Bibliography

x. Anderson, Harold H. "Dominationand Social Integration in the Behaviorof Kindergarten Children." GeneticPsychology Monographs, 21: 287-385,1939-

2. Chapple, Eliot D. "Measuring HumanRelations: An Introduction to theStudy of the Interaction of Individuals."Genetic Psychology Monographs, 22:

3-147, 1940.3. Jennings, Helen H. Leadership and Iso-

lation. New York: Longmans, Greenand Co., 1943. pp. 240.

4 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R.K."Patterns of Aggressive Behavior inExperimentally Created Social Cli-

mates." Journal of Social Psychology,lo: 271-299, 1939-

5.. Metcalf, H.C. and Urwich, L. (eds)Dynamic Administration-The CollectedPapers of Mary Parker Follett. NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1940. pp. 320.

6. Rogers, Carl R. Counseling and Psycho-therapy. New York: Houghton Mif-flin Co., 1942. pp. 450o

7. Steinzor, Bernard. The Developmentand Evaluation of a Measure of BasicProcesses of Social Interaction as Re-vealed through Verbal Interaction.(Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Com-mittee on Human Development, Uni-versity of Chicago, December 1947.

FRED BARNES

In TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD for October, 1947, Alice Miel, a facultymember in a graduate class, describes the way in which the groupstudied itself. Fred Barnes, a student in that class, and now curriculumdirector at Peoria, Illinois, draws upon the same experience to give hispersonal interpretations of the class experiment. He and Miss Miel usemuch of the same material in their interpretation of the record.Readers may wish to refer to the article by Miss Miel mentioned above.

OCCASIONALLY a college class ofgraduate students is permitted to dosome original thinking. And occasion-ally such original thinking producesideas of interest to other people seekingbetter ways of dealing with old andvexing problems.

This account deals with one suchgraduate class. Out of sincere dissatis-faction with their ability to work ef-fectively as a group came a number of

306

interesting introspective studies de-signed to analyze and improve thegroup process as they lived it.

Required of all majors in Curriculumand Teaching, 300 CR, AdvancedStudy and Research in Curriculum andTeaching, is a famous full-year courseat Teachers College, Columbia Univer-sity. Famous because the course is re-quired but the specific content is not!Each year's group of students is en-

Educational Leadership

couraged to determine curriculum areasin need of intensive study and ways oforganizing and conducting such study.

Facts and Grievances Stand Out

The 1946-47 300 CR students facedthis problem and the consequent neces-sity of making appropriate group deci-sions. Problems related to interculturaleducation received priority during thefirst semester. At the semester's close,collective evaluation showed clearlythat while this area retained its originalsignificance for the class, inability towork well as a group prevented signi-ficant accomplishment in communicat-ing and using concepts gained throughmore or less arduous individual study.In evaluating the work of the firstsemester in order to plan for the second,some inescapable facts and grievancesarose:

Fact: Educators must learn how todeal actively with problems of inter-cultural relations here and now interms of human behavior.

Grievance: Why did we individuallylearn so many unrelated things con-cerning anthropology, sociology, andstatistics, and so few things aboutways to deal with people in inter-group relations?

Fact: Intelligent educational proce-dure makes use of rich resources athand. Due to its cosmopolitan struc-ture this group was laden with suchrich resources.

Grievance: Why did we evidencesuch affection for second-hand in-formation through printed materialsto the neglect of living source mate-rial within our own group?

February 1948

Fact: Learning to work with curricu-lum problems means learning to workeffectively with groups of people.

Grievance: How can we learn to worksuccessfully with groups when ourown experience has resulted in feel-ings of frustration and dispersement?

Frustration Continues to Prevail

300 CR moved into the second semes-ter with more than its share of the us-ual "we're not getting anywhere" at-titude. Stirred by the implications in-herent in the grievances, several of themore vocal members began agitationfor direct corrective measures througha study and a doing of the group proc-ess. The agitation caught on whenthe whole group agreed to study it-self to improve itself.1

Preliminary discussion of projectedplans centered around definitions ofgroup dynamics. The group began tostructure itself around differences ofopinion concerning definitions. De-pending largely on individual academicbackgrounds, individuals split intosmaller groups, each isolated within theconfines of its own knowledge limita-tions. Sociologists became embattledwith psychologists while academic in-dividualists carried the banner againstcollectivists. Amid this stalemate situa-tion but one agreement could bereached: everyone else needed to per-form further study.

Concepts Receive Tentative AcceptanceThe various factions began to emerge

as committees dedicated to the task of

1 For a further report on the experiences of thisclass see: Miel, Alice. "A Group Studies Itself toImprove Itself," Teachers College Record, October1947, 49, 1: 31-43.

307

ferreting information to buttress exis-tent points of view. Some individuals,who could not accept the differing pre-occupations of the committees, setabout to glean information in solitude.The next several meetings saw a height-ening of aggressions, additional frustra-tions, and finally a resolution of somepersistent tensions due to tentative ac-ceptance of a few basic concepts ap-plicable to understanding the behaviorsof people in any type of group exper-ience. Because these concepts were in-fluential in determining the class's re-maining activities, they are presented:

The individual and his society are in-separable. A society is composed of in-dividuals behaving in response to certainbasic needs and drives. However, thespecific forms of expression this behav-ior may take are, in large measure, de-termined by cultural patterns. 2

The dynamics of social behavior mustbe understood in terms of dynamic-not static-concepts. This may be mostadequately accomplished through thelive, descriptive analysis of the "new"psychology: resistance, ambivalence,projection, identification, and the like.aBehaviors of individuals in differentgroup situations are largely determinedby their statuses as ascribed to them bysocietal systems, and by the roles in-dividuals learn on the basis of statuses.4

The group process, used as a deliberatetechnique for education (effectingchanges in behavior) is a most complexand difficult procedure. Complex be-cause the dvnamics involved are asnumerous and wide as the whole ofhuman behavior in our society. Dif-ficult because changes in behavior are

2 Plant, James S. Personality and the CulturalPattern. New York: The Commonwealth Fund,1937.

3 Cantor, Nathaniel. Dynamics of Learning.Buffalo: Foster & Stewart, 1946.

4 Linton. Ralph. The Cultural Background ofPersonality. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1945.

308

achieved against the heavy weight orcultural and societal conditioning. 5

Use Becomes the ImperativeAt this point verbalizing and intel-

lectualizing seemed to reach a level ofdiminishing returns. How actually touse the concepts so painfully gainedbecame an imperative with some classmembers.

The class group began to re-structureitself through new volunteer commit-tees which set out to seek instrumentsand techniques designed to capture,preserve, and analyze dynamics as theyemerged through experience. In thefollowing weeks a large number oftechniques appeared and the class groupwas analyzed in many respects. All ofthese activities had merit and aided thegroup to better understand itself.

Space limitations prevent presenta-tion of the wide range of contributionsmade by the various committees. Threeanalysis techniques have been selectedfor some elaboration: (i) analysis ofstatuses and roles through runningnotes of the class discussions, (2) analy-sis of dominant and recessive groupmembers through a time chart depictingfrequency and length of remarks madeby each member during discussions,and (3) analysis of the group's thoughtpatterns through charting the main lineof thought, departures from groupthinking, and tempo of group progress.

Running Records Are Developed

In an effort to identify consistent be-havior types, hobby horses being rid-den, and personal obsessions; one com-

5 Miel, Alice. Changing the Curriculum, ASocial Process. New York: D. Appleton-Century,1946.

Educational Leadership

mittee developed the use of runningrecords made while group discussionprogressed. After several class meetingsthe collected comments of each memberwere compared and analyzed for repeti-tious strains. On methods of taking run-ning notes, one committee reported:

In order to have objective materialto serve as a basis for evaluation, severalof the group members attempted at vari-ous times to take running notes of thegroup discussions. Since none was ableto take shorthand this proved to be adifficult and strenuous task. Conse-quently, the results were not wholly sat-isfactory because the notes were farfrom complete or accurate.

The best plan evolved was to dividethe responsibility for note taking amongseveral members, making each respon-sible for a short period. These membersworked in groups of three's for twenty-minute periods. Two members of theteam attempted to take complete notesof all that was said and later combinetheir notes. The third member of theteam was responsible for taking downplans and diagrams written on the boardby the leader or members. This plan hasthe advantage of not tiring one or twogroup members nor of preventing theirparticipating in the group for more thana few minutes.

A stenographic report or recordingwould be far superior to running notes;but few groups have the facilities forobtaining these, whereas the taking ofrunning notes is a technique mostgroups can easily utilize. With practice,members will become skillful in usingthis technique. Running notes, eventhough not entirely complete or whollyaccurate, are far more objective and re-liable than the memories and impres-sions of group members.

Comments Reveal Statuses and RolesThis committee proceeded to ana-

lyze the notes of several class sessions

February 1948

and then reported to the class. Thevused the report to point up reasons fordifficulties encountered in attemptingto solidify group thought, make stridesas a group, and arrive at consensus. Thereader may easily discover reasons be-hind the various roles as described:

One member is firmly convinced ofthe value of group discussions, per se.She feels that general, uninhibited talkis necessary and that the time consumedis well spent.

A second member feels that the dis-cussion must "get some place." She isconcerned with proving the efficiencyof the group process. This same mem-ber wants clear analysis of all points, arigorous intellectual approach to thebest that has been written in the field.

A third member wants to work in-ductively, proceeding to generalizationsfrom specific cases which are not to beconsidered merely as examples. Shewants to use experience, not books, asthe background and is concerned thatthe results be intelligible to the averageteacher.

An administrator in the group con-tinuallyv refers to the place of the leaderin group process.

A director of teacher education in asmall college is concerned with pre-existing groups and their influence ongroup process.

The two members of the class mostinstrumental in acceptance of the topicof group structure by the class con-tinually try to bring discussion back tostructure.

A third member who opposed thisorientation takes everv opportunityto stress function and the danger ofbogging down in a sterile and staticapproach.

One man is concerned with psycho-logical bases.

A woman is concerned with socio-logical bases.

One member plays the role of pur-pose-questioner; Where are we going?What does this mean?

309

Another tries to act as conciliator andto bring opposing points into synthesis.

Record of Vocalization Tells Story

The committee concerned with thevocalization-of group members madethe following report after having spentmuch time in perfecting an objectivedevice to measure amounts of grouptime consumed by various members:

In this experiment the committee at-tempted to chart the amount of vocali-zation of each member of the group.Employing graph paper and a watch,the recorder drew a jagged line (hori-zontal) beside the speaker's name in thecorresponding time unit in which themember happened to be speaking. Solidvertical lines were used to connect theremarks of succeeding speakers, thespeakers being arranged on the ver-tical axis of the graph. Slanting linesshowed the length of silent periodsby the degree of slant, while perpen-dicular lines denoted quick questionsor responses.

In the completed work we had agraphic picture of the group meetingwhich correlated with the word pictureprojected by the running notes.

The tabulation of results was merelya summary of the number of minutesand seconds each member had spoken.From that we drew the total amountof time each individual had spoken plusthe percentage of total group time eachhad consumed.

A glance at the table in the next col-umn shows that out of twenty-five per-sons present nine did not participatevocally, and of the sixteen who did par-ticipate, two persons used more grouptime than all the other fourteen partici-pants together. Significantly, both ofthese very vocal members were "statuspersons," members of the faculty, andone of the two was chairman of themeeting.

We could not, of course, from thisgraph ascertain who is over-partici-pating vocally or who is under-partici-

310

pating. Individual members have vary-ing contributions to bring to varyingtopics. However, a series of graphs re-presenting a number of meetings mightpoint out any malignant trend towardeither extreme.

STATISTICAL TABULATION OF VOCALPARTICIPATION

No.ofContrib- times

utor speak-ing

Chairman 76Second

facultymember 33

StudentA ..... 24B..... 13C..... IID.... 8E..... 13F..... 8G.... 12H.... 5I ..... 3J ..... 3K.... 2

L .....M .... IN.... IO to W(9 stu-dents). o

Amountof time

used

Min. Sec.

Per centof total

timeused

Per centof linesin reportof pre-vious

meeting*

45 0 30.0 10.5'

30 40 20.4 20.4"

1o 30 7.0 8.78 o 5.3 5.76 50 4-5 0.26 0 4.0 13.85 10 3.8 12.3'

30 3.0 0.64 30 3.o0 1.22 20 1.5 0.62 10 1.4 2.4r 30 I .0o 0.9I 30 1.0 o.oo 30 0.3 o.oo 30 0.3 2.1o 20 0.2 0.3

o o o.0

Members absent at second meetingbut present at first:

X................ ......Y ......................Z .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

9 64

3. 33 9

*Of 333 lines reported in the running notes of themeeting prior to the one where the more accurate stat-

istical record was kept, the last column indicates the

percentage of lines attributed to each member. This rec-ord was highly subjective, but similarities to the more

objective record are of interest. Members O to W wererepresented in the earlier meeting by vocalization onthe part of S (1.5%) and T (1.Se%) only.

'Not chairman at the earlier meeting.'Chairman for one-third of earlier session.

'Presented somewhat lengthy report of subcommittee.'Chairman for two-thirds of meeting.

Educational Leadership

Group Thought Patterns Are Examined

The report issued to the class on thethird analysis is rather complete andself-explanatory:

The success factor in group endeavoris a powerful force in cementing group-ness and motivating continuing group ac-tivity. Groups which have met for thepurpose of dealing with common prob-lems are often evaluated by their membersby such comments as: "We're not gettinganywhere," or "We're really doing things."

These evaluations are of fundamentalimportance. While dissatisfactions con-cerning group progress may be voicedconsciously by the leadership to facilitatea group's structuring itself during its for-mative period, these dissatisfactions con-tinued over too long a period of time in-evitably lead to disintegration of structure.

A basic operating principle for the"problem-action" type of group is: Thegroup members must feel a sense of for-ward movement. The desired sense of for-ward movement has to do with two aspectsof the group's thought process--directionand tempo.

The necessity that all members of thegroup clearly perceive group purpose needhardly be elaborated. Not so evident isthe fact that it is possible to proceed in agiven direction at too fast or too slow arate. Tempo not in keeping with varyingrequirements of subjects of discussion andcomposition of groups may be a basichindrance to the group members' sense offorward movement.

2

I 3 3

5 6

Based on the above premises, an attemptwas made to evolve a diagnostic devicewhich, in some manner, would graphicallyportray the pattern of forward movementin the discussions of the class. The firststep was to determine the possible spreadof direction and tempo which might beidentified in the discussions. It was seenthat contributions made during a discus-sion might be one of three types: (i)pertinent to the subject being discussedand sensitive to the tempo of group think-ing; (2) pertinent to the subject beingdiscussed but pushing ahead too fast ortrudging along too slowly-showing lackof sensitivity to the tempo of group think-ing; (3) off the subject-introduction ofa new topic.

The device was then constructed in theform of a running graph to be plotted asthe discussion proceeded. Three horizon-tal lines represented the three types ofcontribution listed above. Double verticallines were used to represent change ingroup subject of discussion. Each commentmade was plotted on the appropriate hor-izontal line, numbered in order, and thesame number, with the comment itself,was recorded below the graph in thespace provided. Contributions made bythe discussion leader were starred (*).The first comment to the right of eachdouble vertical line gave the key to thenew group subject.

Below is presented an illustrative por-tion worked our during one group discus-sion. The reader will detect the extent towhich forward movement was achieved.

9 io

//

II 12

i :. Let's define what we mean by a "pre-structured" group.2. Ve should classify all types of groups and contrast them.3. A "pre-structured" group assigns ready-made roles to its members.

* 4- What part do status persons play?

February 1948 311

5. Some structure is necessary. Fluid groups don't get anywhere.6. Fluid groups may, eventually. Our concept of nebulous groups describes pure

wandering.7. Now we are wandering. Maybe we should start farther back and decide what pur-

poses group action can serve.8. I can't see purposes apart from particular types of groups. What types of groups

have we identified so far?9. We have covered that ground more than once. Do we have to begin every dis-

cussion in the Garden of Eden? We are now talking about groups with consciouspurposes.

io. By purposes do we mean group goals or socio-psychological development of par-ticipants, or both?

i . I don't think we will really understand what we are doing until we observe somegroups first hand.

12. First of all, we have to know what to observe.*13- We set out to discuss "pre-structured" groups. Can we orient around a descrip-

tion of some such group and then analyze it?

Direct Experience Makes the DifferenceThe above devices, and many others

not presented in this report, havingevolved from this group now were eval-uated by the group through discussionsand questionnaires. It is interesting tonote that while all techniques used werethought to have merit, there was noagreement as to which ones were mostvaluable. Certainly, the group had im-proved in ability to work together asevidenced by interesting, creative pro-ductivity and increased friendly extra-class contacts.

Exactly how this had been accom-plished was not at once apparent. It isprobably true that the fact of dealingdirectly with process made the differ-ence to a far greater degree than did anyspecific analysis technique employed.

The class experience resulted in afew generalizations concerning which

most class members had not been pre-viously aware:

While process is no substitute forworthwhile group objectives, efficientprocess is necessary to the definition,movement toward, and realization ofobjectives.

Efficient process is dependent uponbroad understandings of socio-psycho-logical dynamics.

One way a group may promote theseunderstandings on the part of all parti-cipants is to identify and deal directlywith process as process through groupintrospection based on experimentaltechniques.

It was the expressed hope of the eval-uation committees that these hard-wongeneralizations might guide the classmembers toward further group processknow-how and also make a contributionto others discovering process in groupwork.

Educational Leadership312

Copyright © 1948 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.