Blog 4

What are the problems in determining whether group developmental stages can be measured?

In the article by Brabeder & Fallon, they address certain conceptual and methodological problems in measuring stages of group development. One of the conceptual problems mentioned is finding suitable operational definitions for what you are measuring. Another problem they mentioned is that it is hard to create good instruments to measure different aspects of group development or behavior. For example, it would be difficult to measure different types of conflict with groups. I think a good example of how problematic these issues can be is through a study done by Pazos, Micari & Light, (2010). They constructed an instrument to measure problem-solving in peer led groups in an academic setting. They had to operationally define all of their terms and create a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the group interactions to measure a specific aspect of group interactions.

In addition, there are several methodological problems in measuring group developmental stages. Wheelan’s (2005) study on internal dynamics showed that research about group development can be painstaking and very time consuming. Also, while this may seem obvious, every group is different. So, the way every group develops is going to be different, (Cissna, 1984). Not every group is going to go through all the stages of development, and they might experience them to different degrees. Different groups might not experience them in the same order, and it is possible for different stages to be revisited. Nothing has been determined about what it would mean if a group doesn’t experience certain stages or if they experience them multiple times. This makes the stages of development seem less concrete and more fluid, making it much harder to measure them. While it is difficult to research and measure group stages development, more research needs to be done in this field.

References:

Brabender, V., & Fallon, A. (2009). Empirical investigations of group development. In V. Brabender & A. Fallon, Group development in practice: Guidance for clinicians and researchers on stages and dynamics of change (pp. 63--‐96). doi:10.1037/11858--‐004

Cissna, K. N. (1984). Phases in group development: The negative evidence. Small Group Behavior, 15(1), 3-32. Retrieved from http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/15/1/3.full.pdf

Pazos, P., Micari, M., & Light, G. (2010). Developing an instrument to characterise peer-led groups in collaborative learning environments: assessing problem-solving approach and group interaction.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,35(2), 191-208. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3566e02c-3b4a-4180-83d8-82674cabc505@sessionmgr115&vid=11&hid=124

Wheelan, S. A. (2005). An initial exploration of the internal dynamics of leadership teams. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,55(3), 179-188. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3566e02c-3b4a-4180-83d8-82674cabc505@sessionmgr115&vid=17&hid=124

Blog 3

How are methods of measuring group learning similar to and different from measuring individual learning?

            It can be very difficult to measure group learning compared to individual learning, especially since it can be hard to measure what was actually learned. Goodman & Dabbish (2011) talk about “knowledge sharing” as a way of learning in groups. I think that if a group member shares something with you, you are more likely to view that piece of information under the same lens as your other group members. The group dynamics would shape the way you thought about new information (Soller, 2004).This would help the group to think more like one body instead of individuals, which would help with task completion.

Magni, Paolino, Cappetta, & Proserpio (2013) talk about cognitive absorption being important for individual learning. They define cognitive absorption as a state in which one becomes so engulfed in a task that they forget everything else around them. This reminded me of “flow.” Cognitive absorption is useful for individual learning because it allow the individual to zone in and focus completely on one thing. However, cognitive absorption doesn’t work very well for group learning because it would be difficult for all of the members of the group to have that kind of focus on one thing. I think that when people are in a group they cannot tune everything else out because they are also thinking about their group members.

            Another interesting method of group learning from the article was transactive memory systems (TMS). This is when group members learn about each other’s strengths and interests and store that information away until it is needed (Peltokori, 2012). Because of TMS, group members tend to assume responsibility for the things that they have established they are good at. I think that this would make a group closer because it provides a foundation for relying on each other to complete a task. This type of learning only works at a group level.

References:

Goodman, P. S., & Dabbish, L. A. (2011). Methodological issues in measuring group learning. Small Group Research, 42(4), 379--‐404. doi:10.1177/1046496410385471

Magni, M., Paolino, C., Cappetta, R., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Diving too deep: How cognitive absorption and group learning behavior affect individual learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 51-69. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=bb4575d6-0885-425b-9285-c07abab23bf4@sessionmgr15&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==

Peltokorpi, V. (2012). Organizational transactive memory systems: Review and extension. European Psychologist, 17(1), 11-20. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ed9e634f-4cea-40b1-926a-9881967723d6@sessionmgr15&vid=8&hid=21

Soller, A. (2004). Understanding knowledge-sharing breakdowns: A meeting of the quantitative and qualitative minds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 212-223. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=daaddad7-40bd-4a0b-94db-5e9c44b8f229@sessionmgr12&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Q tbGl2ZQ==

Blog 2

What is your opinion (backed by evidence) of the best restorative group method/approach to help people regain and maintain their mental well-being?

            I think that Cognitive-Behavioral Groups are the best restorative group method to help people regain and maintain mental well-being. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy aims to help people monitor and take charge of their thoughts and actions in order to change them (Baer, 2003). Cognitive-behavioral group therapist focus on the behaviors and cognitions surrounding relational and social skills. Clients are taught to recognize negative and unhealthy thoughts and replace them with positive ones (Forsyth, 2010). It is believed that by changing cognitive processes, behaviors can be modified.

Group Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy is useful in treating psychological disorders. It has been known to have an effect on the level of depression and the relapse rate of depression. Another positive effect of Group CBT is a significant reduction in the number of negative thoughts (Chiueng-Yi Feng et al., 2012). Group CBT has also been helpful in reducing SAD (Social Anxiety Disorder) symptoms. CBT has been proven more effective in groups than with individuals, (Dogaheh, Mohammadkhani, & Dolatshahi, 2011).

I think that Group CBT would be the best group therapy choice to help maintain mental well-being because I think that if you can reduce the number of negative thoughts you have, you will have a much healthier mind. Positive thinking is really important to maintaining good mental health, and the ability to monitor your thoughts is also an important skill. I also think that thoughts provided a basis for actions, so if you can learn to control your thoughts, I think it only makes sense that your actions would be in line with your thoughts.

References:

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review.Mindfulness Training as a Clinical Intervention: A Conceptual and Empirical Review, 10(2), 125-143.

Dogaheh, E. R., Mohammadkhani, P., & Dolatshahi, B. (2011). Comparison of group and individual cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing fear of negative evaluation. Psychological Reports,108(3), 943-954. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ae69d57e-2384-4853-8528-b6b4c0224f7c@sessionmgr11&vid=8&hid=127

Feng, C., Chu, H., Chen, C., Chang, Y., Chen, T., Chou, Y., Chang, Y., & Chou, K. (2012). The effect of  cognitive behavioral group therapy for depression: A meta‐analysis 2000–2010. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(1), 2-17. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ae69d57e-2384-4853-8528-b6b4c0224f7c@sessionmgr11&vid=7&hid=127

Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group processes and group psychotherapy: Social psychological foundations of change in therapeutic groups. In J. E. Maddux & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 497--‐513). New York: Guilford Press.