|
Article Excerpt
Considering recent claims that groups are important to teaching and learning, the authors examine the differences between groups and collections of people to see how one might create learning groups when designing learning and instruction. Based on literature in the fields of group dynamics and education, characteristics of groups are listed and explored. Strategies for creating learning groups are synthesized. Implications for practice are discussed.
**********
There have been a number of claims that groups are important to teaching and learning. For example, Shaban and Head (2003) have called the use of group projects an essential tool for learning. In addition, Bhattacharya and Chatterjee (2000) claimed there were several "pedagogical advantages" (p. 298) to using groups.
Much of this interest in groups stems from the work of Piaget (1928, 1973), Vygotsky (1978), and, more recently, Jonassen (1990). Crook (1998) argued that, though these works have often talked about social learning or collaboration, it may not be accurate to interpret them as group work. For example: Students learn to work in groups to solve a realistic and authentic problem, thus gaining collaborative learning experience. (Neo & Neo, 2002, p. 144)
The students work together in groups (collaboration) ... (Black &
McClintok, 1996, p.26) You must provide as much opportunity as possible for individual reflection (for example, analysis of errors) and social interaction (for example, group labs). Clearly, each educator must decide how to apply these aphorisms in a concrete situation. (Ben-Ari, 2001, p. 68) If using groups of people is important to teaching and learning, we need first to answer the question, "What is a group?" "More than one learner working together" may not be a sufficient definition. Tudge (1999) argued that merely asking learners to work together in educational research, or even pairing learners based on ability, is insufficient to foster the types of learning Piaget and Vygotsky discussed. In the fields of social psychology and group dynamics, Lewin (1948) and Forsyth (1999) argued that, even though people often find themselves gathered together, not all gatherings of people qualify as groups. Thus, while creating learning "groups" may appear simple, it is, in fact, more complex than it appears. Learning designers (teachers and instructional designers) will likely need to do more than simply cluster learners and assign them shared tasks.
To begin to address what learning designers should consider in creating learning groups, it may be beneficial to look at the possible definitions of groups to understand what makes a collection of people a group. This is not a new or novel idea. We often define the tools we are interested in using. [For example: What is the Internet? (Parritt, 2003) or What is a browser? (Ehley, 2003)]. We often seek to answer the same questions: What is this tool? What does it do? How does it work?
With familiar items such as chalkboards, it is easy to assume users will understand them and their uses, based on past experience. However, relying only on our past experience with groups to define them as a tool may be problematic. Kagan, Haveman, and Segal (1984) argued that relying on past experience may produce persistence of set. That is, when we rely on past experience with things, we build up a habitual way of approaching them (p. 192). This may lead us to functional fixedness. That is, once we see a tool as useful in one way, we ignore other potential uses and techniques for the tool (Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1999). Further, according to Nelson (1990), relying only on our experiential understanding of a type of item may cause us to misinterpret an object's attributes and purpose. Nelson cited the example of one coin that was similar to another coin, and often mistaken for the other, despite key differences in value and use.
Applying this to groups, it is quite possible we may take our experiential understanding of groups and misperceive their familiar operational qualities without fully understanding them. This could lead to the misapplication of groups or perpetuation of conceptual flaws in learning designs. Therefore, for the beginning teacher or instructional designer, it is important to understand just what a group is. This article explores different definitions of groups to give the beginning instructor or instructional designer some insight into what groups are. The article then identifies factors that contribute to the realization of these definitions, and poses questions learning designers might consider when designing group learning experiences.
WHAT MAKES A COLLECTION OF PEOPLE A GROUP?
Researchers vary in their opinion of what makes a collection of individuals a group. Cartwright and Zander (1968) asserted differing definitions of what a group is derived from the complexity of groups and the different aspects of groups and their context. Three ways of defining a group follow. While each is slightly different, they do not necessarily conflict. In fact, they often support one another and might be viewed as interlocking perspectives on a single definition.
A Group Perceives Itself to be a Group
Sometimes we find certain classroom groups interact more like a pile of conflicting individuals; other times the members seem to gel together into what feels like a group. As teachers, instructional designers, and learners, we can perceive that "groupness." This is the basis for social psychology's definition of a group: "A collection of persons who are perceived to be bonded together in a coherent unit to some degree" (Baron & Byrne, 2003, p. 475).
This idea of perception defining the reality of a group goes back to the early days of social psychology, when researchers argued whether a group was "real," or just the sum of the individual action of its members. Much of this debate was fostered by Triplett's (1898) claim that racers perform better when racing against each other than when racing individually against the clock. According to Triplett, this appeared to support the claims of some theorists, who suggested the existence of a "group mind" or "group intelligence" distinctly separate from the individual (Le Bon, 1896). In response to the idea that groups might have intelligence beyond that of individual members, Allport (1924) claimed (a) researchers need to stop relying on concepts from the past and start relying on scientific experimentation; (b) there is no group mind; and (c) group actions are simply the sum of individual members' actions.
Thomas (1928) addressed the crux of the argument when he explained that, even if groups are not real entities, when people perceive them to be real, they are real in their consequences. The idea is that people who perceive groups as "real" seem to act differently. Campbell (1958) coined the term entitativity to refer to the members' perception of the group as a real entity. According to Campbell, some collections of individuals are perceived to be a group more than other collections. Based on Campbell's idea of entitativity, Lickel et al. (2000), ran one study in which 40 different types of groups were rated for their entitativity by 199 U.S. college students, and a second study in which the same groups were rated by 154 Polish college students. The results are interesting, showing students questioned do indeed perceive a difference in whether the collection of people is a "group."
Lickel et. al. (2000) claimed that there was substantial variation among the group ratings. For example, in study one the ratings varied between an 8.27 and a 2.4. To show significance in perception, they used clustering analyses to segment the groups into categories. First, intimacy...
|
