Processes that influence group dynamics

Wilford Bion’s (1961) work has influenced theories of group dynamics. According to Bion, in every group there are, in fact, two groups present: (i) the rational working group, and (ii) the emotional assumption group. The working group is the

operational side of a group, what the group has to do to accomplish a task: the group members cooperate to test conclusions rationally, seek-and-take help and learn from experience. The assumption group is the emotional side of the group, what the group assumes unconsciously in order to ground its behaviour. Those assumptions are of three kinds: dependency (security in the group is attained by a leader), fight-flight (security is attained either by fighting or by running away from

75

someone / something) and pairing (security is attained by the interaction of only two members in the group, the rest of them listen and follow eagerly). When the group adopts one of these three basic assumptions, their behaviour interferes with the group’s attempts to accomplish the task; yet, all groups are known to alternate between their two sides, the operational and the emotional (Bion, 1961; Rioch, 1970).

In a working group an important operational process that may cause trouble to its members is that of seek-and-take help. It is a crucial, and also a learnt skill (Webb and Mastergeorge, 2003). Group members should learn to use it not by just

exchanging help in the form of giving out an answer but by involving explanations. In this way cognitive (re)construction of knowledge occurs which is more effective in learning (Webb, 2008). The help-seeker should learn to ask specific questions and interpret information given critically. The help-giver should learn to give specific answers to help recipients to solve problems. Explanations given should be relevant to the needs for help, timely, correct and should be such that can allow the help- seeker to correct his/her misconceptions (Webb, 1989, 2008). At the same time, the help-giver should learn to improve his/her strategies as to how to recognise,

reorganise and clarify material (Rogoff, 1990; Webb, 1991). The teacher’s responsibility is to offer norms for such student behaviour, to model it, and to encourage both active roles by providing opportunities for such student behaviour.

Whether students use the ‘seek/take help’ roles depend on group actions. If a

student does not understand or know what to do, he/she may ask for help. Research has shown that if he/she asks a specifically focused question, he/she is more likely to get an explanation as an answer (Webb and Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb, 2008). If, instead, he/she asks a general, unfocused question or gives a statement of

76

confusion, he/she is likely to be given an answer and not an explanation or he/she may even be ignored (Webb, Nemer and Ing, 2006).

By asking specific questions the help-seeker’s cause of confusion is better

understood and a specific response is likely. Again, specific questions may function as a signal that the help-seeker is interested in learning especially if he/she is persistent in asking for help. If the question is general or if it is rather a statement about confusion, the help-giver may not know how to formulate a relevant answer. The group members, then, may believe that because the help-seeker is too confused to understand, they should supply an answer without an explanation. Sometimes they may choose to ignore the help-seeker as they tend to believe that he/she depends on their work and see him/her as a loafer or free rider (Salomon and Globerson, 1989).

It is true when the help-seeker expresses general questions, indeed, he/she may be confused or be a work-deflector (Webb and Mastergeorge, 2003). It could also be, however, that he/she wants to avoid trying for fear of failure, or does not want to risk appearing stupid (Middleton and Midgley 1997; Newman 1998). It is often the case when the help-seeker expresses general questions to be ignored or insulted. Then this student usually stops persisting and withdraws from group work (Salomon and Globerson, 1989). It appears that students may not enjoy group work because loafing may take place (Phipps, et al., 2001) usually with high achievers being the loafers’ victims (Forrest, Kershaw and Bott, 1998). Wing-yi, et al. (2008) suggest that loafing is minimised when both high and low achievers experience positive group processes.

A group is required to possess certain knowledge in order to manage a learning task. This managing knowledge can be ‘knowing-about’ or ‘knowing-how’ (Bereiter and Soardamalia, 1993:49). The ‘know-about’ domain covers ‘the semantics

77

(vocabulary, facts, symbols, etc.) and episodes (the various types of challenges or problem settings encountered in the domain)’ and the ‘know-how’ domain is the ‘understanding of how the basic semantic and episodic pieces of the puzzle are causally linked’ (Lubatkin, Florin and Lane, 2001:1355). Mostly knowledge is known

as declarative and procedural (Anderson, 1983). Declarative knowledge is explicit

knowledge whereas, procedural knowledge is skill or task-related. Bereiter (2002) believes that the two knowledge categories are meaningful only when they are linked. Additionally, Bereiter (2002:148) offers a broader typology of knowledge (statable, implicit, episodic, impressionistic, skill and regulative knowledge) categories, which are integrated when there is a high level of mastery: the deeper the mastery, the deeper the integration.

Consequently, when students work in groups to accomplish a task the two types of knowledge should be intertwined. At the same time students need to make a

decision, a quite complex process since it may involve social, economic, ethical and political considerations (Driver, Leach, Millar and Scott, 1996). To develop decision making skills, students should learn how to reason, to evaluate alternatives and to weigh up evidence, in short, to develop the skill of argumentation (Jimenez- Aleixandre and Pereiro-Munoz, 2005; Zeidler et al., 2003) and critical thinking (Wegerif, 2004). To argue means that information is communicated, evaluated and justified against a body of evidence and opposite views are clarified using dialogic ways. To think critically means ideas and evidence are explored, speculated and assessed.

Although seven to eleven year old children are capable of critical thinking skills, few opportunities are planned and, in the event that there is a chance for conversation in the classroom, the teacher usually controls it and the students rarely engage

78

provide opportunities for students to develop reasoning and a line of arguments in structured and coherent ways (Cazden, 2001) so that students can practise how ‘to cope with uncertainty when having to make choices and decisions’ (Maloney and Simon, 2007:1818).

Wing-yi et al. (2008) state that both the kind and the quality of interaction are important. They believe that when the quality of interaction among group members is high, learning outcomes are better. They also argue that quality in interaction sustains a higher collective efficacy for both high and low achievers. This quality is comprised of four elements in group processes: positive interdependence, individual

accountability, equal participation and social skills. All four elements must be

present. In other words, it is important that (i) every member feels that he/she needs the other group members to succeed; that is why there should be mutual learning goals, joint rewards, shared resources and assigned roles in each group, (ii) the success of the group depends on the individual learning of all members; that is why every member should contribute and this contribution should be evaluated and feedback should be given at an individual and group level, (iii) every member should have a share of work; that is why all members in a group should actively participate, and (iv) social skills in communication, helping skills, decision-making, trust building and conflict management are needed as they will facilitate group interaction.