Jacques and Salmon (2007, 23–32) critically expand on the specific properties of these groups. These include time boundaries, the physical environment, participation pattern, communication, cohesiveness, norms and socio-metric patterns (ibid., 23–32).
Time Boundaries refer to the way, ‘[m]embers of a new group bring with them sets of expectations arising out of what they know of the origins, history or composition of the group’ (Jacques and Salmon, 2007, 23). For example, in a school, students from continuing years have expectations about lessons and, almost always, that they stretch for the duration of an average lesson.
This brings us to a short but relevant comment on the physical environment, another property of groups. Is your space larger than a classroom? Is the working space large? As in, for example, as a group it might comprise three school desks that have been pushed together, forming a large ‘board-table’. Questions about group composition are always interesting to studies of dialogic group learning because it is often the case that the contribution students will make varies according to who their peers are, producing what is known as an ‘assembly effect’ — an unpredictable convergence of different behaviours and needs (Jacques and Salmon 2007, 26). Group learning has ‘emergent’ properties which its parts — individual students — do not have on their own.
Participation pattern in the group is usually two-way and between participants (in pairs or groups of three): there are also more multidirectional (“pair and share”) patterns of participation where pairs breakaway for a few moments before returning to share with the group the key points of their discussion. Such variation, I hope, keeps an element of the unpredictable, preventing potential cooperative learning from being disengaging (Jacques and Salmon, 2007, 27).
Communication is a big feature of sociocultural understandings of group learning. One part of the sociocultural context is classroom discourse through which teaching is mediated. Robin Alexander (2008, 93) contends that in British and American schooling contexts, especially primary/elementary schools, there are two ‘deeply pedagogical habits to contend with: recitation and pseudo-enquiry’. To an extent, each is related and each thwarts greater student talk and student-to-student talk indicative of dialogic learning (cf. Murphy et al. 2009). Communication is not just a matter of the clear expression of ideas, though important, but also the unintended effects of miscommunication, the extent to which students appear to be listening to each other; the extent to which students make connections or build on each other’s contributions (and the occasions which the group leader can model such behaviour too); whether they ask for clarification when they were not sure of what somebody else meant; whether there was good eye contact and; if feelings, as well as thoughts, were communicated (adapted from Jacques and Salmon, 2007, 28).
Cohesiveness addresses the measure of the attraction of the group to its members (and the resistance to leaving it). The relevant questions that pertain to cohesiveness are: (1) how satisfied are members (students) with the group and their part in it?; (2) do members seem glad to see each other again?; (3) did there seem to be a sense of shared purpose or was everyone ‘doing their own thing’? (Jaques and Salmon 2007, 28).
Norms concern the code of ethics about what is proper and acceptable behaviour in the group. Often this is left more implicit rather than explicit. Certainly, one of the norms of the group is not interrupting while others were speaking. In general, in schools the norms of the group are governed by their particular behavioural policies; that is, acting calmly and sensibility. However, often ‘meta-norms’ about breaking or not breaking norms are left to the group leaders’ discretions. These norms should not be in tension with the creation of a more convivial, often group-based discussion which goes against the more deferential, solemn aspects of school policy (ibid., 2007, 28).
Sociometric pattern refers to how students tend to affiliate with certain individuals that they like more than others. These subtle relationships of friendships or indifference have a decisive bearing on the activities of the groups. It may be the case that I actively select members randomly to identify with and support one another requires forethought by members of the group to identify which parts of others’ contributions they liked the most (ibid., 2007, 28).
For those seeking to make sense of groups, either in schooling or in other settings like workplaces, it is also worth having a philosophical/theoretical comment.
Epistemological and ontological judgements, the kinds of frames of meaning we use to see phenomena, usually precede, or are usually decided by the suitability (or not) of particular contexts for study; theoretical positions that are brought to bear upon the study of particular grouping phenomena allow for certain kinds of interpretive emphases while foreclosing or obscuring certain other ideas about what exactly we (educators and researchers) think is going on in group learning. In other words, different theoretical perspectives on group learning, the difference between, say, psychodynamic and interactionist theories, are not necessarily better than each another: the latter might offer greater opportunities for empirical falsification, as in Karl Popper’s use of the term, though no doubt a psychoanalyst would suggest their concepts can be recognised in real-world phenomena too. As well as psychodynamic theories (Bion, 1961; Freud, 1921); interaction theories (Bales, 1970; McLeish, 1973), there are many other eclectic theoretical approaches to groups, not least to understanding groups for different purposes, and understanding the role of ‘emotional intelligence’ and ‘emotional literacy’ which suggests the strong inter-relationship between our thinking and our feelings (Goleman 1995).
It is not only advisable, but integral, to good action research practice to have others check interpretations, namely, to validate the representations of the learning situation, and, often, themselves too (McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead, 1996, 20), otherwise known as participant validation in qualitative research practice. If participants do not recognise themselves in the case study validity or ‘credibility’ issues are raised (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Here, the researcher returns the analysis back to the participants for feedback on how well the interpretation fits or does not their own lived experience (see King et al. 2019, 216). [1] This is important if we want high-quality, ‘critical’ research. A stable definition of making an explanation ‘critical’ involves exploring the phenomena ‘from a range of different perspectives’ (McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead, 1996, 20).
[1] Lincoln and Guba’s post-positivist criteria for qualitative research (1985) offer four substitutes: Credibility in place of validity as a means by which researchers can establish confidence in the truth of the findings of a particular inquiry; Transferability in place of external validity, sometimes referred to trackable variance (cf. King et al. 2019) and Confirmability in place of neutrality.
Citations
Alexander, R. J. (2005, July). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology, University of Durham, UK.
Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Bales, R. (1970). Personality and Interpersonal Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bion, W. (1961). Experience in Groups. London: Tavistock Publications.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Jacques, D. and Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in Groups. Abingdon/London: Routledge.
King, N., Horrocks, C. and Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in Qualitative Research (2n ed.). London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLeish, J. Matheson, W. and Park, J. (1973). The Psychology of the Learning Group. London: Hutchinson.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (1996). You and Your Action Research Project. London: Routledge.
