1. Group Cohesion in Collaborative Environments
Sami Stevick
Donna Ashcraft
Fred Keen
Troy Teeter
Clarion University
Thomas Treadwell
West Chester University

2. Cooperative vs. Collaborative Learning
Cooperative learning:
division of labor
“cut and paste” approach
lecture based
product oriented

3. Cooperative vs. Collaborative Learning
shared knowledge and experiences
shared goal(s)
ideas are constructed through group interaction and interaction between individuals within the group
work on all parts of project by all members, hence a more thorough understanding of subject
Constructivism
active learning
process oriented

4. Benefits of Group Work (Petress, 2004)
Freud asserted that groups are replacements for our families.
Baumeister and Leary in their belongingness hypothesis, stated that people have a need to belong to groups to avoid unhappiness and loneliness.
Rubenstein & Shaver observed that people avoid loneliness which can have devastating consequences such as depression, shame, and self-pity.
Shaver & Buhrmeister stated that emotional and social loneliness are consequences of isolation; both are reduced in a group setting.

5. Benefits of Group Work Emotional and Social Benefits (Forsyth, 1996)
Sense of belonging
Emotional support and intimacy
Generativity
Support
Influence
Exploration

6. Benefits of Group Work
Cognitive and Affective Benefits (Petress, 2004)
Learn social skills
Gain confidence
Assertiveness practice
Practice for future group work
Practice communication skills (verbal and listening)
Diversity in learning and sharing knowledge
Reinforcement of self-efficacy
Validation of knowledge
Rotation of responsibilities affords opportunity to practice many roles

7. Group Work Processes Goal setting and adjusting
 Task Dimension Duties (Petress, 2004)
Goal setting and adjusting
Data gathering and organizing duties
Summarizing group tasks
Procedural and outcome assessment and probing
responsibilities
Agenda setting

8. Group Work Processes Group Maintenance Duties (Petress, 2004)
Giving each member a fairly equitable opportunity to
participate
Focusing/refocusing on the task
Recognizing and breaking group tension
Mediating member disagreements
Celebrating success on tasks/subtasks
Caring for individual needs.

9. Group Cohesion Many definitions, no consensus
Bonds that link group members to each other as individuals and to the group, defining its “unity, oneness, and solidarity” (Forsyth, 1999, p.9)

10. Dimensions of Group Cohesion (Forsyth, 1999)
Binding force
Group unity
Attraction
Teamwork

11. Benefits of Group Cohesion (Peterson, 2007)
Greater cohesiveness = Greater productivity (Cartwright, 1968)
Each of group cohesion’s three points - attraction, unity (i.e. group pride), and *commitment to task - are positively related to group performance (Beal, et al., 2003)
When cohesion is strong, social and motivational forces are strong leading to better performance (Cartwright, 1968)

12. Benefits of Group Cohesion (Forsyth,1999)
Participant satisfaction
Less tension and anxiety
Better acceptance of group goals, decisions, and norms
Caveat: Productivity of cohesive groups is high when groups establish norms that encourage high standards of performance (success at reaching Tuckman’s (1965) norming stage where they promote high standards of productivity)

13. Tuckman’s Stages Forming - orientation Storming - conflict
Bruce Tuckman (1965) identified four stages of group development:
Forming - orientation
Storming - conflict
Norming - unification and organization; (actualization of cohesion)
Performing - production

14. CORAL Collaborative On-line Research and Learning
Two Universities, Clarion and West Chester, at each end of PA
Webboards
File Manager
Videoconferencing
Chat rooms

15. Participants
Control Group: Students participating in short-term group work as part of an objectivist class
Experimental Group: Students participating in semester-long collaborative group work (CORAL)

16. Materials and Procedure
Pre-test and Post-test:
Attitudes about Group Work (Stevick, 2007)
Group Cohesion Scales A & B (Treadwell, Laverture, Kumar, & Veeraraghavan, 2001)

17. Results
Findings show significant increase in attitudes towards group work for the CORAL class over the course of the semester: t(38)= , p < .001.
Findings show the level of group cohesion increased significantly for the CORAL class over the course of the semester: t(21)= , p < .05.

18. Results CORAL Attitudes N Mean SD 38 45.6053 9.8050 52.7105 9.3315
Pre-test 38
9.8050
Post-test
9.3315
Cohesion 21
9.0554
5.0332

19. Results
For Non-CORAL class there was a significant decrease in overall level of cohesiveness: t(27)= 6.429, p < .001.
No significant increase in attitudes towards group work for Non- CORAL classes: t(87)= , p ≥ .05.

20. Results Short-term Group Work Attitudes N Mean SD 87 47.3793 10.7792
Pre-test 87
Post-test
Cohesion 27
7.8071
8.3897

21. Summary of Results
Attitudes and level of cohesiveness same initially for CORAL and Non-CORAL classes.
Attitudes and level of cohesiveness improved for CORAL class.
No discernible differences in attitudes towards group work in Non-CORAL class from beginning to end of semester.
Significant decrease in level of cohesiveness for Non-CORAL class.

22. Discussion
Results indicate a focused and organized group environment such as CORAL is more conducive to positive group attitudes and overall group cohesiveness, whereas informal, non-constructive settings impede the acquisition of positive attitudes that are integral to levels of group cohesion.

23. Implications
A need to alter conventional group work processes which tend to get mired in the conflict stage (storming).
Awareness of the dynamics of cohesive group work lends itself to higher levels of functioning.
Consistent and stable group projects facilitates growth within the group, and in turn, fosters superior group performance and cohesiveness.

24. References Forsyth, D.R. (1999). Group Dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Peterson, F.W. (2007). Predicting group performance using
cohesion and social network density: A comparative analysis. Retrieved 4/3/08 from
Petress, K.C. (2004). The Benefits of Group Study.
Education. Summer Retrieved 3/2/08 from
407/ai_n
Treadwell, T., Laverture, N., Kumar, V.K., and
Veeraraghavan, V. (2001). The group cohesion scale-
revised: reliability and validity. International Journal of
Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role Playing, 54, 3-12.