Triadic theoretical dimensions

There are many dimensions to the study of group work, many theories, many methods, strategies, tools, guidelines and instructions, that to attempt to reduce an exploratory study such as this to a single theoretical perspective on group work is futile. Instead it seems appropriate to embrace key components from a range of perspectives and, in line with the approach taken by Baker et al. (2013), seek common themes and bridges to link them. Denzin (1989) considers this type of theoretical triangulation ‘an integral feature of the research process [particularly] in those areas characterized by a high degree of theoretical incoherence [such as] contemporary theory in the area of small-group analysis, for example’ (p. 240). The following sections will therefore highlight relevant key dimensions in prior work and propose a framework for this study.

3.2.1 Key dimensions in social learning frameworks

A review of seminal works and more recent developments in the various fields of research relating to collaborative and cooperative learning, small groups, and organisational teamwork, suggests that a number of synergies exist. Most notably they commonly describe triadic interactions among key dimensions. Table 3.1 provides a summarised list

46 of the key dimensions identified in some of the main social learning and team-skills frameworks, along with the author/s and their respective areas of research. Not surprisingly, across time and domains, three key components dominate in the study of groups: the group/social perspective, the individual perspective, and various contextual or environmental aspects. From the broadest viewpoint, Kurt Lewin (1945) proposed that psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology needed to be integrated in theory and methods to appropriately study group life. He explained that to understand group interactions in all forums it was not only important, but there was an urgent need, to incorporate perspectives of the individual, social systems, and cultural context, in combination, referred to as the ‘life-space’ or ‘field’ (Lewin, 1943). At the beginning of the third millennium, the focus on this triad has not waned.

From an historical perspective, the main difference in the key dimensions of group learning research appears to be the particular contextual emphasis relevant to the period of time the theory was being espoused. For example, the catalyst for Lewin’s (1945) urgency to address group dynamics, and Deutsch’s (1949) work on conflict, cooperation and competition, was World War II; interest in cognitive processes was influenced by the dawning of the computer age in the late 1950’s and 60’s (Hilgard, 1996); and in the early 21st century, globalisation and internet-based information and technologies subject us to interwoven and multi-layered networks, driving a greater emphasis on theoretical integration rather than simply extending existing theories to encapsulate social interactions. It is also highlighting a need to better understand the affective and emotional as well as social, economic and cognitive dimensions of working and learning together (Baker et al., 2013).

What is not immediately apparent in Table 3.1 however, is this evolution of the respective theories and how they have developed in close proximity to each other. Baker et al. (2013) point out, for example, that collaborative learning research has generally been framed from a socio-cognitive and behavioural perspective with little reference to the study of group dynamics. Recognising the interdisciplinary gaps, Baker et al. (2013) urge collaborative learning research to embrace the issues of interpersonal relationships, social representations, and emotions, which have been addressed more readily in the group dynamics literature.

47

Table 3.1 Key dimensions identified in social learning and team-skills frameworks

Author/s Field Topic/Theory Key dimensions

1 2 3

Lewin (1947) Social Psychology Group dynamics theory Psychology Sociology Cultural anthropology Deutsch (1949) Psychology Social interdependence

theory

Cooperative Competitive Individualistic

Deutsch (1949) Psychology Social interdependence theory

Goal achievement Situational context Bidirectional

Vygotsky (1978) Psychology Socio-cultural theory Culture Communication Cognition Skinner (1953) Psychology Operant conditioning Social behaviour Personal control Group control

Bandura (1977; 1986) Psychology Social cognitive theory Personal Behaviour Environment Bandura (1991) Psychology Social cognitive theory Individual agency Proxy (social) agency Collective agency Slavin (1995) Educational Psychology Cooperative learning Group goals/rewards Ind. accountability Group structure Slavin (1996) Educational Psychology Cooperative learning Motivational perspective Social Cohesion Cognitive perspective Johnson et al. (1998) Educational Psychology Cooperative learning Social interdependence Cognitive developmt Behavioural learning Johnson & Johnson (1989) Educational Psychology Cooperative learning Formal Informal Long term groups

Johnson & Johnson (1989) Social Psychology Social interdependence theory

Positive interdependence Negative interdepend. No interdependence

Johnson & Johnson (1989) Social Psychology Positive & negative interdep. Outcome Means Boundary

Johnson & Johnson (2003) Social Psychology Positive interdependence Effort to achieve Pos. interpersonal rel. Psychological health Greeno (2006) Sociocultural psychology Situated learning Activity systems Individual cognition Interaction

Michaelsen & Sweet(2008)

Education Team based learning (TBL) Grp formation & mgmt Ind. accountability Feedback & task design

TBL(1) Grp formation Resources Cohesiveness Development TBL(2) Ind. accountability Preparation Contribution Quality performance TBL(3) Feedback & design Frequent & immediate Interaction Decision making

feedback

Perry & Winne (2013) Educational Psychology Interpersonal regulation Self-regulation Co-regulation Shared-regulation Volet et al (2009) Educational Psychology Interpersonal regulation Individual Social entity Social context Barker et al (2013) Education Collaborative learning Cognitive Social Affective Druskat & Wolff (2001) Psychology Emotional intelligence Trust Group identity Group efficacy Jehn & Mannix (2001) Psychology Intragroup conflict Relationship conflict Task conflict Process conflict Tjosvold (1986) Business & Management:

Organisational Behaviour Goal interdependence theory Organisational structure Goal interdependence

Interpersonal attitudes & values

48 Cooperative learning research, on the other hand, has a direct ancestral linkage to Lewin’s (1945) group dynamics and Field Theory, through his student, Marton Deutsch, and his Theory of Social Interdependence (Deutsch, 1949). Social Interdependence Theory has been further developed by Deutsch’s student, David Johnson, and applied to the study of cooperative learning since 1949 (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a). Forsyth (2010, p. 52) points out that these ‘different theoretical perspectives [on group dynamics] are not mutually exclusive paradigms’.

The key link that unifies postmodern constructivist perspectives is, first and foremost, that learning and understanding are inherently social (Palincsar, 1996), but more specifically that interdependence is the underpinning construct. John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) explain that the overarching focus of knowledge co-construction from a sociocultural perspective is the interdependence of social and individual processes. For theorists in the group dynamics arena, Kurt Lewin’s proposal that ‘the essence of a group is the interdependence among members that results in the group being a dynamic whole’ is fundamental to their historical roots (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, p. 88).

The following sections will therefore focus on interdependence and briefly review the historical connections social learning theories have to each other through this concept.