groups with a longer history together. Therefore, it appears that more experienced teams will possess more SK than less experienced teams and this in turn will help more experienced teams perform better.

13

Team life cycle dynamics also affect SK acquisition (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). A varsity high school basketball team may have eight or more players that have played on the same team for the past 5 or 6 years, whereas a freshman team may not have anyone on the team that has ever played basketball together. It is expected that the team with more experience together will have more SK, and therefore leading to better implicit communication resulting in better coordinated actions.

Team Sports

Team sports involve an opposition relationship between two teams; therefore the efficient functioning of each team relies on the understanding and appropriate management of the numerous interrelations between players, between teams, and within teams. Team strategy refers to pre-plan maneuvers agreed upon in advance by the team with the intention of winning the game (Greihaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 1999). McMillan et al. (2002) refer to this as part of pre-process coordination. Therefore, in the sport of basketball set offensive plays, set defenses, and other plans discussed or practiced by the team in advance of the competition makes up the team’s strategy. A team’s offensive and defensive strategies play a major role in team performance (Strean, Senecal, Howlett, & Burgess, 1997). Thus, the team's strategy makes up a large portion of the SK possessed by players on a team. Tactics, on the other hand, refer to specific choices made by a group of players or individual players during the game to deceive the opponents. Tactical choices are limited to the technical skills the players can perform (Greihaigne et al., 1999). Tactics in the sport of basketball include head fakes, pass fakes, changing directions, changing pace, etc. Tactics may play a role in the development of SK, as a player is only expected to perform the skills that he possesses. Other teammates may be able to predict what a teammate is going to do, or what a teammate is likely to do because they have become accustomed to the tactical choices the player is capable of making and which tactical choices the player prefers using. The present study identifies SK in high school basketball teams. Due to its interactive nature, the sport of basketball comprises a setting to establish a link between SK and sport team performance. After all, "part of the beauty and mystery of basketball rests in the variety of its team requirements" (Bradley, 1998, p. 43). Players’ experience with the sport, their experience with this team, and their experience with their teammates will be considered mediating factors in acquiring SK. Teams that have more experienced players are expected to show better SK than teams with less experienced players. Teams will have SK that relates to offensive plays, defensive sets and rules, in-bounds plays, how to change plays on the "fly", team rules, routines, unassigned roles, and a basic knowledge of the game of basketball that has been acquired through the experience of playing together over an extended period, etc.

Hypotheses

14

1. V teams will have more general basketball experience than JV teams, and will have more structured training experience over the past year than JV teams. 2. V teams will share more knowledge than JV teams. 3. V teams’ shared knowledge will be more accurate than JV teams’ shared knowledge. 4. V teams will utilize SK better than JV teams. 5. Plays or actions leading to successful outcomes (high percentage shot, made basket, stealing the ball from the opponent) compared to unsuccessful outcomes are more likely to have occurred when SK was utilized by team members. 6. Players that have played together for longer will share knowledge better. 7. Players that are in similar positions (guards and forwards) on the same team will share knowledge better.

15

METHOD

Participants

Three different high schools in the state of Florida were selected for the study. From each, one team at each of two different developmental levels were selected: varsity (V) and junior varsity (JV). This resulted in a total of 39 players of which 26 were African-American and 13 Caucasian. Each school’s coach had constructed the teams in the fall of 2003 through the use of tryouts. In the first school, 20 students had tried out for the (labeled here V-Team 1), and 11 were retained; 20 students had tried out for the junior varsity team (labeled here JV-Team 1), and 13 were retained. In the second school, 25 students had tried out for the varsity team (labeled here V-Team 2), and 12 were retained; 40 students tried out for the junior varsity team (labeled here JV-Team 2), and 15 were retained. In the third school, 20 students tried out for the varsity team (labeled here V-Team 3), and 13 were retained; 70 students tried out for the junior varsity team (labeled here JV-Team 3), and 12 were retained. The teams competed together throughout the 2003 season, which ran until the end of February or early March of 2004.

Design

Four separate methods were used to test the study’s hypotheses. These were the demographic information, playing experience, and structured training questionnaire (DIBESTQ), the general shared knowledge test (GKST), the diagram based test (DBT), and the video based test (VBT). These are described in detail as follows.

Instrumentation

Demographic Information, Basketball Experience, and Structured Training Questionnaire

The DIBESTQ questionnaire was divided into three sections: demographic information, basketball experience, and structured training (see Appendix D). In the demographic information section participants were asked their name, age, and race, the school they attended, and their year in school. In the basketball experience section players were asked questions pertaining to the following categories: years spent playing any type of basketball, spent playing organized basketball, spent playing basketball for

16

their school, and years spent playing at the level of competition (JV or V) at which they played in the previous year. The structured training section was divided into four sections based on the seasons within the basketball calendar. The four seasons were in-season, fall, summer, and spring. Participants were asked questions pertaining to time spent practicing and playing basketball with and without teammates during each season.

General Shared Knowledge Test

The GSKT comprised three parts: a team knowledge questionnaire (shown in Appendix E, Part 1a), a coordination questionnaire (shown in Appendix E, Part 1b), and a planned plays test (shown in Appendix E, Part 2b). These are described below. Team knowledge questionnaire. In the team knowledge questionnaire, participants were asked about their knowledge of their team’s characteristics that included the following: team strategies, team member communication, uses of brief stoppages in play, uses of time-outs, and set defenses. For each question, the team members’ answers were compared in terms of their similarity as an indicator of the extent to which the team shared knowledge. The score for team knowledge sharedness was obtained by calculating the percentage of similar answers to the total number of answers, where the latter was equal to the total number of team members. To elaborate, if four out of five members’ answers to a given question were judged to be similar, then 80% similarity was achieved. Coordination questionnaire. In the coordination questionnaire, participants were asked to name their own primary and secondary positions. They were then asked to report about their knowledge of the responsibilities and expected movements of each of the other positions on the team, which included the point guard (PG), shooting guard (SG), small forward (SF), power forward (PF), and center (C), by responding on a likert scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 10 ("all of"). The participants were then asked to report whether this knowledge aided performance during actual games by responding on a likert scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 10 ("a great deal"). Participants were also asked to list their teammates’ primary and secondary positions, and for each teammate document the length of time they had played together. Participants were also asked to report how well they felt they knew each of their teammates’ playing style by responding on a likert scale ranging from 1 ("hardly at all") to 10 ("you can almost always predict what this individual will do in the game"). In addition, participants were also asked how much they felt that knowing the style of play of a given teammate helped the participant perform during games by responding on a likert scale ranging from 1 ("it does not help at all") to 10 ("it helps you a great deal"). Planned plays test. Basketball is a sport characterized by planned sequences of coordinated team actions known as plays that are given a name, such as “Indiana”. In the planned plays test, each team’s coach was asked to consider five types of plays that are typically planned by a coach: man-to-man defense, offenses against zone defenses, inbounds plays, under-the-basket inbounds plays (offensive end), and full court press breaks. The coach for each team was asked to write the names of their team’s plays

17

pertaining to these types on a prepared form, and draw each named play on a prepared diagram of a (refer to Appendix E, Part 2a). For each play, the coach was then asked to describe any play options that might be used by the team. This description provided additional information about each team’s plays, to help conceptualize the results of the planned plays test. Half of each coach’s diagrams was used for the present test, and the remainder for the DBT discussed below. The diagrams collected for the present test were considered accurate, and served as the criterion against which team members’ responses were compared. In the planned plays test, for each team, team members were provided with the names of half of the plays elicited from their coach, and asked to draw the actions undertaken in each play on schematic court diagrams (see Appendix E, Part 2b). For each play, all team members’ drawings were collated and compared in terms of similarity, which served as an indicator of the extent to which the team shared similar knowledge about that play. The team score for planned plays knowledge sharedness was obtained by calculating for each play the percentage of similar diagrams to the total number of diagrams, where the latter is equal to the total number of team members. Next, for each play, each team member’s diagram was also compared in terms of similarity to the coach’s diagram for that play to identify the accuracy of the team member’s knowledge. A similar diagram was considered to indicate accuracy of knowledge. The team score for planned plays knowledge accuracy was obtained by calculating the percentage of team members whose diagrams were considered accurate.

Diagram Based Test

The planned plays (obtained from the coaches) that were not used in the planned plays test section of the GSKT were utilized in the DBT. A schematic diagram of a basketball court was created for each play, called the starting position diagram. Each created diagram depicted the location of the person with the ball. For some of the diagrams, a portion of the movements of all the players for that play were also depicted. For the remainder, only the starting positions for all the players in that play were depicted. These movements constituted either the movements that occur first when running the play, or the movements that occur later as the play develops (refer to Appendix F). Participants were informed that their coach had described each of the team’s plays to the researcher, and that they were about to be shown a starting position diagram depicting the location of the ball and either a starting position of a play or selected movements of a play. Each participant was then asked to draw on a schematic diagram of a basketball court (illustrated in the upper left hand corner of the DBT answer sheet, shown in Appendix F, and labeled starting positions) the position of each player at the conclusion of the actions depicted on the starting positions diagram. Participants were not given a score for this portion of the test but were asked to complete these diagrams as a prerequisite to the main portion of the DBT which is described as follows. Based on the initial movements provided on the starting position diagram, participants were then asked to use their knowledge of their team’s planned plays to draw on another schematic diagram of a basketball court (illustrated in Appendix F on the

18

upper right of the DBT answer sheet and labeled next steps) the appropriate upcoming actions for each player for that play. Participants were asked not to confer with each other during this process. A score for prediction of action sharedness was obtained by calculating the percentage of similar drawings to the total number of drawings, where the latter is equal to the total number of team members. To elaborate, there was 80% sharedness if four out of five members’ drawings were judged to be similar. Participants were then asked to name the play they believed had been depicted on the diagram. A score for name judgment sharedness was obtained by identifying the similarity of judgments of play names across team members and calculating the percentage of similar judgments to the total number of judgments, where the latter is equal to the total number of team members. Participants were then asked to provide a written explanation about any other play options that they perceived as feasible, and thus could have been diagrammed. The purpose of this request was to obtain information about additional play options which could be used to contextualize the main results of the DBT. Participants were then informed that they would be shown the next key movements of each player, based on the planned play diagram provided by the coach, and were asked to compare their own drawn predictions of each player’s appropriate upcoming actions with the movement information provided by the coach. The participants were asked two follow-up questions. The participants were asked first whether the actions shown on the presented diagram were the same as the actions they had predicted, and in addition, to explain any disparity between the diagrams. They were then asked whether the actions shown on the presented diagram were appropriate actions, and to explain the reasoning behind their answer. An appropriate action was defined as a situation in which the team had acted in a manner that was consistent with its planned plays, team strategies, appropriate adjustments to plays, or basic basketball knowledge. Asking participants for this differential actions judgment enabled the identification of the similarity of team members with regard to their knowledge of planned plays, team strategies, appropriate adjustments to plays, and basic basketball knowledge. The written data resulting from these questions were examined qualitatively.

Video Based Test

The VBT was similar to the DBT except that team members were shown, in place of diagrammed sequences, videotaped sequences of their team undertaking plays. The plays shown were taken from one of the team’s games that had been played and recorded by video camera during the preceding season. The video sequences included 16 offensive possessions and 16 defensive possessions. Half of both the offensive and the defensive possessions led to successful outcomes, and half to unsuccessful outcomes. Each sequence ranged in length from 5 to 10 s and was divided into two sections. A successful offensive outcome was defined as a possession that led to a high percentage shot without any obvious mistake (e.g., an errant pass that goes through a defensive player’s hands into an offensive player’s hands under the basket for an easy basket). An unsuccessful offensive outcome was defined either as low percentage shot, a , or

19

an obvious communication breakdown. A successful defensive outcome was defined as holding the offense to a low percentage shot or forcing a turnover. An unsuccessful defensive sequence was defined as a sequence that led to an easy basket, high percentage shot, or an (see Table 1).

Table 1

Criteria for Successful and Unsuccessful Plays

Type of Play Criteria

Offensive/Successful A high percentage shot without the presence of an obvious mistake leading to that shot

Offensive/Unsuccessful Leads to a low percentage shot

Leads to a turnover

A pass is deflected or knocked out of bounds

Defensive/Successful Holding an opponent to a low percentage shot

Contesting all jump-shots from 15 feet out

Forcing a turnover

Defensive/Unsuccessful Giving up a high percentage shot.

Not contesting a jump-shot outside of 15 feet

Plays were run in the following order: offensive sequence leading to a successful outcome, offensive sequence leading to an unsuccessful outcome, defensive sequence leading to successful outcome, and defensive sequence leading to an unsuccessful outcome. This order was repeated until the plays were completed. The first section of the action sequence was shown twice to the participants. On the second showing, the videotape was paused midway through the sequence so that the players’ positions were visible. Players were then asked to diagram these positions on a schematic diagram of a basketball court (illustrated in the upper left hand corner of the VBT answer sheet, shown in Appendix G, and labeled starting positions) the position of each player at the conclusion of the first section of action sequence. Participants were not given a score for this portion of the test. Participants were asked to complete these

20

diagrams as a prerequisite undertaking the main portion of the VBT, which is described as follows. Based on their recall of the first showing of the action sequence, participants were asked to use their knowledge of their team’s planned plays, team strategies, appropriate adjustments to plays, and basic basketball knowledge to draw on schematic diagrams of a basketball court (illustrated in Appendix G on the upper right hand side of the VBT answer sheet and labeled next steps) the appropriate upcoming actions for each player for that play. Team members were asked not to confer with each other during this process. Given that only a few months had elapsed since the game was played, team members were reminded to draw the appropriate course of action, and to avoid drawing the actual course of action based on their recall of the game. Similar to the DBT, a score for prediction of action sharedness was obtained by identifying for each video sequence the similarity of appropriate upcoming action judgments across team members, and calculating the percentage of similar appropriate upcoming action judgments to the total number of judgments. This was not done for the drawings found on the schematic half- court diagrams labeled starting positions found on the upper left hand side of the VBT answer sheet. Participants were asked to fill out these diagrams as a prerequisite to the main portion of the VBT described as follows. Participants were also asked to name the observed play. A score for video name judgment sharedness was obtained by identifying for each video sequence the similarity of sequence name judgments across team members, and calculating the percentage of similar sequence name judgments to the total number of judgments. Participants were asked for a written explanation about whether there were any other play actions that were feasible, and thus that could have been diagrammed. The purpose of this request was to obtain information about additional play options which could be used to contextualize the main results of the VBT. Participants were then informed that they would be shown the second section of the video sequence, and would be asked to compare the actual actions that would be shown on the upcoming film with the appropriate actions they had offered earlier. The second section of the sequence was then shown. Participants were then asked two follow- up questions. The participants were asked first whether the actions shown on the video clip were the same as the actions the participants had predicted, and in addition to explain any disparity between their prediction and the actions shown on the video clip. They were then asked whether the actions shown on the video clip were appropriate actions, and to explain the reasoning behind their answer. An appropriate action was defined as a situation in which the team had acted in a manner that was consistent with its planned plays, team strategies, appropriate adjustments to plays, or basic basketball knowledge. Asking participants for this differential actions judgment enabled the identification of the similarity of team members with regard to their knowledge of planned plays, team strategies, appropriate adjustments to plays, and basic basketball knowledge. The method for this study is summarized in Table 2.

21

Table 2

Design Summary

Instrument Description

DIBESTQ Questions pertaining to demographic information, overall basketball experience, and time playing basketball over the course of the past year.

GKST Questions and diagrams pertaining to knowledge of their team’s characteristics and specific strategies, knowledge of team coordination focusing on different positions and years playing together, and knowledge of set team plays.

DBT Diagrams pertaining to knowledge of set team plays.

VBT Questions pertaining to video taped sequences of actions.

Procedure

Testing was conducted at the participants’ high schools in a classroom setting. Informed consent forms were completed prior to testing. The coaches were asked to complete the coaches' informed consent form (see Appendix A). Participants were asked to complete the players' informed consent form (see Appendix B). The participants’ parents were asked to complete the parents' informed consent form (see Appendix C). All forms were collected before testing commenced. One or two teams were tested during each session. Before undertaking the VBT, participants undertook a practice sequence using a play taken from a different team to ensure the VBT instructions were fully understood. For each team, testing lasted approximately two hours and was conducted over a one or two day period. Participants undertook the four testing sessions (DIBESTQ, GSKT, DBT, and VBT) sequentially.

Statistical Analyses

Independent Variables

22

The independent variables in this study included developmental level, which had two levels (V and JV), experience (measured in years), and player position (either guard or forward).

Inter-rater Reliability Correlations

An inter-rater reliability assessment was conducted to assess the reliability of the testing measures. This assessment was achieved by asking an independent researcher to make a second judgment of the similarity of the team members’ responses within each pertinent variable. For the reason of feasibility, data from only two teams (JV-Team 3 and V-Team 2) for three tests (the team knowledge questionnaire, planned plays test, and the DBT) were used in the reliability test. The results are shown in Table 3. The correlation for the team knowledge questionnaire was below .7, which is lower than acceptable standards, but the correlation for the planned plays test and the diagram based test were above .7, and thus are acceptable.

Table 3

Inter-rater Reliability Correlations

Variable Category Correlation

Team Knowledge Questionnaire .65

Planned Plays Test .90

Diagram Based Test .76 ______

Statistical tests

All seven hypotheses were tested using the same two statistical tests. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) followed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to test for differences between V and JV, and between guards and forwards for several knowledge measures. ANOVA was an appropriate statistical test because it tests for differences between two or more groups. MANOVA was an appropriate statistical test because participants were measured on several dependent variables, and it avoids the

23

family-wise error rate problem associated with multiple ANOVAs. Correlations that were relevant to the hypotheses were also used to examine the relationship between different variables.

Handling missing data

A series mean replacement was performed to account for missing data for the continuous variables in the present study before any analyses could be performed. Forty- eight of the 77 dependent variables that were examined quantitatively in this study, not counting the aggregate dependent variables, had missing data. The mean percentage of missing data for these variables was 11% of the total data points. The maximum number of missing data for any one dependent variable was 26% of the total data points.

24

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1: V Teams Will Have More General Basketball Experience And More Structured Training Experience Over The Past Year Than JV Teams.

To test this hypothesis a MANOVA followed by an ANOVA was performed on the four dependent variables that constituted total basketball experience . The results of the MANOVA showed that V teams had significantly more years of basketball experience Wilks’ λ = .433, F(4, 33) = 10.81, p < .01, than JV teams. There was a large effect size, η2 = .66. The results for the ANOVAs showed that V teams players played for their school significantly longer than JV teams with means differences of 1.45 years. V teams had significantly more years playing at their current developmental level than JV teams with mean differences of 0.69 years. The differences between V and JV teams on years playing organized basketball and total play were not significant (see Table 4 for means and standard deviations and Table 5 for ANOVA results).

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for General Basketball Experience Variables

Variable Varsity Junior Varsity

M SD M SD

Total play 8.90 3.19 8.46 3.64

Organized Play 6.32 2.73 5.00 2.49

School Play 2.82 0.81 1.38 0.50

Level Play 1.88 .86 1.19 0.40

______

25

Table 5

ANOVA Results for General Basketball Experience Variables for V and JV Teams’ players

Variable F df p

Total Play 0.15 1, 36 .70

Organized Play 2.43 1, 36 .13

School Play 45.63 1, 36 .00*

Level Play 10.79 1, 36 .00*

Total Basketball Experience 4.14 1, 36 .05

______Note: * p < .05

MANOVAs and ANOVAs were also performed on the total scores for the structured training variable categories between the V and JV teams. The MANOVAs indicated significant group differences, Wilks’ λ = .84, F(4, 33) = 1.57, p = .21. The effect size was small, η2 = .16. The results for the ANOVAs show no significant differences between V and JV teams on the structured training variables (see Tables 6 for means & standard deviations & Table 7 for ANOVA results).

Hypothesis 2: V Teams Will Share More Knowledge Than JV Teams.

To test this hypothesis, a MANOVA followed by an ANOVA was performed on team knowledge, planned plays knowledge sharedness, and total diagram knowledge scores. The results of the MANOVA showed significant group differences, Wilks’ λ = .75, F(3, 34), p = .02, on knowledge sharedness. There was a moderate effect size, η2 = .25.

26

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for Structured Training Variables for V and JV Teams

Variable Varsity Junior Varsity

M SD M SD

Structured Training Year 63.62 18.16 54.48 16.19

Structured Training In- Season 22.5 8.65 19.60 5.59

Structured Training Fall 15.71 4.35 15.64 5.77

Structured Training Summer 14.68 7.02 10.44 5.60

Structured Training Spring 10.72 7.383 8.80 7.50 ______

Table 7

ANOVA Results for Structured Training Variables for V and JV Teams

Variable F df p

Structured Training Year 2.66 1, 36 .11

Structured Training In- Season 1.566 1, 36 .22

Structured Training Fall 0.01 1, 36 .92

Structured Training Summer 3.87 1, 36 .06

Structured Training Spring .63 1, 36 .44 ______Note: * p < .05

27

The results for the ANOVAs showed that V teams had significantly more total diagram knowledge than JV teams by 19%. The differences between V and JV teams on planned plays knowledge sharedness and team knowledge were not significant (see Table 8 for means and standard deviations and Table 9 for ANOVA results).

Table 8

Means and Standard Deviations for Planned Plays Sharedness and Total Diagram Knowledge for V and JV Teams

Variable Varsity Junior Varsity

M SD M SD

Team Knowledge .47 .16 .56 .20

Planned Plays Knowledge Sharedness .18 .17 .16 .17

Total Diagram Knowledge .40 .27 .21 .20

Table 9

ANOVA Results for shared knowledge for V and JV Teams

Variable F df p

Team Knowledge 2.27 1, 36 .14

Planned Plays Knowledge Sharedness 0.12 1, 36 .73

Total Diagram Knowledge 6.67 1, 36 .01* ______Note: * p < .05

Hypothesis 3: V Teams' SK Will Be More Accurate Than JV Teams' SK.

28

To test this hypothesis, a MANOVA followed by an ANOVA was performed on total planned plays accuracy and total diagram knowledge scores. The results of the MANOVA showed significant group differences, Wilks’ λ = .84, F(2, 35) = 3.24, p = .05. The effect size was small, η2 = .16. The results for the ANOVAs showed that V teams scored significantly higher than JV teams on total diagram knowledge by 19%. The differences between V and JV teams on planned plays accuracy was not significant (see Table 10 for means & standard deviations and Table 11 for ANOVA results).

Table 10

Means and Standard Deviations for Planned Plays Accuracy and Total Diagram Knowledge for V and JV Teams

Variable Varsity Junior Varsity

M SD M SD

Planned Plays Accuracy .20 .23 .14 .19

Total Diagram Knowledge .40 .27 .21 .19

Hypothesis 4: V Teams Will Utilize SK Better Than JV Teams.

This hypothesis could not be tested because the participants were unable to complete the VBT due to time constraints.

29

Table 11

ANOVA Results for Planned Plays Accuracy and Total Diagram Knowledge for V and JV Teams

Variable F df p

Planned Plays Accuracy 0.97 1, 36 .01*

Total Diagram Knowledge 6.67 1, 36 .33 ______Note: * p < .05

Hypothesis 5: Plays Or Actions Leading To Successful Outcomes Compared To Unsuccessful Outcomes Are More Likely To Have Occurred When SK Was Utilized By Team Members.

To test this hypothesis, a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was computed between the variable, how well they felt they knew each of their teammates’ playing style and how much knowing the style of play of a given teammate helped the participant perform during games. The correlation between these variables was very positive and strong, r = .82.

Hypothesis 6: Players That Have Played Together For Longer Will Share Knowledge Better.

To test this hypothesis several correlations were performed. The correlation between years playing with teammates and how well they felt they knew each of their teammates playing style was low, r = .01. The correlation between years playing in high school and total shared knowledge was also low, r = .26. The correlation between total shared knowledge score and years playing with teammates was low, r = .14.

Hypothesis 7: Players That Are In Similar Positions On The Same Team Will Share Knowledge Better Than Players Who Play Dissimilar Positions.

30

To test this hypothesis a MANOVA followed by an ANOVA was performed on the variables: responsibilities of the PG position, of the SG position, of the SF position, of the PF position, and of the C position. The results of the MANOVA showed significant position effects, Wilks’ λ = .46, F(5, 32) = 6.81, p = .00. The effect size was moderate, η2 = .52. The results of the ANOVA showed that guards scored significantly higher on scores in knowledge of the responsibilities of the PG and SG positions than forwards. They scored higher by 2.25 and 2.02 knowledge units, respectively. Forwards scored significantly higher on scores in knowledge of responsibilities of the PF and C positions than guards. They scored higher by 1.73 and 2.37 knowledge units, respectively. The differences between guards and forwards on their knowledge of the responsibilities of the SF position were not significant (see Table 12 for means and standard deviations and Table 13 for ANOVA results).

Table 12

Means and Standard Deviations for Guards and Forwards on Knowing Responsibilities of Positions

Variable Guards Forwards

M SD M SD

Responsibilities of PG 8.60 1.92 6.35 2.40

Responsibilities of SG 8.80 1.66 6.78 2.47

Responsibilities of SF 6.93 2.52 7.35 2.64

Responsibilities of PF 6.27 2.40 8.00 2.22

Responsibilities of C 5.80 2.48 8.17 2.55 ______

31

Table 13

ANOVA Results for Guards and Forwards on Knowing Responsibilities of Positions

Variable F df p

Responsibilities of PG 9.27 1, 36 .00*

Responsibilities of SG 7.72 1, 36 .01*

Responsibilities of SF 0.23 1, 36 .63

Responsibilities of PF 5.20 1, 36 .03*

Responsibilities of C 8.02 1, 36 .01* ______Note: * p < .05

32

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine numerous aspects of shared knowledge in the sport of basketball using high school varsity and junior varsity basketball teams. Researchers have argued that shared knowledge is critical to effective team performance. Several studies have concluded that experience with a team improves shared knowledge (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997; Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Rentsch et al., 1993; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001). Although these studies did not involve the use of teams in sport it is believed that the shared knowledge concept is useful in sport as well (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). This was one of the first studies of its kind because it dealt specifically with team members' knowledge of team operations, which allows teamwork to be possible. The study was designed to answer seven hypotheses by using three high school varsity teams and three high school junior varsity teams as the sample. Various methodologies were performed to elicit information from the players regarding demographic information, playing experience, and knowledge of team and player operations that constitute shared knowledge.

Hypotheses

In the present study, the first hypothesis had two parts. The first part was that varsity teams will be comprised of players that have more basketball experience than players on junior varsity teams. Varsity teams are generally comprised of players who are older than junior varsity teams, and have generally been playing together for longer. Results for the first part of hypothesis 1 indicated that varsity teams had played for their school significantly longer than junior varsity teams, and had significantly more years playing at their current level. There were no significant differences between developmental levels in terms of years playing basketball and years playing organized basketball although varsity players tended to score higher. These results partially supported the hypothesis. There are a few reasons why the first part of the hypothesis was only partially supported. V teams would tend to be composed of players that are slightly older and have been in high school longer than junior varsity teams. A talented freshman or sophomore in high school may play at the varsity level despite the fact that they are eligible to play at the junior varsity level. This means they can play up to four years on the varsity team. However, a junior who has not progressed to a varsity skill level will not be kept on the junior varsity team rather they will be cut from the varsity team. Therefore, varsity players may play up to 4 years at the varsity level; however, no player will play longer than two years at the junior varsity level. The reasons that there were not significant differences between varsity and junior varsity teams in years playing basketball and years

33

playing organized basketball probably pertain to the fact that in a sample of high school students the ages are fairly close together. The youngest students would be 14 years old and the oldest would be 18 years old. Also, it could be that the amount of years playing may not have an impact on shared knowledge or basketball ability because when they began playing at ages 6, 7, 8, or 9 years old they were not playing very often, and when they were playing they were not receiving a great deal of coaching. The second part of the first hypothesis was that varsity teams will have players that have more structured training experience over the past year than players on the junior varsity teams. Varsity teams compete at a higher skill level than junior varsity teams; therefore, it was assumed that the varsity teams and ultimately the varsity players will make a bigger commitment to training as a team than the junior varsity teams. The results of the study indicated that the differences between varsity and junior varsity players were not significant even though varsity players tended to score higher on the structured training variables (see Table 7). The results did not support the hypothesis. There are a few reasons why the second part of the first hypothesis was not supported. High schools may expect approximately the same commitment from players whether they are at the varsity or junior varsity level. Another factor to consider is that players that compete in other sports or other activities during the fall, spring, or summer may have less time available to practice basketball. The second hypothesis was that varsity teams will share more knowledge than junior varsity teams. Varsity teams are at a higher level of competition than junior varsity teams, and therefore, rate to be better teams. Varsity teams will consist of more experienced players, and it is expected that they will have more structured training than junior varsity teams. This will lead to greater shared knowledge, and ultimately, increased performance. This is because shared knowledge is acquired through experience in the relevant domain (Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1993), and through experience with their team members (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997). Results of the study indicated that varsity teams scored higher than junior varsity teams on planned plays knowledge sharedness, but this difference was non-significant. Varsity teams’ exhibited significantly more total diagram knowledge than junior varsity teams (see Table 9). These results partially supported the hypothesis. Junior varsity teams scored higher than varsity teams on the team knowledge scores most likely because of limitations in the design of this part of the study. This will be addressed further in the limitations section. Varsity teams were expected to have more shared knowledge than junior varsity teams, and thus score higher on planned plays knowledge sharedness and total diagram knowledge because they are more effective teams than junior varsity teams. The third hypothesis was that varsity teams’ shared knowledge will be more accurate than junior varsity teams’ shared knowledge. Varsity teams are at a higher level of competition than junior varsity teams, and therefore, varsity teams rate to be better teams than junior varsity teams. It was believed that varsity teams would consist of more experienced players and would partake in more structured training than junior varsity teams. This would lead to greater shared knowledge, and ultimately, increased performance. This is because shared knowledge is acquired through experience in the relevant domain and through experience with their team members (Rentsch et al., 1993; Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997). Results for hypothesis 3 indicated that varsity teams had significantly more planned plays knowledge accuracy than junior varsity teams. Varsity

34

teams, also, had significantly more total diagram knowledge than junior varsity teams (see Table 11). These results supported the hypothesis. The fourth hypothesis was that varsity teams will utilize shared knowledge better than junior varsity teams. Although a team possesses shared knowledge it will not be utilized in every situation. Shared knowledge must be utilized for it to be effective. Unfortunately hypothesis 4 could not be tested because the participants were unable to complete the VBT due to time constraints. The fifth hypothesis was that plays or actions leading to successful outcomes compared to unsuccessful outcomes are more likely to have occurred when shared knowledge was utilized by team members. Several researchers have concluded that several factors contribute to team performance (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004; Fiore, Salas, & Canon-Bowers, 2001; Greihaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 1999; Hinsz et al., 1997; Jones, 1974; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Many of these factors are included in the present study’s definition of shared knowledge. Canon-Bowers et al. (1995) argued that effective team functioning requires the existence of a SMM or a team mental model among members of a team. SMMs improve team performance by enhancing team coordination (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Therefore, shared knowledge has a positive influence on team performance when utilized. The results pertaining could only be partially tested because the participants were unable to complete the VBT due to time constraints. The results of the study indicated that how well they felt they knew each of their teammate’s playing style and how much knowing the style of play of a given teammate helped the participant perform during games were strongly correlated with each other. This result supported the hypothesis. This indicates that the participants in the study acknowledged that that portion of shared knowledge helped them perform well in competitions. Knowing the playing style of their teammates appears to allow players to anticipate or predict their teammates’ actions. The sixth hypothesis was that players that have played together for longer will share knowledge better. Players that have played together for longer will make the team a more experienced team. Research suggests that experienced teams will display more pronounced shared knowledge (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997; McIntyre & Salas, 1995). The results of the study indicated that years playing with teammates and how well they felt they knew each of their teammates playing style were not correlated with each other. In terms of the variables, years playing in high school and total shared knowledge, a weak correlation was found. No correlation was found between total shared knowledge and years playing with their teammates. These results did not support the hypothesis. There are a few reasons why the sixth hypothesis was not supported. Dealing with a high school sample the maximum number of years that players could have played together within the same system could only be 4 years. Often times there will be a difference between the structured plays run by a junior varsity and varsity team even at the same school. Also, it is very common that a coach will choose his offenses based on his personnel and that this may cause the plays to change year to year. Therefore, despite playing with each other longer, they still have not played together in a situation where they were running the same plays. Another reason for this result is that players may feel they know the playing style of an individual confidently after one season of playing with them or even after half a season. Therefore, players that have played together for several

35

years may not report that they know the playing style of their teammates any higher than players that have played together for only one year. The seventh hypothesis was that players that play similar positions on the same team will share knowledge better. This hypothesis was based on research that concluded that members of a team that interact more regularly, will share between them more specific and detailed knowledge about each other’s operations (Entin & Serfaty, 1999). The results of the study indicated that participants who were guards rated themselves significantly higher in knowledge of their responsibilities of the guard positions for their team, while players whose primary position was a forward position gave themselves significantly higher scores than guards on their knowledge of the responsibilities of power forward and center positions for their teams. There was not a significant difference between guards and forwards for their self-reported knowledge of the small forward position for their team although forwards tended to score a little higher (Table 13). The results supported the hypothesis. The reason that there was not a significant difference between guards and forwards for their self-reported knowledge of the small forward position is the versatile nature of this position. Some small forwards will also play shooting guard and some small forwards will also play power forward.

Limitations

Getting good participation from the athletes was very difficult in the present study. Unfortunately, the researcher was unable to get the participation of full teams for the present study and for V-Team 3 only one player was available for participation. Most of the questions on the DIBESTQ were fill in the blank where participants were supposed to write in answers to such questions as how often did you participate in skillwork basketball sessions last spring. Some of the answers that were given by participants were perplexing or inaccurate; therefore, this data was not included in the study. There were other missing data that were the result of carelessness or lack of effort on the part of some participants. The DIBESTQ is a measure that was developed specifically for this research project, and had never been used before in any research studies. Therefore, it was not known how well it would work. Designing questions in a multiple choice format rather than a fill in the blank format may have insured that a higher percentage of participants responses were usable for the data analysis. Another limitation on the present study was the 3-4 month time span between the end of the basketball season and when data was collected. This is because recall by the players of their team's plays was for the most part very poor. It is hard to believe that players could have gone into actual competitions with such a limited knowledge of the plays that they were supposed to run effectively in games. It seems more probable that most of the plays they missed they had forgotten rather than they never knew them. Still there are other explanations as to why they scored poorly on this set of tests aimed at remembering their teams’ plays, mainly the planned plays test of the DIBESTQ and the DBT. The coach of V-Team 1 told me that he never diagrams plays for his players. The plays are demonstrated during practice on a basketball court by positioning the players

36

appropriately and telling them what to do. Therefore, some players may have had a hard time recognizing or communicating the plays in diagrammed form. Even if a player is familiar with seeing his plays in drawn form, he is probably more used to looking at them rather than drawing them himself. Another explanation came from a comment made by the coach of V-Team 1 when he stated that they make adjustments on plays before every game depending on whom they were playing, and what their strategy is going to be. Therefore, there may be adjustments made to these basic plays so that these plays, as they were written for this project, may not have been run very often. The team knowledge test consisted of the nine short answer questions did not appear to be very successful in eliciting shared knowledge from players on the same teams because answers given by the players were often very short and very vague. Therefore, information in their answers that would be specific only to their team was almost nonexistent in the explanations. This was despite the fact that the players were urged both in the written directions and verbally by the researcher to make their responses very detailed. When conducting the statistical analyses for this section shared knowledge was counted as the most frequent answer given by teammates. However, in many cases there was more than one answer that was given by more than one player on the same team. Also, because the answers given were often so brief just because a player gave a different answer than another player it is unclear whether both players shared knowledge of both answers even if they only wrote down one of them. Although the VBT was not fully completed in the few trials that were conducted, it shed light on some problems with this methodology when dealing with high school basketball teams. The first issue has to do with actually playing the tape in the VCR and on the TV. The first segment of the play was run and then a black space was edited into the tape so that the conclusion of the play would not be shown. Seeing the play only one time in game speed did not allow the players to get an adequate grasp of the play. Therefore, the play was rewound, replayed, and then paused right before the black space appeared on the so that the players could see where each of the five players on the court were at the very end of the segment. This aided their ability to predict what they did next. The problem with this was that it was difficult to be very precise with rewinding, stopping, and pausing. This meant that sometimes the play would be shown three or four times just so that it ended up being paused in the correct spot. It was necessary to pause the play because the researcher when editing the film realized it would be too difficult a task without seeing where each player finished on the initial segment. The second issue with the VBT is that if the players do not remember their plays very well, as shown in the planned plays test and the DBT, then the VBT may be even more difficult for them because they not only have to remember their plays they also have to account for the defense’s actions. This means they may have to adjust a play to account for the defense's actions. They also have to account for possible faulty processes by one or more teammates, which were not addressed in the GSKT or the DBT. However, this methodology appears to have the most potential at measuring the importance of the utilization of shared knowledge to successful performance. Another potential pitfall to this methodology in basketball is that on the film it was difficult to cut the segments into clear and even breaks. A basketball game in progress tends to involve constant movement by players; therefore, it was difficult to divide a play without certain players in the first segment giving obvious clues to what

37

actions they were going to do next. Therefore, this would help players watching the film predict what would happen next. Another point to remember, which makes scoring this methodology difficult, is that players are given options throughout a play on how to respond, and there may be more than one appropriate response for many of the situations. Additionally, the players watching the film do not have the same view or perception that the players in the game had. Therefore, they may see things that the player with the ball could not see and vice versa. This would certainly influence what actions they predicted as most appropriate. Another possible limitation of this study was having players dropping off the team in the middle of the season or being added to the team in the middle of the season. The coach of the JV-Team 2 told me after the study had been concluded that he lost seven players the second half of the season due to poor grades and had to bring up four players from the freshman team. The other teams did not indicate if they had similar losses of players or additions of players throughout the season.

General Discussion and Theoretical Implications

The results of the study as a whole indicate the presence of shared knowledge among teammates playing on high school basketball teams. The study’s results showed partial support for the study’s hypotheses. Eccles and Tenenbaum (2004) defined shared knowledge as part of a team member’s knowledge of team operations must be at least similar to the other team members’ knowledge of team operation. Team members’ knowledge, therefore, must overlap with each other for them to have shared knowledge. In this study shared knowledge was defined as knowledge in general as long as this knowledge pertained to aspects of the team that influenced performance. For instance, information such as which player was in charge of water bottles on the bus was not examined. Shared knowledge consisted of planned plays, adjustments to planned plays, general strategic basketball knowledge, specific team strategies or philosophies, player to player and coach to player communication, and knowledge of teammates individual playing styles. Shared knowledge is utilized by players to allow them to coordinate actions, predict the actions of their teammates, and adapt to changing game situations. These abilities lead to a better team performance than could be achieved without shared knowledge. It is clear that shared knowledge is found among players on the same high school basketball team, and it is an important component of successful team performance.

Applied Implications

It might be a good idea to have players run the same system throughout high school and possible even as Jr. high students. This is because teams composed of players that had played at their school and developmental level longer tended to show greater shared knowledge. The number of years playing together, however, did not appear to be

38

related to shared knowledge in the present study. This indicates that there would not be an improvement in shared knowledge by having players spend more years playing on the same team. A coach may consider bringing a freshman or sophomore up to varsity, but chooses not to because he wants the player to get more experience playing with the players he will play with as a junior and senior. However, the study does not indicate this will improve shared knowledge when the player is a senior. It is believed that varsity teams will utilize shared knowledge better because of more experience playing at their school and at their level. However, utilization of shared knowledge to some degree is dependent on an opponents’ ability. The research indicates that shared knowledge does not have to overlap entirely to be effective. It appears that it is most critical that players understand more of the responsibilities of the position they play. They may only need to know the basics for the other positions on the floor to achieve maximum performance. It appears to be beneficial for players to understand their teammates’ individual playing styles. A coach may be able to aid this type of knowledge by explaining to players what a team member is likely to do or what his playing style is. A coach may be more adept at figuring this out than players of this age.

Future Research Recommendations

Future research on this topic should attempt to use teams that have a significant separation in the amount of time the players on the team have played with each other and also use teams with players that are old enough and motivated enough to do a thorough job completing the various measures used. For instance, a professional basketball team may consist of a core group of players that have played together for 4 or 5 years compared to a team full of young players or free agent signings who have never played together before. This would be an ideal situation to look at if shared knowledge is greater in teams that have more experience with each other. This may be difficult at the high school and college level because players only spend a maximum of 4 years playing at the high school level and 5 years playing at the college level. An ideal situation may be comparing the USA Olympic basketball team who was thrown together last summer with a European country’s national team that has played together for several years. When using high school teams the study should be conducted during the season or immediately after the season has ended, and the study should be completed within an hour or even a half hour to prevent boredom by the participants. It may be easier at first to use team sports where there are fewer than five players playing at a time such as doubles tennis or doubles racquetball. Another idea would be to use a portion of a sport that involves numerous players such as the relationship between a quarterback and his wide receivers in football, or a pitcher and catcher in baseball. Other avenues for research are to find out which of the many aspects of shared knowledge are the most crucial for team performance. For instance, it could be that planned plays knowledge is more important than knowledge of teammates’ individual playing styles. Also, there has to be a distinction in shared knowledge between the amount of shared knowledge and the accuracy of shared knowledge. In the sport of basketball greater amounts of shared knowledge may be indicative of a team that runs

39

many different planned plays. The number of planned plays a coach chooses for his or her team may be influenced to some degree by the number of different defenses the team expects to encounter. The coach may feel that different plays work best in different situations or a coach may try to use a variety of plays to try to confuse or surprise. They also may choose plays based on what their opponents’ strengths are, or how much practice time the team has to implement plays. Some teams may be able to perform very well despite having few planned plays. This is because although there is not as much knowledge the players know it very well or accurately. This may reduce the number of coordination errors made by the team.

40

CONCLUSION

There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the present study. Varsity high school basketball players rate to have more experience playing at their school and at the varsity level than junior varsity players have playing for their school or playing at the junior varsity level. Based on the findings of the study varsity players do not partake in significantly more structured training in the sport of basketball than junior varsity players over the course of a year. Varsity teams score higher than junior varsity teams on the planned plays test and the diagram based test. It was a significant difference on the DBT and the accuracy portion of the planned plays test. This indicates that varsity teams will tend to have more shared knowledge and more accurate shared knowledge than junior varsity teams. A strong correlation was found between the variables how well they thought they knew each of their teammate’s playing style of your teammates and how much knowing the style of play of a given teammate helped the participant perform during games. This shows that the majority of high school basketball players feel that knowing the playing style of their teammates aids their performance in competitions. Finally, guards gave themselves significantly higher ratings for knowing the responsibilities of the guard positions on their teams than did forwards. The reverse of this was true about knowing the responsibilities of the power forward and center positions. This implies that guards do no have a full understanding of the forwards responsibilities and forwards do not have a full understanding of the guards’ responsibilities (see Table 12 and Table 13). This is consistent with the shared knowledge concept. The findings from this study can be applied to coaching high school basketball teams or other team sports. It is has provided some empirical understanding on shared knowledge’s role in high school basketball teams. More research is needed to understand the relationship between shared knowledge and performance. Also, more research is needed on how experience in the domain, experience playing with a particular teammate or team, and ability in the domain impacts shared knowledge and ultimately performance. Initial studies may choose to focus on simple relationships between two or three positions such as a pitchers and catchers in baseball. The importance of teamwork and all the variables that make up teamwork in team sports cannot be denied. It is of the utmost importance to team performance, and it is why we need team cognition (Fiore & Salas, 2004).

41

APPENDIX A

Coaches’ Informed Consent

Dear Coaches,

I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Tenenbaum in the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems of Florida State University. I am conducting a research study to better understand teamwork and performance in the sport of basketball.

Your participation will involve diagramming basketball plays that your high school team used this year during its season. Your participation will involve filling out a packet of basketball plays at your own convenience that will take approximately one hour. Your players will be asked to fill out a paper and pencil questionnaire regarding their knowledge of team plays and strategies. Part of this questionnaire will ask them to watch video clips that their team has played in and to answer questions regarding what they see on the video. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. The results of this research study may be published, but your name will not be used.

There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if you agree to participate in the study.

Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible benefits of your participation are an increased knowledge of sport psychology and that your players may gain a greater awareness of how teamwork affects team performance. Also, I will be providing educational and athletic professionals with valuable insights into team performance. This knowledge can them in providing educational and athletic assistance to better serve athletes in various sports and various levels of competition. I understand that the information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. Confidentiality will be kept by changing participants’ names to subject codes once data is collected.

If you have any questions concerning this research study, please call Jeff Weisman, Florida State University, Department of Educational Research-Sport Psychology, (850) 510-6474 or email me at [email protected]. Alternatively, you may contact Dr. Gershon Tenenbaum, Florida State University, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at (850) 644-8791 or the Human Subjects Committee at 644-8836. The results of the study will be sent to me upon my request.

Sincerely,

Jeff Weisman

42

I give my consent to participate in the above study. I understand that videotapes from this season’s games are going to be used in this study. I understand that only the researcher and the professors assisting him will have access to these tapes, and they will be destroyed by January 1, 2010. The researcher will keep the tapes in a locked filing cabinet.

______(signature)______(date)

43

APPENDIX B

Dear Parents,

I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Tenenbaum in the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems of Florida State University. I am conducting a research study to better understand teamwork and performance in the sport of basketball.

Your child’s participation will involve completing a paper and pencil questionnaire regarding his basketball team’s plays and strategies. One part of this questionnaire will ask him to watch video clips from games his team has played in and to answer questions regarding what he see on the video. His total participation time will be approximately two hours. Your participation, as well of that of your child, in this study is voluntary. If you or your child chooses not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty (it will not affect his grade). The results of this research study may be published, but your child’s name will not be used. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to your child if he agrees to participate in the study.

Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible benefits of your participation are an increased knowledge of sport psychology and that your players may gain a greater awareness of how teamwork affects team performance. Also, I will be providing educational and athletic professionals with valuable insights into team performance. This knowledge can assist them in providing educational and athletic assistance to better serve athletes in various sports and various levels of competition. I understand that the information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. Confidentiality will be kept by changing participants’ names to subject codes once data is collected.

If you have any questions concerning this research study, please call Jeff Weisman, Florida State University, Department of Educational Research-Sport Psychology, (850) 510-6474 or email me at [email protected]. Alternatively, you may contact Dr. Gershon Tenenbaum, Florida State University, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at (850) 644-8791 or the Human Subjects Committee at 644-8836. The results of the study will be sent to me upon my request.

Sincerely,

Jeff Weisman

I give my consent for my child ______(child’s name) to participate in the above study. I understand that videotapes from this season’s games are going to be used in this study. I understand that only the researcher and the professors assisting him will have access to these tapes, and they will be destroyed by January 1, 2010. The researcher will keep the tapes in a locked filing cabinet.

44

Parent’s Name______

Parents Signature______Date:______

45

APPENDIX C

Players' Informed Consent

I have been informed that my parent(s) have given permission for me to participate, if I want to, in a study concerning teamwork in the sport of basketball. My participation is voluntary and I have been told that I may stop participation in this study at any time. If I choose not to participate, (it will not affect my grade in any way).

Name:______

46

APPENDIX D

Demographic Information, Basketball Experience, and Structured Training Questionnaire (DIBESTQ)

Please answer the following questions with as much detail as necessary to answer the question fully.

Demographic Information.

Name:______Age:______

What school do you attend?______Year in School?______

Race?______

Basketball Experience.

Q1.How many years total have you been playing basketball?______

Q2.How many years have you been playing organized basketball?______

Q3.How many years have you been playing basketball for this school?______

Q4.How many years have you been playing basketball at this level?______

Structured Training

In season . Q1.How many games did your team play this year?______

How many times a week did you practice during the season in the following situations?

Q2 Team practices?______Length of average session______

Q3. Pickup games with other teammates outside of practice?____ Length of Average session___

Q4. Pickup games with teammates?______Length of average session______

Q5. /Skillwork outside of practice?______Length of average session______

Further explanation if needed:

47

______

______Fall

Q1. Did your team play in any fall leagues or shootouts this past fall?______If, yes, How many games did you play?______

Q2.How many times a week did you practice this past fall?

Q2 Pickup games with teammates?______Length of Average session______

Q3. Pickup games without teammates?______Length of average session______

Q4. Pickup games with team and coach present?______Length of average session______

Q5. Shootaround/Skillwork by yourself?______Length of average session______

Further Explanation (if necessary)

______

______

______

Summer

Q1. Did your team play in any summer leagues or shootouts?______If your team did, how many games did you play?______

How many times a week did you practice last summer?

Q2.Pickup games with teammates______Length of average session______

Q3. Pickup games with team and coach present______Length of average session______

Q4. Pickup games without other teammates______Length of Average session______

Q5. Shootaround/Skillwork by yourself______Length of average session______

Further Explanation (if necessary)

______

______

48

______

Spring

Q1. Did your team play in spring leagues or shootouts last spring?______If your team did, how many games did you play?

How many times a week did you practice this past spring?

Q2. Pickup games with other teammates______Length of Average session______

Q3.Pickup games without teammates______Length of average session______

Q4. Pickup games with team and coach present______Length of average session______

Q5. Shootaround/Skillwork by yourself______Length of average session______

Further Explanation (if necessary)

______

______

______

49

APPENDIX E PART 1a

General Shared Knowledge Test

Team Knowledge Test

Please answer the following questions with as much detail as necessary to get explain yourself fully.

Team strategies

Q1: Does your team have any rules about how you play the game? Here's an example of a rule, "If a teammate makes a pass fake you should make a back door cut or you should always look inside to a post player as a first option on offense."

Team member communication

Q2: Is there any communication between team members when you have to change strategies on the fly, i.e., while the game is progress? For example, if your opposing team suddenly switches from a man to man to a , would there be any communication between your team members, or between the coach and your team members (e.g., shouts, hand signals, etc.) to signal a change in the way your team should respond?

50

Q3: Do certain players on this team have a distinct way of communicating what they would like to happen? Please describe your answer with as much detail as possible.

Q4: Does your team ever switch defenses while the game is in progress? How is this signaled or communicated within your team? Does anyone shout or hand signal the change? Please describe your answers as fully as possible.

Q5: Who chooses an inbounds play? Once an inbound play is chosen, how is it communicated to team members? Please describe your answers as fully as possible.

Q6: Does your team have any code words or abbreviations that help with quick player-to- player, coach-to-player, or player-to-coach communication. For example, shouting “wolf” means an opposing defender is trying to the ball from behind. Please describe your answers as fully as possible.

51

Use of brief stoppages in play

Q7: Does your team communicate about team strategies, etc., during brief stoppages in play, such as the ball goes out-of-bounds, there is a called , or a ? If so, what kinds of things are discussed? Please describe your answers as fully as possible.

Use of time-outs in play

Q8: Does your team and coach communicate about team strategies, etc., during time outs in play, such as ball-out-of-bounds, called foul, or a traveling violation? If so, what kinds of things are discussed? Please describe your answers as fully as possible.

Team set defenses

Q9: Please name and describe the defenses your team runs in the game. Please describe them as fully as possible.

52

APPENDIX E PART 1b

Coordination With Different Positions and Different Players Questionnaire

Q1: How well do you know the responsibilities as well as the expected movements in all of your team's plays for the point guard position?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all A little Somewhat A lot All of

Q2: How well do you know the responsibilities as well as the expected movements in all of your team's plays for the shooting guard position?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all A little Somewhat A lot All of

Q3: How well do you know the responsibilities as well as the expected movements in all of your team's plays for the small forward position?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all A little Somewhat A lot All of

Q4: How well do you know the responsibilities as well as the expected movements in all of your team's plays for the power forward position?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all A little Somewhat A lot All of

Q5: How well do you know the responsibilities as well as the expected movements in all of your team's plays for the center position?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all A little Somewhat A lot of All of

Q:6 What is the primary position you play?

Q:7 What are the secondary positions that you play?

Q:8 How much does knowing the responsibilities of positions you are not playing help you perform better in actual games?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all A little Somewhat A lot A great deal

53

Q9, 10, 11: Please do the following. List your current teammates and put the number of years you have been playing basketball with them and the primary position that they play and a secondary position if they have one. This year counts as 1 year playing together so every player will at least have the number 1 next to their name. To the right of that put a number from 1 to 10 indicating how well do you know the playing style of this individual (preferences, tendencies, and abilities), with 1 indicating you know it hardly at all and 10 meaning you can almost always predict what this individual will do in the game. Then to the right of that give another number between 1-10 indicating how much this helps you in the games with 1 indicating it does not help you at all and 10 indicating it helps you a great deal.

Name Primary Secondary Years Playing How well do How much Position Position together you know the does this help playing style you perform of this better in individual? games?

Q12: Are there any players that you can anticipate better in terms of what they will do? Why is this? Please explain as fully as possible.

54

APPENDIX E, PART 2a

Coaches’ Diagrams

On the pages to follow there are half-court diagrams that are labeled under the following categories: (1) offenses used against the man-to-man defense, (2)offenses used against zone defenses, (3) sidelines inbounds plays, (4) under-the-basket inbounds plays on offense, and (5) offenses used against the full court press. Please diagram each of the plays that your team ran this season for each category. Begin with offenses used against a man-to-man-defense and continue until you have diagrammed all of these plays. Then find the diagram that is labeled offenses used against zone defenses and continue until all of these plays have been diagrammed. Then you will continue with the sidelines inbounds plays, followed by the under the basket inbounds plays, and lastly the offenses used against a full-court press. Start out by using the diagram on the left and work left to right. Each diagram should only contain one sequence of movements for an offense. Therefore, diagramming an offense may require the use of several half-court diagrams. Label the offense you are diagramming by titling it on the line found on the upper left side of the first diagram you are using to diagram that play. There is space beneath the diagram to explain any necessary information that cannot be shown on the diagram or to explain players’ various options while running the play. Diagram movements using the following key:

Cut = Cut and Screen = Pass = …………. Dribble =

On the final page of this packet is a sixth play category for team defenses. You are asked to list the primary, secondary, and any additional team defenses including full-court presses your team used this year. You are also asked to say whether the defense has a special name or codeword that is used to identify it. Lines at the bottom of the page can be used to give a more detailed explanation if it is necessary.

55

Play Category 1: offenses used against the man to man defense

Name of Play: Warrior______

2 x 3 2 4 3 5 5 4

1 1

Description if Necessary:

The 1 looks for 3 coming off the double screen. 3 and 4 were not open so 5 and 1 run

If 3 is not open he will look at 4 opening up a screen and roll. One dribbles past in the lane for the pass. ______5 using the screen.

4 2

3 5 1

Description (if necessary):

5 rolls to the basket looking for the pass.

1 may pass it to 5 or to 2 in the corner ______

______

56

Play Category 1: offenses used against the man to man defense

Name of Play:______

Description if Necessary:

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

57

Play Category 2: offenses used against zone defenses

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

58

Play Category 3: sidelines inbounds plays

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary)

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

59

Play Category 4: under-the-basket inbounds plays on offense

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

60

Play Category 5: offenses used against the full court press

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

61

Play Category 6: Defenses

Please list all of the defenses your team used in games this year. Put the defense you used the most next to “Primary defense” and the defense you used second most next to “Secondary defense.” Then put any additional defenses on the lines located next to “additional defense”. Include full-court presses as well. If the defense has a code name indicate this on the lines found next to “Codeword” (e.g. a fullcourt man to man press on one team is called “59”). If you feel it is necessary to describe anything in more detail use the lines found at the bottom of the page.

1. Primary Defense:______Codeword:______

2. Secondary Defense:______Codeword:______

3. Additional Defense______Codeword______

4. Additional Defense ______Codeword:______

5. Additional Defense ______Codeword:______

6. Additional Defense______Codeword:______

7. Additional Defense______Codeword:______

Further Explanation (if necessary)

______

______

______

62

APPENDIX E, PART 2b

Planned Plays Test

Please diagram the offensive play or pattern your teams runs labeled on the upper left hand corner of the half-court diagrams below. Start out by using the diagram on the left and work left to right. Each diagram should only contain one sequence of movements for an offense. Therefore, diagramming an offense may require the use of several half-court diagrams. Label the offense you are diagramming by titling it on the line found on the upper left side of each diagram. There is space beneath the diagram to explain any necessary information that cannot be shown on the diagram or to explain players various options while running the play. Diagram movements using the following key:

Cut = Cut and Screen = Pass= Dribble =

We have categorized plays as follows:

1. offenses used against the man-to-man defense 2. offenses used against zone defense 3. sidelines inbounds plays 4. under-the-basket inbounds plays in offense offenses used against the full court press

63

Example Sheet Play Category 1: offenses used against the man to man defense

Name of Play: Warrior______

2 x 3 2 4 3 5 5 4

1 1

Description if Necessary:

The 1 looks for 3 coming off the double screen. 3 and 4 were not open so 5 and 1 run

If 3 is not open he will look at 4 opening up a screen and roll. One dribbles past in the lane for the pass. ______5 using the screen.

4 2

3 5 1

Description (if necessary):

5 rolls to the basket looking for the pass. ______

1 may pass it to 5 or to 2 in the corner ______

64

Play category 1: offenses used against the man-to-man defense

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

65

Play Category 2: Offenses used against zone defense

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

66

Play Category 3: sidelines inbounds plays

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

67

Play category 4: under-the-basket inbounds plays on offense

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

68

Play category 5: offenses used against the full court press

Name of Play:______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

______

Description (if necessary):

______

______

69

APPENDIX F

Diagram Based Test (DBT)

In this section you will be given diagrams of plays that your team has run this season. Each play will be broken down into two diagrams representing different parts of the play. Initially you will be given a diagram that shows the initial movements of one of the plays. The diagram will also include the location of the ball on the floor (the player with the ball will be circled). You then will be asked to use your knowledge of your team’s planned plays and strategies to draw on basketball half-court diagrams the appropriate upcoming actions (i.e. what is supposed to happen next) for the team as a whole, and thus each individual position on the diagram, based on the movements observed on the initial diagram. Remember to diagram what is supposed to happen on this play. You will not be able to confer with your teammates during this process. You then will be asked to name the play shown on the diagram if the play has a name. You will then be given a second diagram that consists of movements that your coach diagrammed should occur based on the initial diagram. After looking at this diagram you will compare the movements shown on this diagram with the appropriate actions that you gave. If the predicted actions that you gave and your coach’s actions on the new diagram differ, you will be asked to comment on the reasons for this difference. If yours and the coach’s play actions do not differ you will be asked for an explanation about whether there were any other play options that were feasible, and thus that could have been diagrammed. You will diagram movements using the same symbols you did earlier as shown below. Also, the diagrams that you will be given use the same symbols as well. However on these diagrams the person who has the ball at the start of the movements will be circled. Diagram movements using the following key:

Cut = Cut and Screen = Pass = ------Dribble =

70

Sample Diagram

3

4 5

1 111 1 2

71

Starting position Next Steps 3 3 2 4 5 2 4 5

1

1

Explanation:______

______

______

Name of the offensive play or defense shown, if it has one?_____Pinball______

Were there any other play options that were appropriate other than the ones diagrammed, why? Please describe in detail

Example response:

Yes, sometimes 5 will set a high screen for 1 cutting to the basket and 2 will look to pass the ball to 1. This play has the same set. The other players clear out of the lane.

Or

No, this is the only play we run from this set.

Was what was shown on the next diagram the appropriate response you predicted, why or why not? Was what was shown on the next diagram an appropriate response, why or why not? Please describe in detail.

Yes it is what I predicted and that is exactly the way the play is supposed to be run.

72

DBT Answer Sheet

Starting position Next steps

Explanation______

______

______

Name of the offensive play or defense shown, if it has one?______

Were there any other play options that were appropriate other than the ones you diagrammed, why? Please describe in detail.

Was what was shown on the next diagram the appropriate response you predicted, why or why not? Was what was shown on the next diagram an appropriate response, why or why not? Please describe in detail.

73

APPENDIX G

Video Based Test (VBT)

Next you will be shown various video clips from one or more of your team’s games that was recorded during this season. All of the video clips will last in the region of five to ten seconds, and will be segmented into two sections for viewing. The first section of film will be shown and paused so that the remainder of the play is not seen, but so you can see where the players are on the court. You will diagram where all of your teammates are on the diagram located under starting position on the following page. You then will be asked to use your knowledge of your team’s planned plays and strategies to draw the appropriate upcoming actions (i.e. what is supposed to happen) for each team member shown on the video clip based on the actions observed on the video. Remember to diagram what is supposed to happen based on your team’s plays and strategies not what you actually remember happening in this play. You will not be able to confer with your teammates during this process. Participants will then be asked to name the play they observe if the play has a name.

You will then watch a second section of this video clip. After watching this clip you will compare the actual movements shown on the video with the appropriate actions that you gave. If the appropriate and the actual actions differ, you are asked to comment on the appropriateness of the actual actions observed and reasons why they occurred. If the appropriate and actual actions are the same you will be asked to write an explanation about whether there were any other play options that were feasible and thus that could have been diagrammed.

74

VBT Answer Sheet

Starting position Next Steps

Explanation______

______

______

Name of the offensive play or defense shown, if it has one?______

Were there any other play options that were appropriate other than the ones diagrammed, why? Please describe in detail.

Was what was shown on the next video clip the appropriate response you predicted, why or why not? Was what was shown on the next diagram an appropriate response, why or why not? Please describe in detail.

Did you diagram what actions were appropriate for the sequences shown without relying on recall about what you know happened on this particular play? Please be honest it will help us a lot.

Yes No

75

REFERENCES

Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2002). Understanding human communication (8th ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.

Bradley, B. (1998). Values of the Game. New York: Artisan.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., Blickensderfer, E. L., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). The impact of cross-training and workload on team functioning: A replication And extension of initial findings. Human Factors, 40, 92-101.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in Expert decision making teams. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in Individual and group decision making (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Carley, K.M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 533-558.

Casali, J. G. & Wierwille, W. W. (1983). A comparison of rating scale, secondary-task, physiological, and primary-task workload estimation techniques in a simulated flight task emphasizing communications load. Human Factors 25, 623-641.

Comrey, A., & Deskin, G. (1954). Group manual dexterity in women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 178.

Eccles, D. W. & Tenenbaum, G. (2004).Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination & communication in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 542-560.

Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 312- 325.

Fiore, S. M. & Salas, E. (2004). Why we need team cognition? In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 235-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

76

Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations: Person perception an interpersonal judgment in I/O psychology (pp. 309-336). Mahaw, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Flin, R., Slaven, G., & Stewart, K. (1996). Emergency decision making in the offshore oil and gas industry. Human Factors, 38, 262-277.

Gersick, C. J. & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.

Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P. & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundations of tactics and strategy in team sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 159-174.

Guzzo, R. (1995). At the intersection of team effectiveness and decision making. R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 1-8). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.

Jones, M. B. (1974). Regressing group on individual effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 426-451.

Kanki, B. G., Lozito, S. & Foushee, H. C. (1989). Communication indices of crew coordination. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 60, 56-60.

Keidel, R. W. (1987). Team sports models as a generic organizational framework. Human Relations, 40, 591-612.

Kidd, J. S. (1961). A comparison of one-, two-, and three-man work units under various Conditions of workload. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 195-200.

Klimoski, R. & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.

Kraiger, K. & Wenzel, L. H. (1997). Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theories, methods, and applications (pp. 63-84). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

77

MacMillan, J., Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (2002). A framework for understanding the relationship between team structure and the communication necessary for effective team cognition. In E. Salas, S. M. Fiore, & J. A. Cannon-Bowers (Eds.), Team cognition: Process and performance at the inter and intra-individual level. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Mathieu, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Heffner, T.S., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.

McClure, B. A. (1990). The Group Mind: Generative and regressive groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15: 159-170.

McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 9-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, B. B. Jr., & Bowers, C. A. (1995). Teamwork stress: Implications for team decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 262-290). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oransu, J. M. (1993). Decision making in the cockpit. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, and R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management (pp. 137-172). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Oransu, J. M. & Fisher, U. (1992). Team cognition in the cockpit: Linguistic control of shared problem solving. In proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Patterson, E. S. & Woods, D. D. (2001). Shift changes, updates, and the on-call architecture in space shuttle mission control. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 317-346.

Prince, C., Chidester, T. R., Bowers, C. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1992). Aircrew coordination: Achieving teamwork in the cockpit. In R. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams their training and performance (pp. 329-353). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S., & Duffy, L. T. (1993). Teamwork schema representations: The role of team experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S., & Duffy, L. T. (1994). What you know is what you get from experience: Team experience related to teamwork schemas. Group & Organization Management, 19, 450-474.

78

Salas, E. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Johnston, J. H. (1997). How can you turn a team of experts into an expert team?: Emerging training strategies. In C. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making: Where are we know? (pp. 359-370). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Campbell, G. E., Milanovich, D. M., & Reynolds, A. M. (2001). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 179-194.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. & Milanovich, D. M. (1999). Planning, Shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61-71.

Strean, W. B., Senecal, K. L., Howlett, S. G. & Burgess, M. (1997). Xs and Os and what the coach knows: Improving team strategy through critical thinking. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 243-256.

Toquam, J. L., Macauley, J. L., Westra, C. D., Fujita, Y., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Assessment of nuclear power plant crew performance variability. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theories, methods, and applications (pp. 253-287). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Urban, J. M., Weaver, J. L., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1995). Effects of workload and structure on team processes and performance: Implications for complex team decision making. Human Factors, 38, 300-310.

Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, C. A., & Morgan, B. B., Jr. (1996). The impact of crosss- training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors, 38, 87- 100.

Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, C. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of cross-training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors, 38, 87-100.

Weaver, J. L., Bowers, C. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Stress and teams: Performance effects and interventions. In P. A. Hancock & P. A. Desmond (Eds.), Stress, workload, & fatigue (pp. 84-106).

Wilson, J. R., & Rutherford, A. (1989). Mental models: Theory and applications in factors. Human Factors, 31, 617-634.

79

Wittenbaum, G. M., Vaughan, S. I., & Stasser, G. (1998). Coordination in task- performing groups. In R. S. Tinsdale & L. Health (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups: Social psychological applications to social issues (Vol. 4, pp. 177- 204). New York: Plenum.

Xiao, Y., Hunter, W. A., Mackenzie, C. F., Jeffries, N. J., Horst, R. L. (1996). Task Complexity and its implications for team coordination. Human Factors, 38, 636-645.

80

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jeff Weisman earned a bachelor’s of science degree in psychology from Drake University in 2001. He completed his coursework for a master’s degree in sport psychology at Florida State University in 2004. At Florida State he worked as a performance enhancement consultant for the men’s and women’s track and field teams for two years. He also worked as a research assistant at Learning Systems Institute for 1 year. He enrolled at Loyola University Chicago in the fall of 2004 to pursue a master’s degree in school counseling. At Loyola he worked as a performance enhancement consultant with the Loyola University men’s and women’s cross country and track and field teams and interned as a school counselor at Barrington High School.

81