Running head: SMALL GROUP Boll 1

A Small Group Experience in the Learning Process

Jessica Boll

Western Washington University

SMALL GROUP Boll 2

This quarter has revolved around small groups systems in every way. We were split up

into small groups, and so we physically, socially, and emotionally experienced the process of a

small group. Our small group worked together to produce a final project, we studied a concept of

small group systems to present to the class, we watched our peers’ presentations on the other key

concepts of small groups, and read select articles about those concepts. We learned more about

dialogue and how it is different from discussion and debate, and also about different types of

groups used in human services, the stages of group development, group dynamics, conflict, and

leadership in small groups. We were able to learn by listening and watching the presentations on

these topics and doing individual readings, but were at the same time experiencing all these

things happening first hand in our own groups, even though we may not have realized it at the

time. Over the quarter we practiced peer and group evaluations and got the opportunity to

facilitate our small group, which was a new idea for me. All of our learning has taken place in a

group (our class) and within our small groups and as such, our class was not only about learning

the theory, but a majority of it was seeing theory in practice.

Dialogue

One of our first topics of learning was a re-visitation of the concept of dialogue,

something entirely different than discussion or debate, although these words are often

interchanged. The Greek words that dialogue comes from mean “through” “word” or “meaning”

(Yankelovich, 2009). As such, this suggests that “words and meanings [are] flowing from one

participant to another,” but this is not necessarily confined between two people, in fact some

people believe that dialogue occurs best in a group of twelve to twenty-four people

(Yankelovich, 2009, p. 554). Dialogue can lead to action or change, while this is rarely the case

with a discussion or debate. The reason for this is that participants in a dialogue search to

SMALL GROUP Boll 3

discover common values and concerns between themselves (Herzig & Chasin, 2009). There is no

right or wrong, simply the act of trying to understand the other’s point of view. One tries to

create a shared understanding between participants in the conversation. On the other hand,

“debate is the opposite of dialogue. The purpose of debate is to win an argument, to vanquish an

opponent” (Yankelovich, 2009, p. 552). No listening for understanding occurs here. A true

dialogue includes an equality of participants, empathetic listening, and the revealing of

assumptions (Yankelovich, 2009). As you can see, debate/discussion and dialogue are drastically

different.

Most of my experiences with discussion come from different classes I have taken and I

believe the best example would be from my last year’s Spanish class. We would discuss a

reading that the whole class was supposed to do. So, the teacher would pick what was read and

come up with questions for us. I feel that there was inequality in discussion, like how the

professor has more knowledge, and a degree, while the students are on a lower level, whereas

people who in participate in a dialogue are seen as equals (Yankelovich, 2009). Ultimately, the

teacher’s ideas were most always the “right” ones, but for some reason the students were

supposed to come up with ideas, too. The creation of a group can take with it a we-them or

wrong-right mentality and in this case it was the students versus the teacher (Sacks, 2009). It

seemed we were guessing sometimes to get the right answer. The professor tried very hard to

include the majority of the class, but it whittled down to maybe five students who were very into

the topic and the rest of us listened. If the class does not participate, the teacher talked more and

then asked more questions to try to get us involved. These discussions did help me to understand

the material, but I usually did not feel included, I did not feel knowledgeable enough to join in on

SMALL GROUP Boll 4

the discussion. Class discussions sometimes felt like lecturing with some student responses

thrown in with an atmosphere of clear inequality present.

Next, I would like to provide an example of dialogue in order to contrast with the

previous one on discussion. I have been privileged to experience true dialogue, an exchange of

ideas with the goal of common understanding and learning about where the other person is

coming from, with my boyfriend. There have been very few times when we have had dialogue

like this. The most recent was when I told him about a habit of his that was bugging me and also

challenged him to improve in one aspect of our relationship. During this dialogue, both of us

were completely honest with each other and open to change, while making sure we listened

accurately and asked questions if something was unclear. Herzig and Chasin present the idea that

in dialogue, you “pursue mutual understanding rather than agreement or immediate solutions”

and do not argue or debate (2009, p. 570). I believe this is what my boyfriend and I did. By

listening we tried to understand what the other person felt and did not push for the problem to be

solved immediately. We took time to explain ourselves and ask questions of each other. I felt like

this was very important for our relationship and we connected deeply; it was one of those

moments that I will remember for a long time. I was also surprised at the result of the dialogue

and how my boyfriend reacted to my bringing it up. He was very willing and accepting,

expressed a desire to change, and was thankful that we were able to talk about the issues.

Dialogue is an experience worth remembering and can be a catalyst for change.

Types of Groups

One of the groups from our class presented on the different types of groups used in

human service delivery. While I listened to presentation, the type of group that interested me

most was the faith group. As I was reflecting later on this section of our class, I happened to

SMALL GROUP Boll 5

remember a faith group that I was part of a year ago. Although the group was short-lived, I

believe that we were able to make a small difference by doing a few projects that helped people

in need. The goal and reason for our group was to serve people through projects around the

community. We were made up of about eight college students, an adult who put the group

together and planned the projects, and the youth pastor of my church helped organize it as well.

As one of our articles stated, faith groups services are not always religious, and the groups

themselves are often informal, as was the case with my group (Licorish, 2007). The project I

remember the most was when we put up Christmas lights for some of the seniors in our church

and took them down once the season was over. Putting up Christmas lights was a very simple

way to bless the seniors and help them find some joy in the season. Faith groups can be informal

and sometimes it is the simple things that make a difference in the lives around us.

Group Development

Any of the models of group development could be used to analyze our Core class over

the past eight months. I would like to use the equilibrium model to do this, but let me first

explain a little bit about it. In the equilibrium model, it is assumed that the group is a closed

system. It is a type of progressive model, so the group progresses in distinct stages. By solving

tasks, groups meet their instrumental needs and, by maintaining the satisfaction of the members,

the expressive needs are met. Both social/emotional and task-related needs must be met, and in

order to meet those needs, certain steps must be followed (Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1996). It

sounds like there is a struggle for balance between these two needs. I tend to think of it as some

people wanting to create relationships and feel like we were a group and get to know each other

and worrying about that part of the class, while other people are more concentrated on learning,

finishing assignments, participating, and getting a good grade. Thus, using this equilibrium

SMALL GROUP Boll 6

model of group development, I will explain how our Core class has followed these steps to arrive

at the end of our eight months together.

Three stages came from Robert F. Bales’ research and these three our class went through:

orientation, evaluation, and control. Orientation “represents the earliest meetings of a group

[and] is an exploratory period of asking and giving information” (Chidambaram & Bostrom,

1996, p. 170). Our first quarter represents this orientation stage, because it was the beginning of

our time together; we were trying to get to know everybody and figure out who they were. We

did assignments and activities to aid this, like ice breakers to share fun facts about ourselves and

learn about the others, and then presenting our standpoints for the class. In essence, we were

conveying information about ourselves during this period. Then during the second quarter, we

found ourselves in the evaluation stage. As we worked as dyads/triads, members were “asking

and giving opinion; expressing attitudes” (Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1996, p. 164). We were

privileged to spend time one on one or with two people and focus on those relationships. The

dyads/triads learned about the balance between socioemotional and task-related needs, as we

wanted to talk about our lives but doing our assignments well was also important. During this

stage, we learned to evaluate each other’s work within the group and the functionality of the

group itself by expressing our honest opinions of how group members and the group as a whole

were performing. Finally we arrived at the control stage, which “refers to the exertion of pressure

by group members to guide the actions of the group” (Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1996, p. 170).

This would explain our final quarter together as a Core, as by this time, we had our roles in the

class clearly defined because we knew each other fairly well. There was a large handful of

people who were nearly always present in discussion (speak his or her opinion), someone who

would head up and take more of a leadership role, and then those of us who were quieter and

SMALL GROUP Boll 7

more content with listening. For example, when we discussed the details of our end of the year

celebration, one person suggested something and a majority of the class would shift over to their

idea, leaving only a few left to stand for themselves and any remaining ideas. Over our eight

months together, I know that everyone grew and learned immensely, becoming more

comfortable with initiating and taking the bold step to speak up during class, but there were still

a select few who offered their opinions more often. I think there was a certain level of control

here that was socially constructed and socially followed.

The small group that I have worked with this quarter can be explained through the social

entrainment model, and as Chidambaram and Bostrom describe, “the intent of this model is to

explain how groups develop, manage conflict, deal with ambiguity, and the like over time using

synchronization behaviors” (1996, p. 173). This is one of the non-sequential, time-based models

of group development. It also varies for different groups based on individuals and internal or

external pressures. In our group there were many external pressures against us, the most

prominent of which were our individual schedules that made it incredibly difficult to meet. The

most convenient time for us was after class, and most of us had been interning, working, or been

at school for the majority of the day already and were tired and ready to go home. This had the

potential of creating conflict at the beginning and was a major stressor for many of the group

members, but luckily we were able to share our frustrations and talk about how we were feeling

about this inconvenience. When we actually met, we stayed on task pretty well and were good

about balancing our time, and accomplished our goals. I think we got a majority of our work

done while we met with our group. Everyone listened well and I believe that in those times that

were set aside in class solely to discuss how our group was doing were when we could discover

how the other members were doing and what we needed to change. Internally, some of us had

SMALL GROUP Boll 8

difficulty because clear roles were not established and this caused some friction. Once we talked

about this, everyone felt much more comfortable in knowing what to work on and we were at our

most productive; this was near the end of the quarter when the deadline to finish our website was

frighteningly close.

Group Dynamics

Through my experience with groups this quarter, I have come to realize how and

changing and dynamic they can be because of all the varying personalities, moods, tasks, and

external factors that occur. Group dynamics can be defined as how groups react to changing

circumstances, what is happening in groups (Smith, 2001). It includes a range of topics,

including roles, status, culture, norms, and form. Small groups tend to develop their own culture,

including norms, form, and a network of communication, as individuals take on roles. Each with

our own personality, we have different strengths that complement each other and were utilized in

our final product. Roles within the group were formed, using our personalities as a foundation. In

my small group, the different informal roles people took on were a reflection of their unique

personalities. For example, Suzie was the joker; she could always make us smile, was our comic

relief, and kept our conversations light-hearted. Now Kayla was our manager, as she had that

keeping on task mentality, and due to her busy schedule, she always wanted to make the most of

our time together and somehow she was able to be an example for us by always doing good

quality work on time. Next, Brooke was our leader. Her personality made her ready to take

charge and delegate tasks, but initially she did not want to take on this assumed role. The other

member, Jessica was the questioner. She always asked for clarification on when our meetings

were and what our decisions were. Many times she was unsure of what she should do to help the

group and so she asked so that she could make herself useful. Finally, there was me. I have

SMALL GROUP Boll 9

trouble defining my role and one of my other group members would probably be able to do it

better. Personally, I was a bit of a slacker during the first half of the quarter until I got used to my

crazy schedule and prioritized better. These different roles were not static or set in stone at any

point this quarter, and we all switched them around depending on the day and other random

factors. Some of them took all quarter to develop, while others just shone through near the end.

Nothing about groups stays the same, as group dynamics show, because they are constantly

reacting to different circumstances.

Conflict in and between Small Groups

Process conflict was the most prevalent type of conflict in our group during the quarter.

This type of conflict includes conflict with such things as scheduling, how things should be

delegated, and who is responsible to do what (Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008). It can have a

negative outcome if not dealt with well early on. The main reason that we had process conflict

was because we needed clear roles in what work we should be doing; as individual group

members we had no direction for the first half of the quarter. Root (2010) states that a focus or a

goal and strong leadership is necessary to prevent conflict in a group, and for a while, we had

neither. During our discussion of guideline, we came to the conclusion that this was a needed

component of our group. Brooke stepped up to the leader’s plate and delegated tasks at this

point, helping us decide who would do what as we refined our goals individually and as a group

for our project.

Leadership in Small Groups

Ironically, one of our group members, Brooke, had to take on a leadership role for the

betterment of the group. During our first discussion as a group she informed us that she had a

natural tendency to do just that because of her personality and specifically she did not want to be

SMALL GROUP Boll 10

the leader in this group. Even at the beginning of the quarter after she told us she did not want to

lead, we all seemed to look to her when it was time for our group to speak with the class, partly

because she is more outspoken than the rest of us, but also because she has that kind of “take-

charge” quality about her. So, about halfway through the quarter we conveniently forgot that and

we encouraged her to take up the leadership role because our group needed direction and

delegation. Supporting this, Northouse (2010) argues that leadership functions to create change

and movement within a group, which is what happened when we appointed leadership to Brooke.

Everything just seemed to fall into place after that moment and our group worked much more

smoothly together. Having a leader was a positive change for our group, because Brooke was

able to help us delegate roles so that we all knew what to do towards finishing our website.

I like the idea that leadership is a process: anyone can be a leader, because it can be

learned through interaction, observation and practice (Northouse, 2010). This means that

everyone has the ability, the potential to be a leader and it is not something you have to be born

with. On the opposing side, I think that some people are born to be leaders or perhaps become

one naturally. It could be that that leading is what they are meant to do. Part of it could have to

do with nurture, the way their parents raised them and how their personality developed that led

them into becoming a leader.

Facilitation

In my opinion, I value the facilitation teaching method as opposed to the traditional

teaching method. I had not experienced facilitated teaching until this year when I came to

Western. In this type of teaching, one must work harder to learn; it is self-directed learning and

you can learn as much as you want to, depending upon how much time one puts into it and the

importance you place in it. I believe that by coming up with their own ideas, students are

SMALL GROUP Boll 11

learning and that this type of learning will last. The traditional way is for a teacher to relay his or

her knowledge to the class and the students have to remember and repeat the information. There

is little creativity or creation of ideas. This was discussed earlier in the example of a class

discussion, contrasted with dialogue. With the traditional teaching method, there is an assumed

authority of the teacher and an equally assumed ignorance of the students, but this has progressed

to a method of appreciating what the learner already knows and where the student is the center of

learning; facilitation (Human Rights Resource Center, 2000). This kind of learning reminds me

of Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning (Western Washington University, 2009). As adult

students, we each come with our own background of experiences which we apply to any new

learning. And when we acquire this new learning, there is a cycle that we go through to come to

understand that learning, a process of combining existing knowledge and prior experience with

new learning and new experiences with periodic reflection at many points along the way (writing

this now is a part of the reflection part of the cycle) (WWU, 2009).

In application, each member of the group that I worked with this quarter had the

opportunity to facilitate a twenty-minute discussion on a chosen chapter of Turning to One

Another, by Margaret J. Wheatley. For each discussion everyone evaluated the facilitator and

provided them with feedback on what they did well and what could use improvement. When it

was my turn to facilitate, our discussion centered on Wheatley’s (2009) question of “When do I

experience sacred?” As participants, it was our responsibility to do the reading and write down

notes for discussion. As a facilitator, it was my responsibility to be prepared for facilitation by

reading and coming up with questions and notes to stimulate discussion. While I was facilitating,

I found it difficult to do so many things at once. Facilitators are to be prepared, value the

opinions of all, manage time, handle any silence that comes up, listen actively, surface any

SMALL GROUP Boll 12

underlying issues, and give everybody a time to speak. These are the criteria that we in the group

evaluated each other and ourselves with, the most difficult of which for me was to focus on the

process rather than the content of the discussion. From the feedback I received, I found out that I

should have managed the time better- although we were all somewhat distracted because it was a

very hot day. The rest of the responses were good on all, which was not too incredibly helpful.

Some of my group members were very good at handling silence and others were exceptionally

capable at paraphrasing as a part of active listening. One of my group members was fantastic at

directing the discussion in a constructive way. In all, facilitating was beneficial to practice and

observe and I hope to have the opportunity to do it again so that I may put my new learning in

action and make an improvement.

The criteria for our feedback included some of the things that characterize a quality

facilitator. A facilitator establishes a collaborative relationship with the participants and an

environment of trust and openness, is learning as well, is not necessarily an expert on the topic,

speaks less than the other participants, and draws others into discussion (Human Rights Resource

Center, 2000). The characteristics of a good facilitator are sensitivity to individuals’ feelings,

sensitivity to the feeling of the whole group, ability to listen, tact, commitment to collaboration,

sense of timing, flexibility, sense of humor, resourcefulness, and creativity. As a facilitator, you

must make your role clear, maintain eye contact, be conscious of body language, make sure

everyone has a chance to speak, and be aware of instances when structure is needed (Human

Rights Resource Center, 2000).

Peer Evaluations

Throughout this course, we did peer evaluations weekly, beginning in the very first week.

A good method is to have students fill out evaluations early on in the project (when they are

SMALL GROUP Boll 13

assigning roles) as well as at multiple other points (Brooks & Ammons, 2003), which is what we

did in our class. Doing so can prevent so-called “free riding” in which one group member skirts

their group responsibilities and uses the other members to get the grade (Brooks & Ammons,

2003). By receiving feedback from peers at different points in the quarter, we had the

opportunity to improve our performance based on what the others said. However, I fear that our

group was cordial with the peer reviews in the first few weeks, giving each other fairly high

scores. Part of the reason for this could have been the short length of the quarter that did not

allow for huge problems to come up, or perhaps that we were not being completely honest with

each other. We did finally get to have an in-depth discussion about the guidelines which we

created at the beginning of the quarter and were able to go through some of the larger issues, like

how we had no conflict during the first half of the quarter, and found that there were a lot of

things that needed changing. It was helpful to get all of those feelings out in the air and learn

what people were actually thinking. I think this group evaluation was more productive than the

individual evaluations because we were all able to talk about what we thought about the specific

guideline or any issues that we were worried about.

The entire process my group went through this quarter was reflected in the information

presented to us and in our individual readings about groups. We learned so much in relation to

the process a group goes through, including development, dynamics, conflict, and leadership. All

of these concepts directly applied to my own experience within my group. And during the course

of my group’s existence we were able to learn about and practice facilitation and peer

evaluations. The peer evaluations, in particular, led to the most learning as we assessed the

group’s status, confronted each other, improved our functionality, and made progress toward our

SMALL GROUP Boll 14

goal. Over the quarter, my group bonded, laughed and pretended to cry, worked together,

experienced conflict, changed towards the better, and learned firsthand about group systems.

Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research. The

encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-

lewin.htm