Drawing on Insights from Group Dynamics to Grapple with the Contextual “Mess” in the Classroom
Elena Ončevska Ager, Republic of Macedonia
Elena Ončevska Ager holds an MA in TESOL from the University of Leeds (UK) and a PhD in teacher education from the Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (Republic of Macedonia), where she currently teaches. Her research interests also include group dynamics, motivation, learner autonomy and online learning.
Menu
Introduction: Groups as entities
Group development
Leadership theories
Implications for the EFL classroom: barriers to overcoming challenges, internal barriers
Managing the group as a separate entity
Managing the development of the group
Managing leadership styles
Conclusion
References
Advocating an ecological perspective of education, Tudor (2001, p. 3) notes that language teaching and learning is “the emergent product of a very large number of local, dynamically self-organising systems”, which include tangible (e.g., class size, classes per week, equipment) and less tangible contexts (e.g. educational beliefs, expectations and needs, hopes, fears). Indeed, if learning is embedded in latent contextual “mess”, it makes sense for teachers to gain an understanding of the local contexts at play early on in the process of teaching a new class. Learning about the educational group can be a promising first step in that direction.
I have spent a considerable amount of my EFL teaching career reflecting on and researching group dynamics (the behaviours and processes typical of an educational group) and its impact on the atmosphere in the classroom. I have come to realise that responsible teaching involves managing the relationships in the classroom as part of a broader attempt at developing conditions conducive to successful and stress-free learning. In this paper, I will focus on aspects of group dynamics I consider relevant for EFL contexts by bringing together insights from the literature and from my own research in order to make a case for the centrality of the relationships in the classrooms to the quality of the teaching-learning experience.
By group in this paper I mean a number of English language learning students who stay together for a reasonably long period of time (for the duration of a course or a school/academic year), perceive themselves as belonging to a separate unit, interact with one another following established patterns and share goals and responsibilities (Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998). A group is not seen as a simple sum of its constituent entities, but as a psychological entity in its own right, with its own typical patterns of behaviour and often intellectually superior compared to the entities it is composed of (Hill, 1982). Stevick (1980, p. 4) stresses the importance of looking at “what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom” arguing that successful learning is less dependent on course content and teaching methodologies and more directly linked to the qualities of the group. Much in the same vein, Hadfield (1992) writes about the group as a valuable source of social motivation.
Even though groups are dynamic entities, the literature identifies five general, recurring patterns in the life of a group: (a) forming, (b) conflict, (c) norming, (d) performing, (e) disbanding (Tuckman, 1965). The forming stage of the group’s life is a typically vibrant period of getting to know each other. It can, however, cause anxiety about the members’ status in the group and/or the group’s expected interaction patterns. Once group members have got to know each other and become more comfortable with their status and the behaviours expected from them, some of the members start exploring the limits of their own influence in the group and attempt to stretch them, sometimes by engaging in conflict with group members and/or the group leader. This stage is characterised by reluctance on the part of the assertive members to give way and can be daunting for the (rest of the) members and the group leader alike. The norming stage sees the differences outlined in the previous phase ironed out, and the members discover where they stand in the group, what their roles are and what behaviour is approved of by the group. At the performing stage the members’ attention is mostly shifted away from the interpersonal relations and is efficiently channelled on the task at hand. Finally, the disbanding stage marks the end of the group’s life, with its members going their own separate ways.
The teacher as a group leader is a key figure in the life of the group. Leaders are expected to manage the stages of group development, from forming all the way through to disbanding the group, including managing conflict. Interestingly, the literature views conflict as a sign of (healthy) group development, almost an essential stage in the life of a group (Yalom, 1995). Conflict is seen as evidence that the members who choose to engage in it care about the group and are willing to invest time and effort to navigate their own and/or other members’ group status. Indeed, conflict is considered to represent growth, a movement of the group towards improved maturity. Intercepting and/or suppressing it, therefore, is considered to go against the group’s best interests as it can thwart its development into a more cohesive and productive unit.
One way to look at the roles of a leader is via the leadership styles theory (Lewin et al., 1939), which distinguishes between three general leadership styles: (a) autocratic, (b) democratic and (c) laissez-faire. Autocratic leaders prefer to make decisions about the group’s tasks, norms, roles, etc. by consulting a few members that they trust the most rather than the whole group. Democratic leaders prefer to make decisions upon consulting the whole group. They feel that their decisions can be meaningful and appreciated by the group only if everyone has been involved in the decision-making process. Laissez-faire leaders do not take part in the decision-making process and are virtually (at a visible level) absent from the group’s life.
To apply this theory to the classroom, autocratic leaders are likely to engage their students predominantly in individual activities, which do not rely on the group for resources and/or motivation. Democratic teachers, on the other hand, are likely to favour drawing on the group’s resources, for instance by engaging students in group work (collaborative and/or competitive). Teaching, however, is more complex than what this autocratic-democratic dichotomy suggests. To adapt to various contexts and/or various levels of group maturity, teachers often find themselves juggling more leadership styles. According to the theory of contextual leadership (Hersey & Blandchard, 1977), the leadership style should be determined by the group’s maturity. For instance, in the early stages of group development, leaders typically behave autocratically, favouring one-way communication to allow group members to focus on settling into the group. As the group matures, the leader slowly abandons their autocratic behaviour in favour of a democratic style, promoting two-way communication. Fully mature groups often do not need a head figure to guide them as they already enjoy high levels of autonomy and are sufficiently competent and respectful of each other to assume full responsibility for the outcomes of the group process. This state of affairs warrants a less “loud”, that is, laissez-faire leadership.
I will now go on to suggest specific ways in which the theoretical insights reviewed above can be applied to the EFL classroom. Indeed, teachers can do a lot to ensure better quality learning by drawing on the cognitive and the affective potentials of educational groups. I will particularly focus on managing the group as an entity, taking care of its development and using leadership styles strategically.
The usual first step for teachers to acknowledge the uniqueness of a newly established EFL group is to provide opportunities for students to get to know each other better, implicitly or explicitly. Some implicit strategies that I have found useful, especially in young learner contexts, include creating a group name, designing a group logo, drafting a group slogan. Explicit discussions about the group as a separate, new entity (rather than a simple sum of its parts) can be beneficial in instilling a sense of belonging into the group composed of more mature students. Students can, for instance, be invited to reflect (individually or in small groups) on the features of their group as a unique entity and its creative potential:
- Who am I as a person/learner? Who am I as a member of my EFL class? Who are we as a group? Who do we (not) want to become as a group?
- What can we achieve as a group that would be difficult to achieve individually? How do we go about achieving our goal? What roles and responsibilities do we take? How do we (not) treat each other in the process?
Such brainstorming can inspire students to be creative in their thinking about how they can contribute to creating a better environment for their EFL learning, thus engaging more directly in their learning and assuming authorship of and responsibility for it. Students struggling to identify group goals might benefit from support from their teacher in terms of example tasks which typically lend themselves to a whole-group approach: problem-solution activities, designing imaginary and/or real products to be displayed in the classroom or online, research projects and any other task types that rely on student(-teacher) collaboration and co-creating meaning.
Further to this, teachers can consider spending more time with the group outside of the official, class slots by, for example, going for a picnic, visiting the cinema or the theatre as a class, organising events in the school, such as performances, exhibitions and conferences (face to face and/or virtual). The presence of the leader and the time the group members spend together is likely to have a positive influence on the quality of their interpersonal relationships and their sense of belonging, which in turn feed into the group’s academic achievements.
To successfully manage the development of the group, teachers need to be mindful of the stages of group development and ready to intervene when the group needs their assistance.
My own PhD research (Ončevska Ager, 2012) sought to investigate the attitudes and the related behaviours of Macedonian university EFL teachers and their students regarding a number of group dynamics aspects of teaching and learning. My study suggested that teachers were intuitively aware of their responsibility to mediate in the group formation stage by using some of the bonding strategies discussed above. However, in spite of their efforts to get to know their students, the teachers reported starkly different views compared to their students’ about quite a few aspects of the teaching-learning process. For instance, the majority of the students expected the teacher to transfer knowledge in class, while the majority of the teachers considered their main responsibility to be creating conditions for learning, rather than transferring knowledge. Also, the majority of the students reported enjoying group work and being eager to do more of it in class. In contrast, their teachers believed that considerably fewer students were fond of group work, therefore offering fewer such opportunities than desired. Belief and/or expectations discrepancies like these, if not identified early on in the life of the group, can produce misunderstandings and/or less than successful accomplishment of the course objectives later.
When it comes to the stage of conflict, the literature is reassuring: conflict in the classroom is not necessarily bad news. It’s a legitimate phase in the life of a group which needs to be processed by the group members, not suppressed. According to Johnson and Johnson (2000), conflict can alert the group as to possibly unfinished group formation processes that the group needs to revisit. For instance, if the expected patterns of behaviour have not been adequately formulated and/or internalised, the group might want to go back and do some more work on them. Conflict can also vent out the group’s negative emotions, thus supplying a fresh focus on the task. It might be wise for teachers to overtly discuss the value of conflict for the quality of the group’s life as early on in the group formation stage as possible in order to protect students from any stress which may ensue once the group actually deals with conflict. For instance, teachers can prepare “I embrace conflict in the classroom” posters and invite discussion. Another group dynamics lesson to be learnt relates to conflict resolution. Since teaching and learning are embedded in a multitude of contexts, it is rare that a single factor (e.g., a person and/or an action) is solely responsible for the ensuing conflict. This calls for a very cautious conflict-resolution approach, whose aim would be to identify a context, rather than a single factor, that has destabilised the group as a system. One way to do this would be by discussing the issue with (some of) the students involved in the conflict. Another is to organise whole-class discussions geared towards solving the problem. The latter strategy has proved to be very effective for me in a variety of teaching contexts, as it makes it possible to elicit multiple takes on the issue from which solutions can jointly be drafted. This inclusive approach is all the more useful if the discussion is carried out in English, because it provides valuable opportunities for the students to use English meaningfully.
Disbanding was by far the most neglected phase in the life of the group by the teachers in my research, who preferred to spend their final classes recapping the course content rather than wrapping up the emotional and/or cognitive processes for which the group provided a forum. The literature suggests that the teacher provides conditions for reminiscing about past positive experiences in the group, sketching directions for further professional development and dealing with feelings of sadness and loss (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Creating a farewell memento (poem, object, slogan, selection of group images and/or memorable moments) can help ease the transition. It might also be a good idea at this stage for the class to revisit their initial reflections on the group and its potential (as outlined in section 4.1) to evaluate their experiences as its members.
Democratic leadership has indisputable values for the EFL classroom: it is a sign of virtue for the teacher to involve their learners in making sense of the course and invite them to contribute to the course’s structure, thus helping them assume ownership of learning. The theory of contextual leadership, however, alerts us to the value of autocratic approaches in contexts that demand them, such as the early phases of the life of the group, when members still do not know each other well and can therefore take little charge of the overall workings of the group. My research suggests that many teachers intuitively do exactly that: start teaching new classes on a strict(er) note and gradually relinquish control once they feel that the group is bonded enough not to take advantage of the less visible presence of the group leader. Another way to support the maturation of a group, leadership-wise, would be to invite students to take a share of the teacher’s leadership, for instance, by helping with tasks, ranging from trivial ones (for instance, keeping the time) to those that are central to the workings of the group (for example, moderating a class discussion, be it face-to-face or online).
Another context which may require autocratic behaviour is a conflict that the group is not mature enough to process on its own, that is, a situation which may turn out to be damaging for the group if, say, laissez-faire leadership is applied. As the group develops and members become more accountable for what goes on in the group, the teacher can democratically delegate conflict-resolution responsibilities to individuals or small groups within the class. It is ultimately, of course, for the teacher to decide how to juggle leadership styles depending on the context that the group finds itself in.
Since the group can function as a source of motivation for learning (and teaching!), while typically boasting higher levels of achievement than, say, an individual member, it seems sensible for teachers to tap into this rich resource in order to improve the teaching-learning process. Indeed, if the teacher’s task is to create favourable conditions for learning, then building a solid educational group should feature high up on their list of priorities.
In this paper I offered suggestions for teachers about how to make the most of the creative and motivational potential of groups as entities in their own right at various stages of their development. I attempted to demonstrate that regularly monitoring “group” temperature and acting accordingly goes a long way to understanding a good deal of classroom contextual “mess” and providing assurances that English teaching and learning is an efficient, lasting and memorable experience for all involved.
Ehrman, M. E., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hadfield, J. (1992). Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management of Organisational Behaviour: Utilising Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2000/2003) Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
Ončevska Ager, E. (2012). Group Dynamics in Teaching English as a Foreign Language at a Tertiary Level. Unpublished PhD thesis, Blaže Koneski Faculty of Philology, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia.
Stevick, E. W. (1980). Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley: Newbury House.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
Tudor, I. (2001). The Dynamics of the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yalom, I. (1995). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. New York: Basic.
Please check the Dealing with Difficult Learners course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.
|
