Group Dynamics and the 21st Century Learner
This section will address the idea of groups, collaboration and technology. Specifically, how technology influences the interactions between group members.
What is a group?
There are many different ideas of what defines a group. Is a group defined by the characteristics of its members? Their common goals, relationships, common ideals, religion? Is a group defined by what they produce or do groups even need to create a product?
Forsyth(2009) cites that a group "requires at least two people. You cannot be a group until you join with another person...groups connect to one another [and] in most cases the connection is socially meaningful" (p.2). Levi (2013) further asserts that "groups are more than just collections of people. Groups have goals, interdependent relationships, interactions, structured relationships and mutual influence" (p.15). A group is complex in nature it can be spontaneously or purposely formed, large or small, task oriented, socially oriented, and or politically oriented. There are many different reasons for a group to form and to fall apart and this speaks to the social aspect that groups depend on. Given the complexity of this term and for the purposes of this section a group will be defined as a Task Group. A task group is a goal focused group formed for a specific purpose (Forsyth, 2006) and has a mutual interest to see the task accomplished (Levi, 2013). This may seem simplistic for such a complex term, but the groups formed in this program were created for the specific purpose of learning and completing tasks assigned by the professors for which they were graded.The relationships that arose from these interactions were positive and were extended to other classes when members of the groups would reform to create new groups.
What are the characteristics of a group?
According to Forsyth (1999), there are key characteristics of a group. These are some of the characteristics of groups:“interaction, size, goals, unity and temporal change“( p.9). The following will discuss the terms Interaction, Size and Goals.
Interaction: Interaction is how the group members work together to achieve their goals. It has been my experience that the interaction between group members is vital to the success of the presentation. However, it is interesting to note that even if all of the members do not participate the group tends to regroup within itself, so as to still achieve the same goal. This is an aspect of group collaboration that I have experienced and will seek further to explain in the artifacts and reflections section.
Size:The size of a group can vary between 2 ( dyad) to thousands of members. For the most part groups tend to be composed of 2-7 members (Forsyth, 2006). In this program and professionally I have worked with groups of 2 and groups of 7 and find the experiences to be vastly different. A group of 2 was marginally easier in that there was only one other individual to work with and run ideas by. Work could be split up easier and done faster. In a group of 4 or more, group dynamics played a more significant role and at times it was more difficult to organize the group in a cohesive way.
Goals: The groups formed in each class were designed for a specific purpose. Mostly the goals were to produce work, but at times they were formed to discuss issues that were presented. Quite simply, “Groups make it easier to attain our goals” (Forsyth,1999).
Group Dynamics: Within groups there are always dynamics at play. Generally, members of the groups take on specific roles. These roles are defined as “Interactive positions within a group; the micro components of a group's structure”(Communicating in Groups: Glossary, 2006), emotional Roles (Forsyth,1999). This isn’t to say that roles don’t change over time and that the needs of the group might facilitate those changes. For example, if you have a group that is filled with leaders, the strongest will most likely emerge as the leader of the group and the other members will find other tasks to fulfill. Each role is important as it helps to structure the group and give it direction.
Groups Dynamics and Technology:
In this program we worked in both an asynchronous and synchronous environments. A Synchronous environment is one that is generally supported by videoconferencing, chat, audio and has more of a social aspect connected to it (Hrastinski, 2008). As well, the synchronist environment helps to alleviate feelings of isolationism that some might feel but creating an interactive real time community of learners (Haythornthwaite, 2002). An asynchronous environment usually involves email and discussion boards. This appeals to many because of it's flexibility. Users are able to juggle the many demands of their lives and be able to participate in a class at their own pace (Hrastinski, 2008).
The dynamics were different for both situations. In a synchronous environment it was easier to get one’s point across quickly and in real time. Discussion could be made faster and work could progress at a quicker pace. However, with technology comes the issue of not being able to read the body language of the members. Often individuals would speak over one another, points would get muffled, sometimes the technology wouldn’t work i.e.: no audio. These were all easily overcome but slowed the organic fluidness that a face to face situation might produce. I often remember going to break out rooms and was reminded of when we would split off into groups in elementary school to do group work. However, we weren't sitting in the hallway dividing up work and reading each others personal cues. In fact much of the time we knew nothing about each other's strengths or weaknesses, but rather had to trust that the other members were going to perform to the best of their ability. Trust that our interests were the same and trust that the work would get done when we logged off.
In an asynchronous environment we usually relied on technologies that could facilitate group work, while still working independently. Blogs, Wikis, Slide rocket, Prezi are all good examples of this work strategy. As a group we would decide on a topic, divide the information up (if necessary) and then do the work independently, posting our information as we went. The product produced was done both independently and collaboratively. When it came down to group oral presentations, the same premise would apply unless it was to be taped which became a more complicated matter.
Overall, technology bridged the gap between time and space by allowing groups to work collaboratively and independently at the same time. One could contribute to the group’s goal in their own time, but always cognizant that their contributions effected the others and that we succeeded or failed as a group.
Please continue to the Artifacts and Reflections page of this section for examples of this dichotomy.
What is a group?
There are many different ideas of what defines a group. Is a group defined by the characteristics of its members? Their common goals, relationships, common ideals, religion? Is a group defined by what they produce or do groups even need to create a product?
Forsyth(2009) cites that a group "requires at least two people. You cannot be a group until you join with another person...groups connect to one another [and] in most cases the connection is socially meaningful" (p.2). Levi (2013) further asserts that "groups are more than just collections of people. Groups have goals, interdependent relationships, interactions, structured relationships and mutual influence" (p.15). A group is complex in nature it can be spontaneously or purposely formed, large or small, task oriented, socially oriented, and or politically oriented. There are many different reasons for a group to form and to fall apart and this speaks to the social aspect that groups depend on. Given the complexity of this term and for the purposes of this section a group will be defined as a Task Group. A task group is a goal focused group formed for a specific purpose (Forsyth, 2006) and has a mutual interest to see the task accomplished (Levi, 2013). This may seem simplistic for such a complex term, but the groups formed in this program were created for the specific purpose of learning and completing tasks assigned by the professors for which they were graded.The relationships that arose from these interactions were positive and were extended to other classes when members of the groups would reform to create new groups.
What are the characteristics of a group?
According to Forsyth (1999), there are key characteristics of a group. These are some of the characteristics of groups:“interaction, size, goals, unity and temporal change“( p.9). The following will discuss the terms Interaction, Size and Goals.
Interaction: Interaction is how the group members work together to achieve their goals. It has been my experience that the interaction between group members is vital to the success of the presentation. However, it is interesting to note that even if all of the members do not participate the group tends to regroup within itself, so as to still achieve the same goal. This is an aspect of group collaboration that I have experienced and will seek further to explain in the artifacts and reflections section.
Size:The size of a group can vary between 2 ( dyad) to thousands of members. For the most part groups tend to be composed of 2-7 members (Forsyth, 2006). In this program and professionally I have worked with groups of 2 and groups of 7 and find the experiences to be vastly different. A group of 2 was marginally easier in that there was only one other individual to work with and run ideas by. Work could be split up easier and done faster. In a group of 4 or more, group dynamics played a more significant role and at times it was more difficult to organize the group in a cohesive way.
Goals: The groups formed in each class were designed for a specific purpose. Mostly the goals were to produce work, but at times they were formed to discuss issues that were presented. Quite simply, “Groups make it easier to attain our goals” (Forsyth,1999).
Group Dynamics: Within groups there are always dynamics at play. Generally, members of the groups take on specific roles. These roles are defined as “Interactive positions within a group; the micro components of a group's structure”(Communicating in Groups: Glossary, 2006), emotional Roles (Forsyth,1999). This isn’t to say that roles don’t change over time and that the needs of the group might facilitate those changes. For example, if you have a group that is filled with leaders, the strongest will most likely emerge as the leader of the group and the other members will find other tasks to fulfill. Each role is important as it helps to structure the group and give it direction.
Groups Dynamics and Technology:
In this program we worked in both an asynchronous and synchronous environments. A Synchronous environment is one that is generally supported by videoconferencing, chat, audio and has more of a social aspect connected to it (Hrastinski, 2008). As well, the synchronist environment helps to alleviate feelings of isolationism that some might feel but creating an interactive real time community of learners (Haythornthwaite, 2002). An asynchronous environment usually involves email and discussion boards. This appeals to many because of it's flexibility. Users are able to juggle the many demands of their lives and be able to participate in a class at their own pace (Hrastinski, 2008).
The dynamics were different for both situations. In a synchronous environment it was easier to get one’s point across quickly and in real time. Discussion could be made faster and work could progress at a quicker pace. However, with technology comes the issue of not being able to read the body language of the members. Often individuals would speak over one another, points would get muffled, sometimes the technology wouldn’t work i.e.: no audio. These were all easily overcome but slowed the organic fluidness that a face to face situation might produce. I often remember going to break out rooms and was reminded of when we would split off into groups in elementary school to do group work. However, we weren't sitting in the hallway dividing up work and reading each others personal cues. In fact much of the time we knew nothing about each other's strengths or weaknesses, but rather had to trust that the other members were going to perform to the best of their ability. Trust that our interests were the same and trust that the work would get done when we logged off.
In an asynchronous environment we usually relied on technologies that could facilitate group work, while still working independently. Blogs, Wikis, Slide rocket, Prezi are all good examples of this work strategy. As a group we would decide on a topic, divide the information up (if necessary) and then do the work independently, posting our information as we went. The product produced was done both independently and collaboratively. When it came down to group oral presentations, the same premise would apply unless it was to be taped which became a more complicated matter.
Overall, technology bridged the gap between time and space by allowing groups to work collaboratively and independently at the same time. One could contribute to the group’s goal in their own time, but always cognizant that their contributions effected the others and that we succeeded or failed as a group.
Please continue to the Artifacts and Reflections page of this section for examples of this dichotomy.