The emotional impact of learning in small groups: highlighting the impact on student progression and retention

Abstract

Student progression and retention is an area of increasing social importance and concern around student non-completion rates is expressed in many arenas. Research suggests many reasons for student non-completion, including the balancing of social and academic integration into university life. The increasing diversity of the student body potentially militates against such integration. Discourse here has tended either to problematise the student (seeking to identify and remedy their alleged deficits and differences), or the teacher (adopting a narrowly ‘technological’, a-theoretical approach to teaching and learning). Both approaches de-contextualise the issue removing it from the social nexus which is at the heart of the learning and teaching environment. This article seeks to redress this by placing the social nexus at the core of its approach to progression and retention. Drawing upon group work theory we explore the role of small group learning in promoting social and academic integration.

Participation, integration, progression and retention

As demands for increased and more diverse participation have grown, the issue of student progression and retention has become increasingly prominent in higher education (Brunsden et al., 2000; Edward, 2003; Maunder & Harrop, 2003). Margaret Hodge, speaking to the House of Commons Education Skills Committee (2003, p. 44) pointed to non-completion rates as high as 33% and 45%. It is recognised that widening participation may result in increased failure and drop-out rates for students (Bennett, 2003; Parry, 2003). A major issue for universities has become how to retain these students and to foster their potential (Johnson, 2003; Laing & Robinson, 2003).

The impact of the first year is crucial in influencing whether students remain or withdraw from their studies (Blythman & Orr, 2003; Fitzgibbon & Prior, 2003; House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, 2003). Many reasons are suggested why students fail to complete their education, such as personal financial circumstances, social problems, medical circumstances, changes in personal situations and inappropriate programme choice (Weston, 1998; Yorke, 1999; Evans, 2000; Davis, 2003). Social – as well as academic – integration in university life is noted as an influential factor (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Tinto, 1993; Yorke, 1999 2000; McInnes, 2001). This appears especially pertinent now as wider participation has created a more diverse mix of ages, social, educational and cultural backgrounds that may militate against such integration. Learning is by its nature an unsettling and challenging process which stimulates anxiety. The emotional context of learning, therefore, needs to be recognised and accommodated within the educational environment.

This article explores the promotion of integration into university life through small-group learning. It is our contention that understanding the theoretical underpinnings, processes and emotional impact of this approach on the student experience will facilitate more rewarding learning and teaching, thereby fostering student potential and promoting progression and retention. Researchers have noted the importance of facilitating social integration but such attention has been focused mainly around outreach work with students prior to beginning their studies (Yorke & Thomas, 2003), offering comprehensive pre-enrolment information (NAO, 2002) and providing comprehensive induction programmes (Edward, 2003). Taylor and Bedford (2004) suggested that the extent to which lecturers attempt to assist groups of students to experience effective group learning processes is considered by teaching staff to be an important factor in promoting student retention.

The authors are currently employed by a university which is addressing student progression and retention through a variety of channels. As part of implementing the University's Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy, a number of mini conferences are being held to explore pertinent strands of this strategy. The first mini conference focused on the theme of enhancing student progression and retention. One of the authors had the joint responsibility of setting up the mini- conference and calling for volunteers to run workshops. The other author expressed an interest in running a workshop focused on exploring how students’ experiences within small groups impacted on their decision to remain on their programme and how well they progressed in their studies. This interest emerged from the author's experience as a University Counsellor and from her discussions with students on the emotional impact of small group learning in relation to their studies. Earlier work in the area of progression and retention, for example Tinto's (1993) model, has been criticised for failing to allow individual students to express personal meaning in relation to factors impacting upon their experiences of academic and social integration (Brunsden et al., 2000; Rhodes & Nevill, 2004). Focusing directly on concerns raised by students themselves in university counselling sessions appeared pertinent in attempting to facilitate the inclusion of personal meaning when addressing questions around student non-completion.

Both authors subsequently co-ran a workshop at the mini conference, focusing on the emotional impact of small group work and its impact on student progression and retention. The aim of the workshop was to explore how sensitivity to group processes and an understanding of the emotional impact of working in small groups can be utilised most effectively by teaching staff. Information was provided in relation to key aspects of group work theory, drawing in particular from psychodynamic theories about group and individual processes and linking this closely with material from adult learning literature. Both authors, drawing upon their experiences from teaching and counselling students, explored with the participants the relevance of such theorising to small group learning and teaching within the University. This article utilises material discussed in this workshop and benefits from feedback from participants in relation to areas they found particularly helpful.

Workshop participants were drawn from a wide variety of academic and teaching backgrounds. Whilst some disciplines drew upon group work theory in the teaching of their syllabus, for example, individual and group psychologists, the knowledge base of other disciplines did not include such perspectives. For some participants, theorising the process of group work initially seemed peripheral to facilitating the academic task – as one participant asserted, ‘We are teachers not counsellors!’. For us, the experience of the workshop was a timely reminder that ‘theorising’ is itself not unproblematic. Even within an academic context amid ones peers, in seeking to promote our approach we need to be sensitive to the diversity of faculty members as well as that of their students. There is a move within some sectors to reject what is conceptualised as a ‘therapeutic’ approach to education, equating this with an emphasis on emotional damage which is considered to lead to vulnerability and the ‘demoralisation of education’ (Furedi, 2003; Ecclestone, 2004). We would argue, however, that an awareness and understanding of the emotional aspects of learning, whilst maintaining a focus on the academic task, can help to foster an environment where students can develop their potential. Thus an important purpose of this article is to illustrate how theoretical knowledge about group work processes can facilitate the academic task across disciplines without the focus being on ‘emotional damage’.

We found in the workshop that focusing on the social nexus by locating discourse about learning and teaching in the theoretical context of group work enabled participants to begin moving away from simply discussing teaching ‘techniques’ within a technical, narrow framework. It provided the opportunity to reflect more deeply on how such an approach can enhance the learning and teaching experience, promote student integration and thus progression and retention.

Enhancing the student experience: small-group learning

There are many theoretical approaches focusing on enhancing the student experience by addressing the emotional context of learning. Abercrombie, for example, pioneered educational approaches derived from group analytic methods and principles. Issues of ‘authority-dependence’ were identified as a key reason for many of the difficulties adults experience in learning. Her work encouraged teachers to strive to change this dynamic to enable students and teachers to perceive and think more clearly, creatively, independently and professionally (Nias, 1993).

Small-group work is a key part of academic learning (Gillies & Ashman, 2003). The sense of identity and belonging that a student can experience in a well-run group should not be underestimated (Jacques, 2000). Doel and Sawdon (1999) argue that it is important for those working with small groups in whatever context to have an understanding of theoretical underpinnings if they are to achieve their goals. Spalding et al. (1999) found that where students experience working in a socially cohesive group, the learning process is enhanced. Gardner and Jewler (1992) noted that a personal sense of belonging to other individuals or groups on campus stands out as an important factor in the retention of students.

Academic groups are usually task focused within universities, however, groups of all kinds operate at both a task and socio-emotional level (Jacques, 2000). The ideal for many small groups in universities is that we are facilitating and guiding a group of students who are all willing and able to participate in collective discussions. Many students tell us that this is not always how they experience their learning environment.

For individual students, working in groups offers valuable opportunities for self-development, interpersonal growth and support. This operates alongside responding to the stated academic task (i.e. ‘learning outcomes’), which may not of itself draw members of the group together. The experience of being in groups can be powerfully emotionally charged both positively and negatively. Students, ideally, will have an experience of cooperation, which would include creative disagreement, excitement and enthusiasm about their shared task, but equally may feel antagonistic and blocked, unable to make their voice heard, or to contribute as they would like. These typical statements made by students to counsellors about working in groups sounded familiar to the workshop participants:

I just don't fit in. I'm an outsider

The others seem to know what they're doing. I just don't feel motivated, or that I've anything much to contribute.

I'm doing most of the work. I'm fed up with the others not pulling their weight, but what can I do? I don't want to get marked down.

Other people really take over and are so opinionated about how it should be done

The theoretical frame: groupwork

The individual and the group

Groups and individuals often find their own ways to resolve such situations satisfactorily but this is not always the case. The effect of a group not functioning well can spiral, seriously impacting on the individual student's academic performance and emotional well-being.

The following example was shared with workshop participants. Disguised and composite case studies were used to preserve student confidentiality.

Rita was a mature student in her late 40s, in the second year of her course. A very capable woman, she was returning to study having brought up her three children. The other students on her course were much younger. In her first year, there had been one other student of a similar age, with whom she had particularly bonded. This year they were in different groups and rarely had any contact. She described her group as being dominated by a number of very vocal men, who allowed no space for others. Rita had come to the counselling service, overwhelmed by anxiety. She had been having panic attacks and was feeling totally isolated on her course. She believed that there was no place for her at the University and that she ought to leave.

In exploring her personal history, some striking parallels emerged. She had a younger brother, who had been seen as the ‘clever one’ by her family. Her parents, in particular her mother, had been critical and dismissive of Rita's intellectual abilities. Just before the start of her second year at secondary school, her one close friend died suddenly. She became a non-attender following this traumatic event.

In returning to education as a mature student, Rita's fears of not being good enough academically were being reactivated, though not reflected in her marks. In relationships with her peers she was being re-presented with the old issues of rivalry and competitiveness with her brother and with the devastation and isolation she felt both within her family and at the death of her friend.

Making sense of this in counselling enabled Rita to hold a different perspective on her experiences. In valuing her thoughts and knowledge, she gradually found a voice to contribute this within her peer group and to feel more confident about her place within the University.

The academic groups in which students are working are clearly not ‘therapeutic’ groups. Furthermore, group membership may result in students experiencing individual difficulties that are more appropriately dealt with in the counselling arena rather than the classroom. We would argue, however, that the insights provided by group dynamic theories and individual psychological processes, offer teaching staff a useful basis for understanding some aspects of group learning and provide a helpful framework for dealing with potential problems in group functioning.

A psychodynamic perspective has guided both authors in their respective roles and so provided the theoretical underpinning of our exploration of learning in small groups. There are, of course, many other theories about group processes and dynamics that also provide useful insights. We offer the following, particular perspectives as an illustration of the importance of theorising our small group work. In the workshop, we drew on the work of Foulkes and Bion, both psychoanalysts who worked with and observed the processes of groups. Much of the psychoanalytic thinking of that time focussed on the internal world of the individual. Foulkes (1899–1976) brought into the foreground the social essence of man – the ways in which individuals affect and influence each other within a social context, or network of communication processes (Pines, 1983).

Our earliest group experience is within our family of origin, and the nature of this experience has a profound effect upon our being and our subsequent experience of, and response to, the world around us. We continue throughout our lives to operate as group participants – membership of some groups is chosen, whilst in others membership is assigned to us, for example, school, university, work, friendship and interest groups, our own families. These experiences themselves take place within a wider social, cultural, political and economic context. When we join a new group, we enter with preconceptions, expectations and responses, both conscious and unconscious, emanating from our previous group experiences. These can determine our feelings, actions and reactions in a group setting. As group teachers we need to be aware of the potential emotional impact of group working on our students, whilst also acknowledging our own emotional reactions to membership of different groups (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983).

Coming to university requires an enormous adjustment from the student, to join and engage with the institution, its staff and the learning process, to produce work and to develop relationships with peers. The diversity of the student population in many modern universities represents a ‘microcosm’ of society, which brings great potential for enrichment but can challenge our more fixed ways of responding. Read and Leathwood (2003) argue that even in an era of widened participation in the higher education arena, feelings of not ‘belonging’ to, and experiencing ‘isolation’ from, the predominant academic culture remain pertinent concerns for many students from ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds (e.g. first-generation university entrants). Individual students bring their own underlying development issues, emotional needs and experiences to their learning environment and these will vary considerably. Whilst it is important to avoid stereotyping individual students and to appreciate individual uniqueness, it is also possible to seek to identify shared patterns or commonalties of experience that students bring to their studies as a starting point in facilitating the learning needs of a diverse student body (Brunsden et al., 2000).

Drawing upon these ideas, we encouraged workshop participants to compare the earlier experience of a mature student, Rita, with the experience of the student below:

Adam was 19 years old, in his first year, living away from home for the first time. He was feeling anxious in social situations, drinking heavily sometimes to give himself more confidence. His parents had high expectations of him at university, and although intellectually able, Adam found it difficult to engage with his academic work. He had been avoiding a group of his fellow students with whom he was to work on a presentation. He felt guilty about this. He made a number of appointments with the counselling service, before eventually attending a session.

For the student who has just left home, this is a difficult transition period of separating emotionally and physically from their family, and establishing their own identity and relationships with peers. This is not usually unproblematic, as peers are also inevitably rivals, in a setting where academic work is judged and graded. Unresolved conflicts with parents may be re-enacted in the arena of academic performance. The oscillation between dependence and autonomy, which is part of the process of separation, may become visible in the position(s) the student adopts within the small group or in their relationship to the institution generally. Thus Adam, struggling to find his place, was caught between the wish to do well at his studies, and an unacknowledged pull to take the opposite stance, to rebel against his parents’ expectations of him.

In terms of group learning, therefore, it is a helpful starting premise to reflect on the idea that in any group there will be different levels of relating. These will include everyday, current relationships and those once experienced in relation to significant figures in each individual's past experiences.

Sunita, a second year student of Asian origin, born in Britain, was referred to the counselling service after she had made a complaint of bullying by a member of the small group she was working in. At this stage she did not want counselling, but rather some practical recourse to be taken by the University. She contacted the service some months later, very distressed after being rejected by a man who she thought was interested in her. Further exploration revealed a history of relationships where she had felt controlled or abused in various ways This led back to a very dominant, strict and constraining father, whom she had tried desperately to please and who had died several years previously. In counselling she was then able to explore how her perceptions of, and reactions to, more recent situations was being affected by her past experiences.

These examples illustrate the way an individual's own experiences may be brought to and inform their group interactions, and – it should be emphasised – this applies to both learners and teachers. The relationship of the individual to the group is simultaneously independent and interdependent. A group can be understood as embodying the interaction of a number of separate individuals, with differing histories and patterns of relating. From this perspective, therefore, a group has the potential to be a hotbed for the complex interplay of such tensions and conflicts. Utilising a theoretical framework that highlights potential problems in relation to group functioning can be pertinent in alerting us to the importance of focusing on group process, alongside academic content and outcomes, when facilitating small-group work in the academic arena.

The group and the individual

A key area for debate in the workshop was provided by the consideration of the ‘group’, as an entity in itself. We drew upon Bion's series of influential papers in the 1940s, collectively published as Experiences in groups. He contrasted the ‘work group’, which has an agreed task with which it is engaged, with the underlying emotional life of the group, which may conflict with its working aims. He described three group cultures, each working on what he termed an unspoken ‘basic assumption’ – that the group was dependent on the leader (dependency), that there was an enemy to fight or flee from (fight–flight) and that the relationship between two or more members of the group would give birth to an idea or person that would be its salvation (pairing). Reflecting on the impact of such basic assumptions on group functioning at different points can provide a useful framework for attempting to understand the relationship between the emotional life of the group and the academic task it is expected to be engaged upon. The implications of this for teacher as well as student are evident and are fundamental to maintaining a focus on learning and teaching as a social nexus rather than merely as a venue for applying ever more ‘effective’ teaching techniques.

A group can be seen therefore as a complex interweaving of internal and external worlds, individual and group defensive mechanisms, shaped by intense emotions. These can be played out in the behaviour of the group. Individual group members may find themselves assigned a role in this dramatisation, where the group is seen to function as a unit in itself, with the whole being more than the sum of its parts. Rather than directing our attention towards a particular individual, this framework emphasises the need to explore the dynamics of the group as a whole.

Understanding the stages in the lifecycle of a group, can help to anticipate some of the processes groups develop through and can provide students and teachers with the sense of ‘working through’ when groupwork becomes difficult. Argyle (1969) identified key stages in group life – forming, storming, norming and performing. Heron (1989) later added mourning as the last phase of group life where ending is worked towards. Some of the difficulties of earlier stages, if not resolved, can interfere with the ‘performing’ of the group task. Identifying anticipated stages in the group process can be helpful in facilitating learning. Morgan (2003), for example, highlighted how preparing students with basic teaching on group dynamics was highly successful in team projects leading to oral presentations.

Application of theory to practice

Reflecting upon how this translates into the visible life of a group, we can anticipate that both starting and finishing might be particularly difficult times. At the onset of a new group, participants may be dealing with anxieties of whether they can work together. The need to establish some form of structure for the group may be of primary importance, alongside the attempts of individual group members to find a safe and familiar position, initially, in which to feel comfortable. There is likely to be either a search for acceptance and approval, or alternatively, a denial of those needs. Fostering the development of attachment and group cohesion is an important process as achieving such connections may result in the group being able to persevere even when their work task becomes difficult. Furthermore, the quality and intensity of student engagement with the institutional experience, particularly in an era of increased part-time paid work being undertaken by students, are important influences on student outcomes (McInnis & Hartley, 2002).

Sometimes the wish to establish similarities, however, can militate against the acknowledgement of any differences or conflict. In this context, conflict can provoke intense anxiety in a group about its very survival. There may also be some ‘testing out’ of the group, by members being late, absent, attending irregularly or even dropping out completely, which can be very difficult for group members to manage. As previously suggested, authority and leadership issues in the group can be particularly fraught. Acknowledging such factors as typical phases of group process, enables teachers to adopt a more holistic understanding of group dynamics and potentially respond in a more appropriate (and possibly less punitive) manner when such ‘testing out’ behaviours occur.

Blocks in communication can lead to defensive sub-groupings and alliances, and even ‘mark off’ individuals, who may be made into scapegoats. Feelings of inclusion and exclusion, as in the example of Rita, are common themes compounding some students’ feelings of not ‘belonging’ and ‘isolation’.

Groups have varied emotional links between members and a wide range of sociometric patterns. Berne's (cited in McCormick, 1977) description of three ego states – Parent, Adult and Child – and Karpman's (1968) Drama Triangle of Victim, Rescuer and Persecutor, sensitise us to the complex life scripts individual members bring to a group and the ways different individuals can interrelate depending upon group composition. It is helpful to try to be aware of such potential and to consider the impact on group functioning. A group can be viewed as a dynamic interacting system where each individual's role and behaviour is in various ways a function of the group as a whole as well as an individual characteristic of particular members (Conyne et al., 1997). Group roles are distributed between members and roles and relationships between and among group members emerge (Belbin, 1993). Sometimes this works well for individuals and they can contribute well to the group and benefit from group membership.

The ‘task’ of the group may be diverted, however, if problematic roles are assigned to group members, and the functioning of the group can be disrupted. Groups can ostracise, institutionalise and blame individuals for problems within the group. As a facilitator this can be difficult to manage at times. Our instincts are often to protect the ‘persecuted’ person but understanding such behaviour as serving a function for the group may temper this response. At times there may be no alternative but to intervene directly to protect a particular student but such intervention may reinforce rather than change the group dynamic. It may be more appropriate, therefore, to seek out strategies to strengthen the group as a whole and to draw upon group strengths as a way of helping the group contain feeling of aggression and not direct them at a particular individual. From this perspective it is pertinent for teachers to consider a variety of strategies for monitoring cliques, addressing scapegoating behaviour and encouraging democratic participation.

Group process is also influenced by a complex interplay between the emotional and cognitive experiences students bring to their learning. Working with a diverse student body necessitates that differences in preferred ways of learning are accounted for in the teaching practices adopted. Earlier published work by one of the authors (Cartney, 2000) explored how Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire can be used to identify different styles of learning and how learning materials can be adapted to accommodate such differences.

It is, however, also important that in acknowledging the difficulties, we do not lose sight of the positives of group experience and the capacity groups have for enormous productivity. The theories above are built upon the inherent capacities of groups for change and development. This emanates from a sense of group cohesion, through the successful negotiation of conflict and its containment that is necessary for further growth. This reaches a point where the individual experiences themselves as a unique being within the group, able to contribute without having to be compliant or take an oppositional stance and not feel threatened by it.

The increasing relevance of sites of small-group learning in a changing educational landscape

In the current educational context many students have an increasingly fragmented experience of university life. The undergraduate of previous eras may have been more likely to live on or nearby the campus, have more time, money and opportunities to socialise with fellow students and be required to attend the university library to access learning resources. Such environmental factors contributed to promoting social integration. The features of the landscape have changed, however, with the increasing diversity of the student body. Non-traditional students often need to undertake paid work (Hunt et al., 2004) and many mature students face the daily pressures of caring for dependants throughout their studies (National Union of Students, 1999). Furthermore, technological advances allow learning resources to be accessed from a distance, thus reducing the need for students to be physically present on campus. Such factors may militate against social inclusion in academic and university life.

In this context, the role of teachers in promoting social integration becomes increasingly important. Sites of small-group learning may represent one of the few points of personal contact between the student and the university. Studies indicate that students identify social contact as a valuable component of their learning experience (Longhurst, 1999; Sander et al., 2000). Furthermore, in the context of widening participation, Macdonald and Stratta (2001) argue that a wider definition of social inclusion must involve a ‘reconceptualisation’ of the teaching – learning interface. Rhodes and Nevill's (2004, p. 189) research suggests that viewing retention as an ‘educational issue’ offers the potential to achieve better academic and social integration for a wider range of students.

Lawrence (2002) warns against the ‘deficit discourse’ currently operating in universities, where non-completion is explained in terms of student deficiencies. McInnis and Hartley (2002) and McInnis (2001) indicate that university staff give little consideration to changing their own teaching practices as a way of managing an increasingly diverse student population. Taylor and Bedford (2004) argue strongly that universities need to redirect attention away from perceived student deficiencies as a rationale for non-completion. This applies also to equally de-contextualised ‘teacher-deficit’ approaches, with their attendant tendency to focus on improving teaching techniques, rather than on the ‘re-conceptualisation’ of the teaching andlearning interface as social interaction.

Conclusions

One of the aims of the initial workshop, and subsequently this article, is to seek to promote such a change in focus. We have shown that there is ample theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest that a fuller debate about learning and teaching which goes beyond the search for more effective ‘teaching techniques’ will contribute positively to enhancing student learning and form a crucial aspect of any student retention strategy. Theorising the nature of small-group learning and not reducing discussions around teaching practices to a narrow technical debate around the utility of different methods and techniques appears particularly pertinent in the current educational climate. Utilising a broader theoretical perspective also enables the ‘teaching techniques’ literature to be applied more appropriately.