Transcript Group Cohesion in a Collaborative Environment

Group Cohesion in
Collaborative Environments
Sami Stevick
Donna Ashcraft
Fred Keen
Troy Teeter
Clarion University
Thomas Treadwell
West Chester University
Cooperative vs. Collaborative
Learning
Cooperative learning:
• division of labor
• “cut and paste” approach
• lecture based
• product oriented
Cooperative vs. Collaborative
Learning
Collaborative learning:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
shared knowledge and experiences
shared goal(s)
ideas are constructed through group interaction and
interaction between individuals within the group
work on all parts of project by all members, hence a more
thorough understanding of subject
Constructivism
active learning
process oriented
Benefits of Group Work
(Petress, 2004)
•
Freud asserted that groups are replacements for our families.
•
Baumeister and Leary in their belongingness hypothesis, stated
that people have a need to belong to groups to avoid
unhappiness and loneliness.
•
Rubenstein & Shaver observed that people avoid loneliness
which can have devastating consequences such as depression,
shame, and self-pity.
•
Shaver & Buhrmeister stated that emotional and social loneliness
are consequences of isolation; both are reduced in a group
setting.
Benefits of Group Work
Emotional and Social Benefits (Forsyth, 1996)
• Sense of belonging
• Emotional support and intimacy
• Generativity
• Support
• Influence
• Exploration
Benefits of Group Work
Cognitive and Affective Benefits (Petress, 2004)
• Learn social skills
• Gain confidence
• Assertiveness practice
• Practice for future group work
• Practice communication skills (verbal and listening)
• Diversity in learning and sharing knowledge
• Reinforcement of self-efficacy
• Validation of knowledge
• Rotation of responsibilities affords opportunity to practice many roles
Group Work Processes
Task Dimension Duties (Petress, 2004)
• Goal setting and adjusting
• Data gathering and organizing duties
• Summarizing group tasks
• Procedural and outcome assessment and probing
responsibilities
• Agenda setting
Group Work Processes
Group Maintenance Duties (Petress, 2004)
• Giving each member a fairly equitable opportunity to
participate
• Focusing/refocusing on the task
• Recognizing and breaking group tension
• Mediating member disagreements
• Celebrating success on tasks/subtasks
• Caring for individual needs.
Group Cohesion
•
Many definitions, no consensus
•
Bonds that link group members to each other as
individuals and to the group, defining its “unity,
oneness, and solidarity”
(Forsyth, 1999, p.9)
Dimensions of Group Cohesion
(Forsyth, 1999)
•
•
•
•
Binding force
Group unity
Attraction
Teamwork
Benefits of Group Cohesion
(Peterson, 2007)
•
•
•
Greater cohesiveness = Greater productivity (Cartwright, 1968)
Each of group cohesion’s three points - attraction, unity (i.e.
group pride), and *commitment to task - are positively related to
group performance (Beal, et al., 2003)
When cohesion is strong, social and motivational forces are
strong leading to better performance (Cartwright, 1968)
Benefits of Group Cohesion
(Forsyth,1999)
•
•
•
•
Participant satisfaction
Less tension and anxiety
Better acceptance of group goals, decisions, and norms
Caveat: Productivity of cohesive groups is high when
groups establish norms that encourage high standards
of performance (success at reaching Tuckman’s (1965)
norming stage where they promote high standards of
productivity)
Tuckman’s Stages
Bruce Tuckman (1965) identified four stages of group
development:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Forming - orientation
Storming - conflict
Norming - unification and organization;
(actualization of cohesion)
Performing - production
CORAL
•
•
Collaborative On-line Research and Learning
Two Universities, Clarion and West Chester, at
each end of PA
Webboards
 File Manager
 Videoconferencing
 Chat rooms

Participants
•
Control Group: Students participating in shortterm group work as part of an objectivist class
•
Experimental Group: Students participating in
semester-long collaborative group work
(CORAL)
Materials and Procedure
•
Pre-test and Post-test:
 Attitudes
 Group
about Group Work (Stevick, 2007)
Cohesion Scales A & B (Treadwell,
Laverture, Kumar, & Veeraraghavan, 2001)
Results
•
Findings show significant increase in attitudes towards
group work for the CORAL class over the course of
the semester: t(38)= -3.738, p < .001.
•
Findings show the level of group cohesion increased
significantly for the CORAL class over the course of
the semester: t(21)= - 2.479, p < .05.
Results
CORAL
Attitudes
Pre-test
N
38
Mean
45.6053
SD
9.8050
Post-test
38
52.7105
9.3315
N
Mean
SD
Pre-test
21
74.0000
9.0554
Post-test
21
79.3333
5.0332
Cohesion
Results
•
For Non-CORAL class there was a significant decrease
in overall level of cohesiveness: t(27)= 6.429, p < .001.
•
No significant increase in attitudes towards group work
for Non- CORAL classes: t(87)= -1.601, p ≥ .05.
Results
Short-term Group Work
Attitudes
Pre-test
N
87
Mean
47.3793
SD
10.7792
Post-test
87
49.4368
12.2728
N
Mean
SD
Pre-test
27
76.4815
7.8071
Post-test
27
62.8148
8.3897
Cohesion
Summary of Results
•
Attitudes and level of cohesiveness same initially for CORAL
and Non-CORAL classes.
•
Attitudes and level of cohesiveness improved for CORAL class.
•
No discernible differences in attitudes towards group work in
Non-CORAL class from beginning to end of semester.
•
Significant decrease in level of cohesiveness for Non-CORAL
class.
Discussion
•
Results indicate a focused and organized group
environment such as CORAL is more conducive
to positive group attitudes and overall group
cohesiveness, whereas informal, nonconstructive settings impede the acquisition of
positive attitudes that are integral to levels of
group cohesion.
Implications
•
A need to alter conventional group work processes
which tend to get mired in the conflict stage (storming).
•
Awareness of the dynamics of cohesive group work
lends itself to higher levels of functioning.
•
Consistent and stable group projects facilitates growth
within the group, and in turn, fosters superior group
performance and cohesiveness.
References
•
•
•
•
Forsyth, D.R. (1999). Group Dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Peterson, F.W. (2007). Predicting group performance using
cohesion and social network density: A comparative
analysis. Retrieved 4/3/08 from
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA465295
Petress, K.C. (2004). The Benefits of Group Study.
Education. Summer Retrieved 3/2/08 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q3673/is_200
407/ai_n9422021
Treadwell, T., Laverture, N., Kumar, V.K., and
Veeraraghavan, V. (2001). The group cohesion scalerevised: reliability and validity. International Journal of
Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role
Playing, 54, 3-12.