Group Participation and Self-Perceived Personality Change

Kapp, Frederic T.; Gleser, Goldine C.; Brissenden, Arik; Emerson, Richard M.; Winget, John A.; Kashdan, Bernard

doi:10.1097/00005053-196409000-00006

Cited by 29 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest four levels of mutuality in the work of partnerships for leadership preparation that are supported by the PDS research. First, we suggest that partners seek mutual visions-common normative ground upon which they can develop their partnership (Kapp et al 1964, Cartwright 1968, Lieverman et al 1973, Dresher et al 1985. Young et al (2002) concur.…”

Section: Creating the Spaces That Create Usmentioning

confidence: 96%

Partnerships for preparing leaders: what can we learn from PDS research?

Breault¹,

Breault²

2010

International Journal of Leadership in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have long lamented the lack of research regarding the preparation of school leaders. In response, we offer lessons about school and university partnerships from exemplary professional development school (PDS) research to inform collaborative efforts for leadership preparation. We conducted an extensive literature review of 250 studies spanning a 15-year period. Based upon three levels of qualitative meta-synthesis, we identified 49 exemplary studies from the original 250. We then identified themes involving resources, change, and relationships. Based upon these themes, we concluded the following:• In partnerships, resources become a far more significant element in terms of both use and flexibility than they do in more traditional preparation programmes. • The nature of change in a partnership is more idiosyncratic because of the diverse stakeholders involved. • Relationships are a vital element in the success or failure of a partnership. Therefore, time and energy are necessary to develop and sustain relationships among stakeholders. • Partnerships should develop enabling bureaucracies in order to promote meaningful engagement among partners. • Organizational theory offers valuable insights regarding partnerships, but it remains largely an untapped resource in current partnership efforts.We conclude with recommendations for stakeholders interested in developing partnerships between leadership preparation programmes in universities and K-12 schools.In an era where educational leadership programmes are the subjects of significant scrutiny (Levine 2005), stakeholders in educational administration programmes have been challenged to rethink how they are preparing leaders for our nation's schools. To meet this challenge, we argue that programmes preparing educational leaders need to develop and nurture critical partnerships with the districts they currently serve. As Young et al.'s (2005) response to Levine indicates, partnerships between educational leadership programmes and school districts can provide seamless leadership development to support and sustain high-quality leadership.

show abstract

Section: Creating the Spaces That Create Usmentioning

confidence: 96%

Partnerships for preparing leaders: what can we learn from PDS research?

Breault¹,

Breault²

2010

International Journal of Leadership in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies that examined the relationship between cohesiveness and subjective ratings of improvement have generally shown a weak but positive link. Significant positive correlations have been found between cohesiveness and self-reported improvement (Kivlighan & Lilly, 1997;Yalom, Houts, & Zimerberg, 1967), self-perceived personality change (Kapp et al, 1964;Lieberman et al, 1973), self-esteem (Falloon, 1981), and self-reports of the extent to which patients "gained from the group" (Wright & Duncan, 1986, p. 490). However, when more objective indices of patient outcomes are used (e.g., therapist evaluation, psychiatric interviews, standardized measures of clinical symptoms), the evidence is less clear.…”

Section: Consequences Of Inconsistent Methodologies For Measuring and Conceptualizing Cohesivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Cohesiveness

Hornsey

Dwyer

Oei

2007

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a general consensus that cohesiveness promotes positive outcomes in group psychotherapy, the empirical evidence for this notion is limited. In this article the literature on group cohesiveness and its relation to clinical outcomes is reviewed. Three interrelated problems with this literature are highlighted: A lack of consensus as to how to conceptualize cohesiveness, inconsistent measurements of cohesiveness, and lack of attention to possible mediators of the cohesiveness-outcome relationship. The authors argue that the term cohesiveness is too vague and amorphous to be useful as a unitary construct and that the field could benefit by identifying more specific group processes that facilitate—or impede—clinical outcomes. They review social psychological research on group processes, and discuss how three constructs— group identification, independence, and homogeneity—might be applied to the clinical literature. Furthermore, in an attempt to stimulate a closer examination of mediational paths in the literature on group psychotherapy, they discuss possible mechanisms through which group processes affect clinical outcomes.

show abstract

“…Of the studies that viewed time developmentally, the number of assessments ranged from two to five measurement points. Studies evaluating cohesion over time range from eight weeks (Kirshner et al, 1978;Piper et al, 1984) to 30 months (Kapp et al, 1964). Because cohesion seems to be a process variable that involves maturation, it is surprising that so many studies have measured cohesion at just one moment in time.…”

Section: Cohesion: the Variable Function Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%