Teaching Group Dynamics Through an Application-Based Learning Approach

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how a structured experiential course can be used to teach students to lead group discussions. Group dynamics and leadership skills were taught through two teaching strategies in the course: the first method required junior- and senior-level undergraduate students to participate in a process-oriented group led by the faculty instructor, and the second method required these students to participate in a practicum by serving as facilitators leading their own process-oriented groups comprised of first-year university students. Results indicated that the student leaders’ confidence and satisfaction with their leadership skills increased significantly over the course of the semester. In addition, first-year group members’ evaluations of these student leaders indicated high levels of satisfaction and group connectedness with their leaders. Implications of the benefits of teaching group dynamics and leadership skills, including the generalizability of this course for a variety of students such as teaching assistants and new instructors, are discussed.

Keywords

leadership development group dynamics university transitions peer support group facilitation

Students and new faculty can find themselves required to lead a group discussion with very little training in leadership and communication skills or understanding of group dynamics. For example, teaching assistants (TAs) in the university classroom are common and offer supplemental academic instruction, often in the form of leading laboratory or section discussions or individualized academic mentoring. Unfortunately, despite the frequent use of TAs as additional instructors and leaders in the classroom, research continues to demonstrate that TAs receive informal, inadequate, or inconsistent training for leading a group discussion (Prieto & Meyers, 1999; Williamson, 2001). Training models can consist of didactics, 2-week workshops, and semester-long courses (Gaia, Corts, Tatum, & Allen, 2003; Meyers & Prieto, 2000). Moreover, curriculum and style of instruction (e.g., supervisory vs. content based) vary depending on the subject and program, and it is unclear whether or not group dynamics or leadership skills are included at all.

An alternative to these training models is the specialized courses on group dynamics as they relate to the clinical setting, such as a graduate-level course on group psychotherapy (Eichler, 1987; Halgin, 1982). For example, the students in the class serve as a “group” where the instructor can intentionally demonstrate and integrate knowledge, leadership and communication skills, and supervision of group dynamics and concepts. A group course like this provides an experiential forum where instructors rely on modeling and applied learning, and class members can experience what it is like to be a group member (Hulse-Killacky, 1996; Riva & Korinek, 2004).

The purpose of this study was to examine how a structured experiential course can be used to teach leadership skills and group dynamics to a broad range of students. The objective of this course was to teach advanced undergraduate students’ leadership skills and group dynamics through two participatory types of applied group experiences: In the first type, the advanced undergraduate students were group members in a process-oriented group experience led by a clinically trained faculty member and in the second type, these same students served as peer facilitators for their own discussion group in a program supporting first-year students’ transition from high school to the university setting.

Method

Participants

Participants were undergraduate students invited to enroll in a practicum in group dynamics and leadership. An invitation to enroll in the course was based on a rigorous application and interview process. Selection of invited students was based on a number of qualities, including the interviewers’ evaluation of the student’s potential to be a group leader during the interview process and also their previous leadership experience. Only those students in the course who had never formally co-led a peer discussion group at the university were selected for the purpose of this study. The first cohort was comprised of 13 undergraduate students (7 men and 6 women; age M = 20.92, range = 20–23) of the 18 students in the course. These students (five juniors and eight seniors) were from seven different majors across the university. The participants were in an average number of 3.77 campus organizations and the average number of currently held office positions in those organizations was 2.46.

The second cohort was comprised of 19 undergraduate students (11 men and 8 women; age M = 20.43, range = 19–23) of the 32 students in the course. These students (11 juniors and 8 seniors) were from 12 different majors across the university. The participants were in an average number of 3.00 campus organizations, and the average number of currently held office positions in those organizations was 1.62.

Procedure

Classroom component

For the classroom component of the course, participants took part in a weekly process-oriented group experience that offered them exposure to the group dynamic process and techniques. Specifically, these participants were the group members and the faculty instructor served as the group facilitator. During these group meetings, each student participated in a check-in describing their personal experiences from the previous week to the group. This semi-structured activity allowed for each participant to learn how to lead and contribute to a group discussion by observing the instructor’s facilitation techniques. Following check-in, each participant was offered the opportunity to use group time to discuss and solve a problem with their peers. The instructor, serving as the group leader, demonstrated communicative and leadership skills to illustrate concepts of group dynamics (e.g., storming, norming, and group identity). Specifically, the instructor facilitated the discussion of the topic and encouraged participation and feedback from the group members. For example, the instructor modeled for the students how to negotiate conflict among group members and how to use nonverbal cues as a way to demonstrate engagement with the group. At the end of the session, students were asked to identify and evaluate the discussion for themes and concepts related to group dynamics. Students were required to keep process notes of the group meetings designed to enhance their learning and critical thinking skills of the group process. Specifically, students commented on a number of elements of the group experience, including their role in the group, the composition and tasks of the group, the development and evolution of the group over time, and strengths and weaknesses of the group. In addition to this modeling experience, the students also met twice a week during class time to discuss their observations about their practicum group experiences. This supervisory experience allowed for the opportunity to review leadership strategies and resolve issues that occurred during their group discussions. Periodically, students were required to read relevant empirically based journal articles on topics related to coleadership and group dynamics. These supplemental texts provided the basis for class discussion of concepts, and students were asked to apply these concepts to their ongoing groups.

Practicum component

The Transition to University (T2U) program (Harper & Allegretti, 2009, 2013; Pancer, Pratt, & Alisat, 2006; Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger, & Alisat, 2005) served as the practicum component of this course. Participants (one male and one female) were required to colead groups of approximately 10 first-year students. The group met once a week for 9 weeks of the first semester of college. These group meetings were held in the evening with refreshments to promote attendance and in a relaxed and private setting created specifically for this program. Participation on the part of the first-year students was voluntary, and they made a commitment to attend all sessions. Attendance was taken each week at the start of each group meeting, and first-year students’ attendance was consistently good across the weeks. The participant leaders facilitated discussion on specific topics associated with the T2U life, such as how to balance academic and social life and managing relationship conflict. During each meeting, participant leaders co-led their first-year group members through a check-in, allowing for each first-year students to participate by discussing their previous week’s experiences. Following check-in, participant leaders facilitated a discussion about a specific topic and led their first-year group members through an activity designed to educate and encourage group cohesion. In each of the group meetings, participant leaders were encouraged to highlight the normative nature of many of the first-year experiences and to rely on group dynamic concepts, such as norming and social identity, to create a cohesive group dynamic. For each meeting, participant leaders kept process group notes outlining the group session and group dynamics. Specifically, the participant leaders commented on the sequence of events during the meeting, the communication and level of participation for each group member, the roles of group members (e.g., who is emerging as a leader), and the dynamic of the group (e.g., “stuck” vs. a productive direction). Participant leaders were required to present on their group process during the supervisory classes held twice a week.

Measures

Leadership abilities

In August, participants completed evaluations of their perception of their leadership skill and confidence prior to enrollment and participation in the practicum course. The survey assessed participants’ leadership abilities related to group dynamics and coleading a group discussion. Questions included their confidence about leading a group discussion, ability to develop cohesion among group members, drawing out a group member who is isolated and quiet, and ability to resolve conflict among group members. The rating scale was a 4-point scale ranging from not at all to very confident. In August, the pretest demonstrated reliable internal consistency (α = .86). Finally, in November, participants again completed the same evaluation of their perceived leadership skill and confidence at the end of the course.

First-year group members’ weekly evaluations of practicum group

The first-year student group members evaluated their satisfaction with the discussion session each week. At the end of each of the nine sessions, they evaluated their sense of connection with the group and satisfaction with the group meeting. For the purpose of this study, the questions used were “In general, I felt connected to my group” and “Overall, this group experience was satisfying for me.” Responses ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 5-point scale.

First-year group members’ overall evaluations of practicum group

At the end of the T2U program, the first-year group members completed two measures evaluating their overall experience. The first measure was a 17-item assessment of the overall group experience as indicated by overall satisfaction with the group discussion and connection with the other group members and leaders at the end of the program. In this study, the measure demonstrated reliable internal consistency (α = .97). Sample questions included “The group members seemed to respect me as a person” and “I didn’t really feel a sense of belonging to my group.” Responses ranged from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree on a 9-point scale. The second assessment measure was comprised of nine questions evaluating their group facilitators on their overall leadership skill and ability at the end of the program. Sample questions included “My group leaders co-facilitate well together” and “My group leaders were effective at managing difficult group members.” Ratings were from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 5-point scale. In this sample, the measure demonstrated reliable internal consistency (α = .95).

Results

Data analysis was conducted on leadership and group variable measures for both cohorts.

Leaders’ Evaluations

For both cohorts, analysis of the 15 leadership questions taken in August and November revealed that participants’ perceptions of their leadership skills and confidence in leading a group increased significantly over the course of the semester, Cohort 1: t(12) = 6.72, p < .01, d = 1.86; Cohort 2: t(18) = 6.01, p < .001, d = 1.38.

First-Year T2U Group Member Evaluations

During their weekly evaluations of the group sessions, first-year group members (Cohort 1: N = 138; Cohort 2: N = 108) reported on 5-point scales feeling connected with their group (Cohort 1: M = 4.59, SD = 0.46; Cohort 2: M = 4.65, SD = 0.49) and satisfied with each weekly group discussion (Cohort 1: M = 4.58, SD = 0.41; Cohort 2: M = 4.70, SD = 0.45). In November at the end of the group sessions, first-year group members reported on a 9-point scale feeling connected to their group members and leaders (Cohort 1: M = 7.36, SD = 1.63; Cohort 2: M = 7.34, SD = 0.88). In addition, first-year group members’ ratings on a 5-point scale of their coleaders’ abilities to lead their group and facilitate discussion were very positive (Cohort 1: M = 4.54, SD = 0.63; Cohort 2: M = 4.49, SD = 0.88).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine how a course designed to teach undergraduates the theory and tools of group dynamics would develop leadership skills among undergraduate university students. The design of this course relied on an application-based learning approach and offers a possible teaching modality for students interested in learning group dynamics and leadership skills. Over the course of the semester, the participant leaders learned group dynamics through a classroom experiential component where they participated as group members in a discussion-based group meeting led by a faculty member trained in group dynamics. The undergraduate students then applied the theory and skills in a practicum by coleading their own groups of first-year university students. The undergraduate leaders’ perceptions of their leadership skills and comfort in leading groups significantly increased over the course of the semester. In addition, first-year group members of these coleaders reported a high level of satisfaction with their leaders’ abilities to lead a weekly discussion. Moreover, these first-year group members reported a sense of connectedness with their group leaders over the course of the semester.

The design of this course offers potential benefits not only for the student leaders but also for the first-year students participating in the practicum portion of the course. For example, this course could serve as a potential model for first-year programs designed to help the T2U life. The group facilitator serves as a peer mentor who can help first-year students navigate the normative issues of transition from high school to college. The social connectedness to the student facilitators and the other first-year group members can provide social support and normalize college experiences. First-year students who participate in this type of transitional program, with an emphasis on peer mentoring and peer social support, report positive adjustment to the university and overall social adjustment (Harper & Allegretti, 2009, 2013; Pancer et al., 2005, 2006).

One limitation of this particular study is the type of participant in this course. For example, students with an interest in building leadership skills may have been more likely to apply and interview for this opportunity. In an attempt to minimize this factor, participant leaders with previous leadership training were eliminated from data analysis in this study. In addition, another limitation is the reliance on the subjective self-reports of the participant leaders to evaluate their development of leadership skills. Although student satisfaction and confidence are important components of the learning process, they are subjective measures and limited by nature. A direct measure of leadership skills to provide substantial evidence of student learning is warranted. Future research could include a pre–post direct measure of the leadership skills.

While this course shares similar features with traditional teaching approaches to group dynamics (i.e., graduate-level group psychotherapy course), this course goes beyond the clinical setting and is applicable to multiple types of groups. It can be useful for those who find themselves in a situation requiring group leadership skills, such as a TA in a classroom setting. Moreover, what sets the design of this course apart from others is the dual approach to learning group dynamics and leadership skills by including an ongoing practicum experience to practice these skills in conjunction with the traditional classroom setting. For example, student leaders can receive immediate supervision and apply new techniques and theories into their next practicum group sessions, and as group dynamic or member problems arise in the practicum groups, student leaders can then bring these issues to the class for analysis and discussion. By participating in a two-part course design such as this, student leaders can be more effectively prepared to evaluate group dynamics among group members and lead group discussion.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Eichler

(1987). Using structured group workshops to teach group process. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 42–44. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1401_12

Gaia

A. C.

Corts

D. P.

Tatum

H. E.

Allen

(2003). The GTA mentoring program: An interdisciplinary approach to developing future faculty as teacher-scholars. College Teaching, 51, 61–65. doi:10.1080/87567550309596413

Halgin

(1982). Using an experimental group to teach a group therapy course. Teaching of Psychology, 9, 188–189. doi:10.1207/s15328023top0903_18

Harper

M. S.

Allegretti

C. L.

(2009). Transition to University: An adjustment and retention program for first-year students. E-source for College Transitions, 6, 10–12. Retrieved from http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/web/index.php

Harper

M. S.

Allegretti

C. L.

(2013). Expanding a peer-facilitation program beyond the fall term. E-source for College Transitions, 11, 17–18. Retrieved from http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/web/index.php

Hulse-Killacky

(1996). Using the classroom as a group to integrate knowledge, skills, and supervised practice. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21, 163–168. doi:10.1080/01933929608412246

Meyers

S. A.

Prieto

L. R.

(2000). Training in the teaching of psychology: What is done and examining the differences. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 258–261.

Pancer

S. M.

Pratt

Alisat

(2006). T2U: A small group intervention to ease the transition of first year students at university. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Francisco, CA.

Pancer

S. M.

Pratt

Hunsberger

Alisat

(2005). Bridging troubled waters: Helping students make the transition from high school to university. Guidance and Counselling, 19, 184–190.

10.

Prieto

L. R.

Meyers

S. A.

(1999). The effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 264–266. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP260404

11.

Riva

M. T.

Korinek

(2004). Teaching group work: Modeling group leader and member behaviors in the classroom to demonstrate group theory. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29, 55–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-6663-5

12.

Williamson

L. K.

(2001, 4). The pedagogy of pedagogy: Teaching GTAs to teach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association and the American Culture Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA.