Essay on Working in a Group PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay Question: In what way can psychological evidence help us to understand the benefits of working in groups and how can this impact our learning?...

Description

In what way can psychological evidence help us to understand the benefits of working in groups and how can this impact our learning? Working in groups helps to improve how we interact with others as well as our ability to learn. This essay looks at research into group dynamics, development, and structures in order to investigate how performance can be maximised for learning. Tuckman (1965) suggested that groups must go through a 4-stage developmental sequence before they will be effective and fully-functioning. In the first stage, forming, the members of the group establish their initial relationships and become orientated with each other and the task. Storming is the second stage; members find themselves in conflict and emotionally responding to the lack of unity. In the third stage, norming, the groups start to become cohesive and each member’s role becomes more established. Performing was originally the final stage, where the group has reached the point of working efficiently together. The adjourning stage was later added by Tuckman and Jenson (1977): the group disbands after completing the task (Bonebright, D. A. 2010). This model implies that for a group to be productive, they must reach the third stage of development. Research has suggested that a cohesive group is a more effective group, however, it is unclear which is the variable, and which is the effect. A meta-analysis showed the conflicting results of studies into the relationship between group performance and cohesion but concluded that there was a more direct link between performance causing a change in the group cohesiveness than vice versa (Mullen and Copper, 1994). This is useful to direct learning as it implies that a group will gradually break down, lose cohesion, as the performance level decreases, and that in order to be successful the group should maintain a high quality of work from the beginning, so they are able to function well throughout. Social facilitation can be described as the tendency to perform a task better or more quickly when in the presence of others (Allport, 1924). Research into the effects of the presence of others on performance began in 1898 when Triplett conducted a study testing the motor skills of children and found that some performed better and others worse under competitive conditions (Straus et al.). Later research by suggested that the effects of others depended on the task; performance is enhanced by other people when the task requires an instinctual or ‘dominant’ response but inhibited if the task is complicated and requires a ‘nondominant’ response (Zajonc, R. B. 1965; Forsyth, 2019). The negative effect of others on performance is social inhibition (Jhangiani et al. 2014), which has been suggested to be caused by evaluation

apprehension. This is the influence of having others watch you with the potential to evaluate your performance; it causes behaviour changes due to fear of criticism or embarrassment (Bond et al. 1996). This concept suggests that, in certain situations, working in a group may improve the performance of members. For example, learning a dance routine as a group puts pressure on members to maintain synchrony. This may cause the individuals to concentrate harder and therefore increase the rate that they learn the dance moves in comparison to learning them whilst alone. However, learning dance moves is a process that would be considered dominant and if instead, it was an arithmetic contest, the pressure of not disappointing your team may inhibit your ability to calculate a problem, as this would be a considered a much more complicated, non-dominant task. Therefore, the theory of social facilitation can help to predict when group work will enhance or impair the ability of individuals to learn, depending on the situation. When working in a group, each individuals contribution towards the final product is not necessarily equal. Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory suggests that people have a need for a clear self-image and look to others for comparison. However further research questions the motivation behind social comparisons and implies that we compare ourselves to others for two other reasons: to self-improve and to maintain a positive self-image (Corcoran et al. 2011). Individuals seek out upwards comparisons- comparisons to more fortunate others- in order to find ways to improve their situation and motivation. Taylor and Lobel (1989) found that cancer patients who were coping well and being positive were used as role models by other patients who reported that they felt more optimistic and inspired after witnessing their behaviour. This suggests that social comparisons to a perceived high achieving group member may encourage increased work ethic and improve communication. On the other hand, Willis (1981) investigated downward social comparison and theorised that a person can improve their image of themselves and therefore their emotional wellbeing by comparing themselves to a ‘less fortunate’ other. In group work, a member may compare themselves to another in the group they think has contributed less than them and decide to either not work any harder or to decrease their effort in order to feel equal to them. Therefore, social comparison is both a positive and a negative of group work depending on whether the comparison is upwards or downwards. The effect is larger if the difference between the levels of motivation and contribution of members is very distinct, as this makes comparisons steeper in both directions. If a group contains hard workers that are highly motivated, it may mean that other group members follow this example and work harder. But this could also occur with groups

of unmotivated members. A method of assessing group member contribution is by using a peer evaluation system (PES), where all members of a group score each other on previously decided criteria and comment on their performance. PES allows for insight into the internal workings of the group that wouldn’t usually be seen by an outsider, so allows for a more fair, representative assessment of each individual. In addition, it is a learning opportunity for feedback from peers on your performance. Brutus and Donia (2010) found that the peer evaluations of students improved from semester to semester suggesting that the students learnt from the feedback and changed their behaviours in response. Active learning uses meaningful activities that make the learner think about what they are doing and why (Prince, M. 2004). It includes the two types of group work: collaborative learning and cooperative learning. Collaborative learning involves students working in groups towards a common goal, whilst the cooperative learning involves working together but being assessed individually. Springer et al. (1999) performed a meta-analysis on research into the effects of collaborative learning on undergraduate students. The analyses concluded that small-group learning was significantly more effective than lecture-based instruction and showed improved achievement. Alternatively, another meta-analysis found that on average across the studies looked at cooperative efforts outperformed competitive efforts by half a standard deviation, indicating that cooperative efforts resulted in better problem solving than competitive efforts (Qin et al. 1995). The results from the meta-analyses suggest that both cooperative and collaborative learning yield better results than learning individually. These two types of group work are very similar, but cooperative learning puts more emphasis on individual contribution as each member is unable to rely on the group to receive the achievement. Slavin et al. (2012) suggested that if only one or two members of the group do most of the work, the group learning as not occurred. Each member is given an individual grade based on their contribution making it more likely that all members will participate and makes achieving group-learning more likely. Therefore, it could be argued that for this reason, collaborative learning may be more effective and beneficial than cooperative learning. This gives us useful insight into the type of group that should be used in order to maximise the learning of students. An advantage of being part of a group provides the option to share, compare and utilise ideas from multiple different perspectives and therefore gain a more holistic insight into any specific subject. Brainstorming is a method of sharing ideas to gain a perspective of all the gathered information, though it is affected by social and cognitive influences as researched by

Paulus and Brown (2007). Knowledge of these influences allows for the formation and use of preventative measures. For example, one social factor, coined production blocking, is where idea sharing is interfered with by having to wait for our turn, or by being spoken over or interrupted (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). By improving the downfall of group sharing, it allows for the benefits of groups to be more prominent. In conclusion, there is lots of research into the dynamics and development of groups and how it affects learning. By looking at how group members interact and contribute to tasks systems, like peer evaluation, can be implemented that encourage hard work whilst teaching about perception and self-improvement. Research into group development and internal influences generates new ideas on improving group efficiency and performance. Overall, both the benefits and drawbacks are essential in allowing us to know when group work is suitable, how it should be monitored and what systems can be put in place to maximise learning.

References: Anson, R., & Goodman, J. A. (2014). A peer assessment system to improve student team experiences. Journal of Education for Business, 89(1), 27-34. Bond, Jr, C. F., Atoum, A. O., & VanLeeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social impairment of complex learning in the wake of public embarrassment. Basic and applied social psychology, 18(1), 31-44.

Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111120.

Brutus, S., & Donia, M. B. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of students in groups with a centralized peer evaluation system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 652-662. Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2011). Social comparison: Motives, standards, and mechanisms.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 497.

Forsyth, D. R. (2019). The psychology of groups. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. DOI:nobaproject.com

Jhangiani, R., Tarry, H., & Stangor, C. (2014). Principles of social psychology-1st international edition.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681.

Markant, D. B., Ruggeri, A., Gureckis, T. M., & Xu, F. (2016). Enhanced memory as a common effect of active learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 142-152. Moradi, S., Faghiharam, B., & Ghasempour, K. (2018). Relationship Between Group Learning and Interpersonal Skills With Emphasis on the Role of Mediating Emotional Intelligence Among High School Students. SAGE Open, 8(2), 2158244018782734. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 210.

Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive‐ social‐ motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248-265.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of educational Research, 65(2), 129-143. Slavin, R. E. (2012). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition, 7.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A metaanalysis. Review of educational research, 69(1), 21-51. Strauss, B. (2002). Social facilitation in motor tasks: a review of research and theory. Psychology of sport and exercise, 3(3), 237-256.

Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological review, 96(4), 569.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological bulletin, 90(2), 245.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269-274....