Educational theories

A variety of theories provide a rationale for learning in small groups (see also Chapter 2). A constructivist approach emphasises building on learners’ existing knowledge in active learning environments, when old concepts can be challenged and new ones applied and elaborated (Dennick, 2008). Both Piaget’s later work on socio-cognitive conflict (Richardson, 1998), and Vygotsky’s writings stressed the part that social interaction plays in cognitive development. Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ – the gap between an individual’s developmental level and their potential level – can be closed by collaborating with more capable peers in groups (Wertsch, 1985). Experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) emphasises that reflection on experience leads to cognitive elaboration and subsequent action planning, which can be fostered by small group interaction. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) stresses the role of social interaction in learning, the hallmark of SGTL. The framework of Lave and Wenger (1991) describes how learners are inducted into ‘communities of practice’, again stressing the primacy of social learning. Communities of practice are environments in which learners engage in reflective practice as described by Schön (1983), a process encouraged and fostered by learning in groups.

The more intimate relationships between teachers and learners that develop in groups can be understood in terms of the humanistic theories of Rogers (1983) and Maslow (1968). These theories embed individuals in sets of social relationships that need to be optimised for effective personal development and learning to occur. Maslow’s work highlighted the fundamental importance of creating supportive psychological and social environments. He suggested that each individual is motivated to fulfil basic needs (e.g. physiological) before moving on to address other, more complex needs (e.g. psychological); these levels are often portrayed as a ‘hierarchy of needs’ (Maslow, 1943). See Figure 9.1 (and later).

Figure 9.1 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

A significant amount of learning comes about through observing and reflecting on the thoughts and actions of others, and group learning is the ideal context for so-called vicarious learning. The discussion that follows observation promotes deep learning and in the context of professional or vocational education this also includes the acquisition of domain-specific language and concepts (McKendree, 2003). Dialogue thus enhances experience through what has been called a ‘conversational apprenticeship’ (McKendree et al, 1998).

A broader viewpoint on groups has recently been provided by a large interdisciplinary study, which has categorised a number of theoretical perspectives listed in Table 9.2. Each theoretical perspective is briefly described, the inputs, processes, and outputs of group activities are listed, and some of the main theoretical ideas and concepts that the perspective deals with are also listed (Pool and Hollingshead, 2005). Some of the concepts overlap with ideas in social psychology described later, but some are independent theoretical constructs in their own right.

Table 9.2 Theoretical perspectives on groups

Most recently, the language of complexity theory has been invoked to explain some of the processes and outcomes of small group learning. Mennin explored this in relation to PBL (Mennin, 2007), quoting Arrow et al: “Groups, are open complex systems that interact with smaller systems (group members) embedded within them and the larger systems (organisations, classes, and society) within which they are embedded. Groups have fuzzy boundaries that both distinguish them from and connect them to their members and embedding contexts” (Arrow et al, 2000). It can be argued that all groups (not just PBL groups) demonstrate features of a complex adaptive system; i.e. comprise a set of interdependent units – group members and facilitator – and are non-linear, adaptive, and self-organising.

The social psychology of groups

In addition to educational theories, there are some important social psychology theories that can be used to understand the nature of groups and their dynamics. First, there are theories about social influences in small groups, which deal with issues such as compliance, conformity, and obedience. Second, there are theories that explore concepts such as in-group/out-group behaviour, aggression, and prejudice (Avermaet, 2001). Third, and more important from a small group teaching perspective, there are theories that deal with group performance (Wilke and Wit, 2001). These are discussed in more detail since they illuminate group dynamics and practical facilitation issues. Social psychologists observe that group performance is optimal when members collaborate and use their collective resources effectively. However, as a result of so-called ‘process losses’, such as poor co-ordination of group activities or reduction in the motivation of group members, optimal performance is not always achieved. Process losses can be caused by someone’s mere presence influencing another’s performance, a phenomenon termed ‘social inhibition’. This inhibition can itself be caused by ‘evaluation apprehension’ when an individual is concerned that their contribution will be criticised by other group members. Social inhibition can also be caused by ‘attention conflict’ when, for example, an individual’s attention to a task is distracted by the presence or behaviour of other group members. It is self-evident on the other hand that individuals are often positively motivated by others’ presence. Those inhibitory and activating factors affect different group members in different ways, depending on the nature of the group task; for example, whether it is a simple one with a clear goal or a complex, open-ended one. Other factors in group working identified by social psychologists are ‘social loafing’, when an individual reduces their effort (a motivational loss) so that their contribution cannot be identified, and ‘free-riding’, when individuals who consider their contribution to be dispensable leave the work to other group members. Recognising those phenomena and being able to deal with their consequences are among the most important skills required of a group facilitator.

Preparation is everything

The old adage that ‘by failing to prepare you are preparing to fail’, attributed to Benjamin Franklin (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/988 – accessed October 2009), is nowhere more relevant than in small group teaching. We now outline some conditions for effective SGTL.

Getting the psychological conditions right

SGTL is most likely to meet its goals if participants are physically, psychologically, spatially, and temporally organised, bearing in mind Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (see Figure 9.1, and later).

Physical conditions

Interpersonal conditions

Group learning thrives on discourse, debate, discussion, and argument but learners need to feel comfortable engaging in those activities and will be inhibited from participating if the conditions are not right. First impressions are important and many potential problems (see later) can be avoided by the facilitator starting a session in an appropriate way. There are a range of activities that need to be carried out early in a session to create the right conditions and context for deep learning.

Attitudes towards individual learners

An effective facilitator will have an attitude that encourages participants to talk, debate, and question. A facilitator needs to be ‘learner-centred’, acknowledging learners’ needs and their existing knowledge and skills, and building on them in an active, collaborative, and democratic way. They must recognise the autonomy of individuals and the responsibility they have towards their own personal growth and development. For some teachers, giving up their didactic ‘transmitter of knowledge’ role and adopting a more learner-centred approach is challenging. For others, it is a liberating acknowledgement of something they have always known: that people learn best when they are in control and, with appropriate support, take responsibility for their own learning. In the words of Carl Rogers, “As I began to trust students … . I changed from being a teacher… to being a facilitator of learning” (Rogers, 1983). There is a spectrum of potential interventions from total control at one end to a completely ‘hands-off’ approach at the other. A facilitator must be flexible enough to move back and forth along this spectrum in response to the evolving aims and dynamics of particular groups.

The nature of learners

A fundamental issue concerns the status of human knowledge, a topic that is also covered in Chapter 2. Are we born with some innate knowledge and a ‘human nature’ encoded in the hardwiring of our brains? Or are we born with a mind that is a blank slate or ‘tabula rasa’ on which experience writes (Pinker 2002)? Are we the products of ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’? The answers we give to those questions influence how we structure educational environments and how facilitators interact with learners. If we think learners are ‘blank slates’ we will assume we can mould and manipulate them as we please. If, on the other hand, we accept that human beings have a ‘nature’, then we will be more receptive to some of the developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience that support constructivist teaching methods (Goswami, 2004).

Self-actualisation

As previously explained, Maslow (1968) argued that an important motivating factor in human behaviour is “the need to become as much as one can possibly become;” to self-actualise. Each person has a hierarchy of needs (Fig 9.1) that must be satisfied, ranging from basic physiological requirements to love, esteem, and finally, self-actualisation itself. Box 9.4 lists the tasks that face the facilitator in helping create the conditions for the needs to be met and, ultimately, self-actualisation to occur.

Carl Rogers, who also supported the concept of self-actualisation, developed his person-centred psychotherapeutic ideas to deal with the optimum type of human relationships that would lead to educational effectiveness (Rogers, 1983). His key principle was that individuals have a self-actualising tendency focused on achieving their own potential, and their individuality needs to be respected. Facilitators must demonstrate a positive and trusting attitude, personal genuineness, and empathy. Facilitation is about building relationships, the implication of which is that facilitators should engender a climate of trust, allow students to participate in decisions about their learning, and encourage curiosity and a desire to learn. In addition, facilitators should help students build confidence and develop self-esteem. All those attributes are ones that facilitators need if they are to run small groups successfully.

Student-centred learning

The ideas of Maslow and Rogers are also related to the concept of learner-centredness. The idea of child-centred education can be traced back to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scholars, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was also advocated by the American philosopher John Dewey (Dewey, 1916), who asserted that educational processes must start with and build upon the interests of learners; they must involve both thinking and activity; the teacher should be a guide and co-worker (i.e. facilitator) rather than someone who prescribes rigid learning tasks (teacher-centredness); and the goal of education should be the personal growth of individuals. Those ideas resonate strongly with the concepts of client-centredness in psychotherapy and patient-centredness in clinical practice (Stewart et al, 2003). Acknowledging the importance of the learner’s own cognitive framework as a platform for building further knowledge and understanding is a fundamental assumption of constructivist theories of learning (Dennick, 2008).

Adult learning

Medical education is aimed at adult learners, a type of teaching and learning for which Knowles (1990) coined the term ‘andragogy’. Adults have needs and motivations that are different from those of younger learners and they approach learning situations with more mature expectations. From the point of view of group learning, adults have more life experiences to draw on in discussions. Facilitators therefore need to be aware that they are dealing with independent adults with rich personal backgrounds rather than dependent children with relatively little experience. The concept of the ‘adult learner’ has, however, been contested (Norman, 1999), as also discussed in Chapter 2. Andragogy is predicated on adult learners’ ability to identify their own learning needs and monitor their progress in meeting those needs. There is, however, little empirical support they can do so reliably. Indeed, some people are notoriously inaccurate at identifying their learning needs and assessing their own performance (Eva and Regehr, 2008). Also, differences between the way adults and children learn may be less than previously thought, and so the concept that ‘adult’ learners are distinct from child learners is debatable.

Attitudes towards groups

Having dealt with individual attributes that are relevant to group facilitation, we now explore the attitudes facilitators might have towards the group. Lewin (1951) is one of the more important authors to have addressed this problem and his categorisation of facilitators as ‘democratic’, ‘autocratic’, or ‘laissez-faire’ is a useful starting point. Autocratic facilitators are authoritarian and control all the objectives and activities of groups and intervene constantly. Laissez-faire facilitators allow groups to decide what their objectives should be and what activities they will carry out, intervening minimally. Between those two extremes, democratic facilitators collaborate with groups on objectives and activities and only intervene to keep them orientated. Lewin found that groups operated best when conducted in a democratic manner. Facilitators, however, may adopt any of these roles in different situations and even during the same session.

John Heron has made an important contribution to understanding the structure and dynamics of group learning with his ‘six dimensions’ of facilitation (Heron, 1989). According to him, facilitators need to be aware of six independent influences on group processes that weave constantly through each session:

A fundamental question is whether the facilitator, the group, or a combination of the two decide on each of these dimensions. This leads to three modes of facilitation for each dimension, a classification reminiscent of Lewin:

Heron suggests that the most effective attitudinal stance for a facilitator is to value autonomy, co-operation, and hierarchy in that order as this acknowledges the personal autonomy of group members to self-actualise in collaboration with others, the facilitator taking responsibility to achieve group goals.

Communication in facilitation

The skills of initiating, structuring, and monitoring a group session have been described. However, in addition, effective communication skills are absolutely essential. The ability to listen, respond, question, and explain, and to be flexible constitutes a set of key communication skills that all facilitators should possess. These are similar to core skills for effective communication in a range of other contexts, not least doctor–patient interactions (Kurtz et al, 2005).

Questioning

Learning is driven by questions, not answers. When learners are questioned, they have to think; whether they respond is another matter. Questioning serves a wide variety of functions: arousing interest and motivating learners; activating prior knowledge; diagnosing strengths and weaknesses; checking progress and understanding; assessing achievement; manipulating group dynamics by encouraging participation and discussion; encouraging deep-level thinking and active learning; modelling professional thinking and providing new insights; and reviewing and summarising (Sachdeva, 1996). Questions and questioning techniques can be categorised in a number of ways (Box 9.5).

Box 9.5 Classification of question types

• Open and closed questions

• Questions aimed at different levels of the learning hierarchy

Creation

Evaluation

Analysis

Application

Understand

Remember

• Probing questions

Prompting

Justification

Clarification

Extension

Redirection

• Pivotal and emerging questions

Open and closed questions

Closed or ‘convergent’ questions are usually limited to a single answer and are thus directed at the lowest levels of cognitive activity, namely recall. They are useful in establishing facts and activating prior learning at the beginning of a session. Because they are generally straightforward and usually easy to answer, they are also useful in warming up learners before moving to more complex questioning. Open or ‘divergent’ questions, on the other hand, are of a higher cognitive order. They may have several possible responses or no fixed response. They may require learners to defend or justify a particular course of action or moral position, apply their knowledge in novel situations, or make judgements requiring the critical evaluation of evidence. They demand more elaborate and thoughtful answers and cannot usually be answered by simple recall. They elicit deep-level thinking and can focus, for example, on application and problem-solving, analysis of complex concepts, creative speculation, and decision-making.

  Page 144 

Questions aimed at different levels of the learning hierarchy

Bloom’s revised taxonomy (after Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001), previously referred to, can be used to formulate different levels of questions in the cognitive domain of learning, see Table 9.3.

Probing questions

There will always be situations when facilitators need to ask questions to encourage learners to clarify or elaborate their initial responses. Those probing questions, and questioning sequences allow facilitators to ensure that deep-level thinking is taking place or to diagnose misunderstandings and take appropriate action. Such questions can be classified into the following types: prompting; justifying; clarifying; extending; and re-directing. A prompting question is used when a learner does not respond to a question or gives an incorrect or incomplete answer. The question might contain suggestions, clues, or a ‘prompt’ that will trigger the necessary response. Justification questions can be used when a learner has provided a correct answer without explaining why they chose it. If a learner has articulated an answer poorly or given an incomplete one, clarification can be sought. The student can be asked to re-phrase or elaborate their answer until the facilitator is satisfied they have answered the question satisfactorily. Extension questions ask learners to extend their thinking to new situations. Their answers may give clues to the depth of their understanding. Finally, re-direction questions ask different students the same open-ended questions to generate a variety of responses and increase participation.

  Page 145 

The questioning process

As well as having a good working knowledge of question types, facilitators need to be aware of the ways questioning can affect learners’ behaviour. For example, simple closed questions activate prior learning at the beginning of a session and encourage participation, whereas open-ended and more complex questions might be used later in the session. So-called ‘pivotal questions’, incorporated prospectively into a questioning sequence, are usually planned ahead. Emerging questions, on the other hand, are not planned and reflect a facilitator’s ability to adapt according to the particular demands of the situation. The facilitator’s approach to asking and responding to questions may have powerful effects on group dynamics. They should generate an atmosphere of trust and co-operation, which will make members feel comfortable about asking and responding to questions and confident that they will not be ridiculed when they expose their lack of knowledge. The way in which questions are asked can have a significant impact. For example, people should be given plenty of ‘think time’ to respond before the facilitator either re-phrases the question or uses a prompting question. It is useful to tell students in advance that they are going to have plenty of time to think about their answers. There is evidence (Carin and Sund, 1971) that leaving a long silence after asking a question makes students more likely to respond and result in longer and more elaborate answers.

Responding to answers

How a facilitator responds to an answer is not only extremely important to the individual answering the question but also sends messages to the rest of the group about how they will be treated if they answer a question. A correct answer should be acknowledged and positive, supportive feedback given. If an answer is incorrect or incomplete, probing techniques discussed previously should be used. On no account should a facilitator use negative, sarcastic, or personally demeaning language. One can speculate (correctly, as it happens) that Albert Einstein suffered as a result of such an approach when he wrote “Humiliation and mental oppression by ignorant and selfish teachers wreak havoc in the youthful mind that can never be undone and often exert a baleful influence in later life” (Einstein, 1934).

Socratic questioning

So-called ‘Socratic questioning’ is a form of questioning that brings together all the skills and types of question referred to earlier. It aims, through systematic dialogue, probing, and challenging understanding, to promote critical thinking. A facilitator poses a question, then responds to the answer with further questions. The dialogue evolves in an organic fashion but is not a free-for-all. Participants are helped to go beneath the surface of the topic and delve into the complexities of one or more fundamental ideas (https://www.criticalthinking.org/TGS_files/SocraticQuestioning2006.pdf – accessed November 2009).

Time management, monitoring, and control

Facilitators have a responsibility to manage and direct the work of a group effectively and efficiently despite the often open-ended and potentially unstructured nature of their work. They should make clear during the introduction or setting of ground rules that the session has aims and outcomes, a focus on particular activities, a specific structure, and that it has to finish at a particular time. Facilitators perform a balancing act between being autocratic and hierarchical, and allowing autonomy and a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude; they are essentially benign dictators in charge of the group’s freedom! Good time management and organisation also induce confidence in the participants which translates into effective and efficient group dynamics. The facilitator needs to ensure that the group remains focused on the task(s), whilst keeping a watchful eye on group dynamics. It is important to monitor the group’s achievement and progress and it may be useful to record it, either to strategically use the information or simply for ‘the record’. For example, after a ‘brainstorming’ activity, the ideas generated may need to be recorded for subsequent analysis and prioritisation; during a discussion, opinions and questions might be listed to clarify issues, or guide further study. Finally, conclusions and action points of the group need to be recorded.

Closure

An important feature of all teaching sessions is closure, during which achieved outcomes can be summarised, conclusions emphasised, reflection promoted, and learners’ sense of accomplishment nurtured. An effective facilitator will have the time management skills to ensure that there is time for closure. A useful technique is to ask members of the group to summarise the key points learnt, which can use ‘pyramid’ techniques (see later) or a facilitated discussion in which all group members participate.

‘One-off’ groups

This type of group, in which students do not necessarily know either one another or the facilitator and will not meet again, is familiar in clinical settings. The facilitator’s key task is to ‘warm up’ participants and encourage them to talk to one another. There should be special emphasis on anxiety-reducing measures: friendly introductions, ice-breaking activities, non-threatening questioning to activate prior learning, and clear, unambiguous instructions and goals. Because the group will not convene again, it is worth saving time by recommending a set of ground rules rather than getting the group to generate them de novo. Such a group is likely to be very task-oriented, focused, for example, on a specific topic, but even so, will ignore group process and dynamics at their peril.

Regular groups

A common example is a PBL group meeting weekly during a whole semester. Members get to know one another and the facilitator, resulting in better group interactivity and collaboration. Introductions, ice-breaking, and ground rules can be tackled in the first meeting and minimised in subsequent sessions, leaving more time to work on subject matter. The regularity of meetings makes it possible to rotate roles and duties, such as chairing, recording, and summarising progress, demonstrating practical procedures or giving presentations, thus helping participants develop a range of useful skills. Seeing group members over an extended period allows an observant facilitator to monitor the development of interpersonal skills, depth of thinking, strengths and weaknesses in particular situations, and maturing of attitudes in individual learners. Sensitive, confidential feedback from the facilitator can enhance all those developments.

Potential disadvantages of regular small group meetings are that group members may develop antipathy towards one another, which might inhibit collaboration or cause outright conflict. However, a good facilitator who watches out for the development of such problems can hopefully prevent them arising or, if they do, can minimise their effects on group dynamics.

Mixed groups

The individual members of a mixed group differ from one another, for example, in terms of their knowledge, experience, or professional group. For example, a multi-professional group of health professionals might include medical students, doctors of varying levels of seniority, nurses, physiotherapists, and social workers. Working together in multi-professional or multi-cultural groups helps learners, in theory, accommodate one anothers’ beliefs and cultural views, and challenges prejudice. Although there is significant potential for conflict, the tensions within such a group can also be fertile ground for creative learning. The most important issue for a facilitator is to acknowledge differences openly from the start and to stress the benefits that can result from diversity. Problems can then be viewed from the holistic perspective of multi-professional teams, which is much more analogous to professional practice (Becher, 1989); see also Chapter 4. Encouraging students to explore their different knowledge bases, values, and perspectives together can lead to much useful learning.

Peer-led groups

Learners have long gathered together spontaneously without a tutor or facilitator to study or revise, and self-help groups and learning sets (see Table 9.1) have become commonplace in postgraduate and professional settings. Now, student-led group working is gaining prominence as a formal component of undergraduate medical curricula (Ross and Cumming, 2009) not only in recognition of its inherent virtues but also as a pragmatic response to increasing student numbers, and because professional regulating bodies require graduates gain experience in areas such as leadership and teaching skills (General Medical Council, 2009). Many benefits are claimed for so-called peer-assisted learning (PAL): it is self-evidently learner-centred; it can foster collegiality and collaboration; it can nurture the development of generic skills such as facilitation; and there are potential pedagogic gains – not least the value of learning through teaching, but also positive effects on motivation. More able students benefit from helping their less able peers, which leads to deeper and more lasting understanding (Biggs and Tang, 2009; Boud et al, 2001). There is, as well, convincing theoretical support for PAL from cognitive, affective, and organisational perspectives (see Ross and Cumming, 2009). Disadvantages include the learning being patchy or superficial, the potential for dysfunction and conflict within groups, and ‘value for money’ to the institution, given the amount of organisation and faculty support that some PAL schemes seem to require. There are many variations on the theme; for example, group members may all be at the same stage or senior students may act as facilitators, instructors, or mentors. It is important to recognise that not all students are suited to the role of tutor, so they have to be carefully selected, then trained and supported.

Problem-based learning groups

PBL, or perhaps less ambiguously ‘problem-first learning’ (Maudsley, 1999), is an instructional method in which a problem is the primary stimulus for learning (as opposed to the more traditional approach of theory first, problems later). The problem is, typically, a carefully crafted written scenario describing a problem such as clinical case which can only be fully understood by further enquiry. In small groups, with or without a tutor, learners explore the problem, identify gaps in their understanding, decide what they need to do to fill the gap – then fill it. This inquiry is carried out over a week or two, often supplemented by ‘resource sessions’ of one sort or another. A number of theories provide ‘compelling support’ for PBL (Albanese, 2007), including information processing theory, co-operative learning, self-determination, and control theory. The role of the PBL tutor has been described as a ‘custodian of the group process and guide for discovery’ (Maudsley, 1999). PBL has been the subject of a vast amount of research, often with conflicting findings. Notably, the debate about whether a facilitator should be a ‘content’ or ‘process’ expert is still unresolved, although intuition might suggest that a content expert with exemplary process skills would be the ideal. The research has been confounded by variable definitions of what constitutes ‘content expertise’. However, Albanese has argued that the more important question is not whether content expertise is important, but what is the minimum expertise needed for effective tutoring (Albanese, 2007). He quotes a recent review article on the topic whose title, he contends, sums up the ‘state of the art:’ Problem-based learning: the confusion continues (Miflin, 2004).

One consistent finding in research, however, is that both learners and faculty enjoy PBL. There is a need for an on-going faculty development to sustain PBL programmes and prevent didactic, teacher-centred learning from dominating tutor interventions.

Dysfunctional organisation

Groups become dysfunctional when facilitators do not pay attention to preparation, organisation, and monitoring, leaving group members anxious and reluctant to participate. Activities should be appropriate to the group’s experience or maturity and the facilitator should check that activities are not too complex to be completed within the time available and not so simple that they leave time to spare.

Dealing with group conflict

Conflict is an essential, even desirable, feature of a group process since it exposes opinions and engages participants in debate. Participants challenging the assumptions of others may lead to conflict and even hostility. ‘Cognitive dissonance’, a state in which someone is confronted by a perception, idea, or fact that does not fit into their cognitive framework (Festinger, 1957), can be a powerful stimulus to learning. Acknowledging that disagreement may arise but that it is legitimate will help set the scene. Emphasising the importance of adhering to ground rules, not using ad personam arguments, and criticising peoples’ arguments rather than them as individuals reduces the risk of hostilities. Another helpful ground rule is to get members to ‘own’ their comments (“I think … .” rather than “Doctors think … .” unless, of course, the assertion is evidence-based!). Sensitively monitoring debates helps facilitators prevent hostility but should conflict arise, it is important to establish the cause(s) at an early stage and encourage ‘ownership’ of the problem. Getting the group to write about issues on a flip chart or self-adhesive notes may help. It is also important for the facilitator to be alert to some of the ‘games groups play’, such as scapegoating (i.e. ‘sacrificing’ a group member by focusing on their behaviour and diverting attention away from group dynamics) or ‘flight’ (where the group goes into a state of denial of conflict, for example, by adopting distracting behaviours, changing the subject, trivialising issues through use of humour, etc.). Ideally, a skilled facilitator will use conflict creatively and help the group learn something from it.

Dealing with dominant group members

One of the commonest questions asked by group facilitators is ‘How can I deal with the situation where one person dominates the discussion and prevents others from participating fully?’ Reminding the group of ground rules about participation can help, supplemented by a gentle statement such as: ‘John, you’ve made quite a lot of interesting points, can we hear from someone else?’ Breaking the group into smaller units or pairs to allow individuals to talk to one another should also prevent domination by one individual and give others an opportunity to discuss. If dominant behaviour still continues and threatens to disrupt the group, then stronger measures are called for. The use of peer pressure and group consensus are often more effective than requests from the facilitator. When such a situation has arisen, it is important to discuss it with the person outside the group. Ultimately, a facilitator has the responsibility of ensuring ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ and might have to ask a challenging participant to leave the group.

Dealing with passive group members

Another common problem is a very quiet group, whose members seem reluctant to participate. The most important thing to do here is warm up the group and use ice-breakers that will help members feel comfortable with one another. That will be less effective when the problem is a boring, trivial, or overwhelmingly complex material, is either too advanced or too basic for the group, or if the facilitator has slipped into ‘lecture’ mode. Nonetheless it is important not to assume that a quiet group member is only superficially or passively engaged with the group’s tasks. There may be a cultural explanation, such as the learner in question coming from a background in which deference to tutors and a seemingly passive approach to learning are the norm.

Dealing with a non-participating individual

Since one of the goals of SGTL is to develop interpersonal communication, complete non-participation is not an option, and this should be made clear to participants while framing ground rules. A non-participating individual might, of course, simply be very shy, unhappy, anxious, or ill. As with a passive group, cultural factors may also be relevant. It is the facilitator’s role to make an individual diagnosis whilst maintaining group collaboration.

Dealing with cynical group members

Some participants, particularly those who strongly prefer passive or solitary learning or who enjoy didactic teaching and are simply focused on acquiring facts, will find group learning challenging. They may not understand that they will develop important interpersonal skills as a result of interacting within a group or that they will achieve deeper learning from engaging in discourse. One approach is to promote ‘metacognition’ through encouraging individuals to explore their underlying beliefs about learning, and how they learn. Rewarding cynical participants with positive feedback on their contributions can also help to bring down barriers.

Brainstorming

The purpose of brainstorming is to promote creative thinking, although it is also useful as an ice-breaker and for activating prior knowledge. Important principles are that: the problem or question should be clearly articulated; “anything goes” (within reason!); and “quantity breeds quality”, based on the notion that it is necessary to work through conventional ideas in order to reach original ones. It is important, however, that the generation of ideas is separated from their evaluation since the latter may stifle the creativity that is the hallmark of the technique. Despite its popularity, the technique has been criticised by social psychologists on a number of counts, including a contention that its creative potential is illusory and that other group methods such as nominal group technique (see later) are more productive (Elwyn et al, 2001).

Buzz groups

A buzz group is one of several structured methods of breaking down group into smaller units. Working in pairs or 3s, usually for just a few minutes, group members undertake a task (“Discuss the reasons why …”) or tackle a problem. The task needs to be clear and achievable within the time allocated to it. Once the buzz has died down, the facilitator solicits feedback from the subgroups; for example, key points from the discussion using a technique such as a round robin (“One key point from each pair …”). The ideas generated can then be summarised, analysed or synthesised unless the method is used simply to ‘unstick’ a group or activate prior knowledge, when there is no need to use the generated material.

Snowball (or pyramids)

This technique builds on the buzz group principle, allowing ideas and concepts to be developed in a structured fashion through a progressive doubling of subgroup size, for example, from 2 to 4, then to 8, and so on. It is important, however, that each step-up demands a new level of challenge and is not merely a repeat of the previous task – boredom and hostility will ensue quickly if not!

Nominal group

A technique more commonly used in research and development that aims to identify and rank problems related to a predefined topic, a nominal group allows consensus to be reached fairly quickly, is pragmatic, and is efficient. The group is ‘nominal’ in that the interactions are highly structured, but it has been shown to generate a better range of ideas than brainstorming. It gives everyone a voice and overcomes problems of hierarchy (the technique was originally devised, appropriately enough, in the context of community development – Delbecq et al, 1986). Silent generation of ideas is followed by a ‘round robin’ (one idea per person), when all ideas are listed. Those ideas are then discussed, clarified, reworded, grouped, or broken down into simpler categories, before a series of ranking exercises, which prioritise the ideas. Obviously, a facilitator using this technique necessarily adopts a dominant and directive role.

Line-up

Line-ups are useful for swiftly surveying opinion or soliciting attitudes about a topic, when there is likely to be a range of views. Participants take up a position representing their views along a hypothetical line representing the possible range. Their reasons for choosing the position are justified and further discussed. Line-ups are useful for ‘unsticking’ a group (or waking one up!), with the clear benefit that it requires physical activity and considerable interaction as people negotiate their positions.

Role play

Role play is a powerful method for exploring different scenarios and experimenting with different approaches, particularly in the area of interpersonal communication, attitudes, and feelings (van Ments, 1999). It provides an opportunity for rehearsing new skills and can generate new insights, promote empathy, contextualise understanding, and integrate thinking and feeling. It can be thought of as ‘a safe introduction to reality’ – it is not the real thing, but almost (even though the scenario is a simulation and demands some suspension of disbelief, the thoughts and feelings evoked are perfectly genuine). Its use requires care, however, because it can distress individuals if misused and may damage group dynamics or trust. Facilitators need to be clear, therefore, why they are using role play, and what they intend to achieve. Roles need to be carefully prepared and clearly described. There should be adequate time for preparation and briefing, for enactment, for reflection and discussion, and finally for debriefing (the latter particularly when the role play has tackled an emotionally challenging issue). Many areas of learning can be explored using role play, focused on a role, a situation, and/or a task (Elwyn et al, 2000).

Fishbowl

The fishbowl is a technique commonly used with role play. Participants sit at the front or in the middle of a group, which observes the action. Whilst a role play is enacted, those ‘outside’ the bowl observe and then give constructive feedback on specific things they agreed to observe. There are many variations on the fishbowl theme, depending on the intended purpose of the session (see Jaques and Salmon, 2007).

Such techniques provide effective means for promoting interaction and participation. However, they should not be used simply for their own sake – it is important to think strategically about why and when a technique might be used, as well as how. The reader is referred to the Further reading at the end of this chapter for more extensive guidance on using these and other techniques.

Key requirements for effective function of virtual groups

Key requirements include thoughtful design of tasks, flexible facilitation, and technical support. As with face-to-face groups, the early stages are crucial, and time invested by the e-moderator in articulating objectives and clarifying tasks will be time well spent. Participants also need time to become acquainted with the technology and clear guidelines about modes of collaboration. Ground rules are as important as in other contexts, as are ice-breakers that encourage social interaction and personalisation of participants through, for example, short autobiographies.

In the absence of the social and contextual clues that influence face-to-face communication and group dynamics, the tasks faced by an e-moderator are somewhat different. They include: ‘weaving’, that is, synthesising and integrating various threads, and keeping the discussion moving; summarising; sorting and archiving material. Problems often arise because of delayed or muddled discussions, or poor time management (Jaques and Salmon, 2007).

Encouraging active participation is a continual challenge but can be achieved using so-called ‘e-tivities’. A framework for crafting such activities has been proposed (Jaques and Salmon, 2007). An e-tivity should be as simple as possible; it requires an illustrative title and a stimulus or challenge, also known as ‘the spark’. An invitation to respond is followed by the interactive element including responding to the postings of other group members, and provision of clear timelines. Finally, there should be a summary, possibly some feedback from the facilitator, a critique, and crucially, reflection.

The received wisdom is that a virtual group will function reasonably effectively, efficiently, and spontaneously with up to 15 members. Above that number, a facilitator will probably have to use similar techniques to those used in face-to-face groups to break down the group into smaller units for some or all tasks. For example, buzz groups can be created (using email or bulletin boards) that can then lead to snowballing, with the large group eventually reconvened to share and synthesise ideas.

A 5-stage developmental process has been described for virtual groups (Jaques and Salmon, 2007). Each stage requires mastery of specific competencies by participants, and demands different skills of the facilitator. The stages are as follows:

As with face-to-face groups, careful attention must be given by the e-moderator to question style and sequence. On-line interaction may lend itself particularly well to a Socratic approach, with evidence that critical thinking is promoted and sustained (Ya-Ting et al, 2005). The ‘conversational apprenticeship’ referred to earlier may also lend itself well to both asynchronous and synchronous discussions on bulletin boards and videoconferencing, respectively (McKendree et al, 1998).

Assessment

There are strong arguments in favour of delegating assessment to learners, with potential benefits for all parties, although learners will probably have to learn new skills to be able to do so effectively (Jaques and Salmon, 2007). Assessment in groups poses considerable challenges, although it is inevitably more transparent and somewhat more straightforward than the assessment of individuals. The reader is referred to Chapter 14 for a discussion of basic principles and concepts of assessment but, as with assessment in any situation, the choice of method will depend on the intended purpose. It will depend, for example, on whether the assessment is formative or summative and whether is to be used to grade members’ contributions to diagnose strengths and weaknesses, or to predict future performance.

Assessment at the group level can focus on either the product (e.g. completion of tasks) or the process. Methods include participant self-report; and observation, either by the tutor or an external observer. A common focus for assessment of individuals is their contribution to the group’s outputs, for example, completion of a project. There are a number of methods: allocation of a shared group grade (the best approach is probably to decide the criteria for allocation at the start of the project); a project-based examination; and oral or written reports (Jaques and Salmon, 2007). Assessment of an individual’s contribution to group process is more problematic but, depending on the context, equally important. Criteria on which such assessments are based might include attendance, quantity or quality of learners’ contributions, and how much support they gave to the process and others. Methods include tutor observation, process review, and reflective logs. Multi-source feedback is another useful approach (see Chapter 13).

Evaluation

Evaluation can serve many purposes (Elwyn et al, 2001). It can help members understand and reflect on the group process (e.g. in order to move towards a more advanced stage of development following a period of ‘storming’), foster a culture of collaboration, provide feedback to facilitators, and be used in quality assurance. Evaluation may also be viewed as an integral part of the learning process, both for the tutor and the group members. Other considerations include who the evaluation is for and who should conduct it, whether or not it is formative or summative, and timing (e.g. as a continuous process, at the end of the session, or after a delay). The intended purpose(s) will guide what aspects are evaluated and which methods are used but, as with assessment, it can be targeted at many levels: the task, the group process, use of resources, organisation, intended outcomes. Methods include: observation (e.g. asking a colleague to observe the session and provide feedback about what worked well and what not so well); videotaping the session for later analysis; using a structured group technique such as a buzz group to solicit feedback from the learners; a checklist, or questionnaire with rating scales and/or space for comments (e.g. how useful and interesting the session was, list 3 things learners got out of the session, and any (constructive) criticisms or suggestions for improving it); and descriptions, critical incidents, thoughts, and opinions about how the session went, for example, in a reflective log or portfolio. Review of group process should ideally be conducted at regular intervals. The method need not be complicated or take up too much time but will be useful at all stages of a group’s ‘life’ (e.g. during the ‘forming’ stage, process review will provide feedback to the facilitator about effectiveness of their interventions, and to members about how the group is shaping up). Methods include asking learners what is working well and what not so well, for example, using a flip chart or post-it labels, or a more detailed checklist. The tutor leaving the room for a few minutes may catalyse a more honest review. A sociogram is a useful tool for evaluating contributions and providing insight into the process. It is essentially a map detailing who is talking and interacting with whom and how often, and may provide both qualitative and quantitative perspectives (Elwyn et al, 2001).

Evaluation, although intended to be positive, may be experienced as a negative process. It may be perceived as externally imposed, there may be a perception of evaluation ‘overload’, it may fail to identify problems or help a group move forward, and it may be divisive. Such problems and reactions may be prevented or forestalled by being clear from the start about the purpose, methods, and intended outcomes of evaluation.

Both assessment and evaluation in on-line groups may be carried out effectively and efficiently, and depending on a number of factors, may enable a more honest and thoughtful appraisal than with face-to-face groups.