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 cohesions 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 Tuckmans (1965) norming stage where they promote high standards of productivity)

Tuckmans 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 Post-test

N 38 38 N 21 21

Mean 45.6053 52.7105 Mean 74.0000 79.3333

SD 9.8050 9.3315 SD 9.0554 5.0332

Cohesion
Pre-test Post-test

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 Post-test

N 87 87 N 27 27

Mean 47.3793 49.4368 Mean 76.4815 62.8148

SD 10.7792 12.2728 SD 7.8071 8.3897

Cohesion
Pre-test Post-test

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.