A written reflection of the group process in Part I on the group wiki that addresses the following:
– A description and analysis of the group learning process
– Synthesis of readings and research from this subject
– A reflection of how this process can further inform your experiences of learning communities
(word count: 1233)
……………………………………………………………………….
Although I generally prefer to work independently rather than in groups, I found the group learning experience to be very powerful. Reviewing our group learning process as we passed through the stages of forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman 1965), and reflecting on further reading on this topic has led to the following analysis that has further helped to inform my experiences of learning communities.
ALL GROUP MEMBERS NEED TO ENGAGE TO BEGIN
The group formation process for this assignment was a painful process to watch. Our group formed fairly quickly through the merging of two smaller but cohesive groups. Saunders (1999) explains that a high level of cohesiveness is important in helping to create an effective group learning experience. Lacking cohesion, a number of groups struggled to form. I felt a strong desire to just allocate everyone else into groups but part of the experience of the group learning process was to let groups evolve. Although there were people who clearly were active in trying to rally a group, there was little they could do if the other group members simply did not respond. This led to frustration, delays and a quest for alternative group members. The UTS Institute for Media and Interactive Learning (2007) explains that one of the disadvantages of self-selected groups is that it can be dis-empowering for some who then feel they are left in the ‘unwanted’ group. This task required all members to be proactive from the start, it was not enough for one person to try and take charge.
IMPORTANCE OF GROUP CHARTERS
For a group to be effective a group charter is essential. At first our group members made only tentative changes to the work of other members. After determining our group standards, and deciding to edit the entry as though it was our own, but with consideration and respect for differing viewpoints, we confidently edited all work. This process was strongly supported by the technology. By knowing that we could at any time retrieve earlier versions on the wiki we were much more comfortable making changes to the work of others. Another factor of our success in this area was that we already had a good idea through the Ning of each other’s approaches. Callahan, Schenk and White (2008) explain that one of the factors of a successful team is a working knowledge of each other’s communication and learning styles. Had this been the first assignment it would have taken much longer for us to feel comfortable with this collaborative style of working.
THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS
There is a momentum that is created when a group of people collaborate. Ideas from one person will stimulate and generate ideas for another. Wenger (1999) discusses the idea that learning is first and foremost the ability to negotiate new meanings – the group process makes this much more achievable. At first I was unsure where to even begin with the group assignment. As one of our most active group members began to formulate a structure for our work, it was as though we had unpeeled part of a picture and were all beginning to see the image emerge. We weren’t sure what it would look like in the end, but we had a good idea of what direction to head. One idea led to another, we built on each other’s ideas and it was just a magical process to watch. What struck me most was that the finished piece of work was something I would have been unable to create myself. Pavitt (1998) discusses the concept of reductionism (where group members performance is limited to what they could have obtained alone) versus wholism. He comes to the conclusion that some tasks will lead to reductionism whereas other tasks support the idea of wholism – our task was definitely in the wholism category.
Again, this process was very much supported by the technology as the wiki allowed us to make changes in real time (without it needing to be a linear process where a document travels from one person to the next) dramatically speeding up the collaboration process.
GIVE AND TAKE IS ESSENTIAL
In a group of all strong characters with decided opinions, I had some initial reservations that we would all be very determined for the group to follow OUR path and direction and would therefore be stalemated at times. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that this was not the case at all. There were times when we had to make decisions as to which approach to take and it was clear that we did not all agree at all times, but having the facility to discuss our opinions and make a resolution definitely helped. As Callahan, Schenk and White (2008) explain, it is through the exploration of differences that creative and unexpected solutions are achieved. But for collaboration to work, group members must be prepared to accept they may not always agree with the direction of the group and to be accepting and supportive of the collective approach. It is a delicate balance though as the social pressures in the group process, if not handled correctly, can lead to many of the negative outcomes outlined by Saunders (1999) in his discussion on research findings on the group dynamics of adult learners.
LEADERSHIP IS NECESSARY
It was interesting that in our group at different times different members would take charge. This would usually be if it was something they felt strongly about or knew about. Chemer’s (2000) work in this area is interesting as it recognizes that leadership is determined by more complex factors than just personality traits, the context of situational parameters plays a large role. Without some leadership, groups would take much longer to reach their outcome. I particularly liked our group model where leadership was not explicitly granted but instead as the need arose someone in the group would step forward to meet that need and direct the group’s focus. This type of situational leadership theory was discussed by Forsyth (1990) suggesting that groups benefit from leadership that meshes with a group’s stage of development. Our group was fortunate in that all members were willing to step forward when necessary and share the load.
GOOD TOOLS HELP
Throughout this process we were supported by a range of excellent tools. The wiki itself, and in particular the use of discussion tabs on the wiki and the discussions in Ning, allowed us to participate in effective critical discourse (Redmond and Lock, 2006). These tools also allowed a mechanism for feedback – an important component of social learning as seen in the work of Saunders (1999). Interesting though that despite this we still felt the need for a face to face meeting and found this to be very helpful at a particular stage of the process.
As we now enter the group phase of adjourning (and maybe mourning) as recognized by Tuckman and Jensen (1977), perhaps the main lesson for me to take away is that as powerful as our technology tools may be, they are only as good as the people who use them – we can never neglect the human element in creating an effective learning community. Conversely, if the community is not supported by effective technology tools, it will struggle to reach its potential. In the end, good technology will make good learning communities even better.
References
Callahan, S., Schenk, M., White, N. 2008, Building a collaborative workplace, viewed 26 May 2008, <http://www.anecdote.com.au/whitepapers.php?wpid=15>.
Chemers, M. M.2000, ‘Leadership research and theory: A functional integration’. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 4, March, pp. 27-43.
Forsyth, D. R. 1990. Group Dynamics, 4th edn, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California.
Institute for Effective Learning and Media 2007, UTS, viewed 28 May 2008, <http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/learnteach/groupwork/unit3.html>.
Pavitt, C. 1998, ‘Groups Versus Individuals: Which is Better’, Small Group Communication: A Theoretical Approach, viewed 30 May < http://www.udel.edu/communication/COMM356/pavitt/chap2.htm>
Redmond, P., Lock, J.V. 2006. ‘A flexible framework for online collaborative learning’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol 9, pp. 273.
Saunders, S. 1999, ‘Social Psychology of Adult Learning’ in James Athanasou (ed.), Adult Educational Psychology, Sydney Social Press, Katoomba, pp. 26-71.
Tuckman, B. W. 1965, ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399, viewed 26 May 2008, <http://dennislearningcenter.osu.edu/references/GROUP%20DEV%20ARTICLE.doc>.
Tuckman, B.W., Jensen, M. C. 1977. ‘Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited’, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, 4pp. 19-427.
Wenger, E. 1999, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, USA.