Teacher and Pupil

Some Socio-Psychological Aspects

Philip Gammage

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315316789
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This title, first published in 1971, provides a guide to the social psychology of learning. The author examines the school class as a group and considers the formation of some of the attitudes of the children and the teacher as they relate to education. Building upon interaction as a major theme, the study focuses attention on the ways in which relationships can affect the classroom climate. The background to group dynamics leads to the elements of sociometry and to consideration of teaching styles, communication structure and perceptions of the teacher's role. This title will be of interest to students of sociology and education.

1

The elements of group dynamics

Historical background: milestones in the study of interaction

The functioning of any complex society depends upon both casual and institutionalized interaction to a large degree, and inevitably elements of codes, norms and roles enter into such relationships. Much of this interaction takes place in fairly small face-to-face groups gathered together for some specific purpose. Group dynamics constitute the study of adjustive changes in the group and the change in structure of any part of the group. But in actual fact the term is used much more loosely to cover the study of small groups generally.

In 1909 C. H. Cooley put forward the argument that certain groups of people could be termed ‘primary’ in nature since they occurred almost universally. At about the same time Emile Durkheim in France was working on the importance of the group in human behaviour and Georg Simmel in Germany writing on interaction processes. There is little doubt that these three directly influenced the thinking of the philosopher and student of human behaviour, George Herbert Mead. Mead was concerned to show that man is a social animal and that it is the primary group which is predominantly responsible for the training of the individual and for providing him with a seed-bed for his psychological development. Mead published little before his death in 1931 but had a great influence on his students at the University of Chicago – many of whom have regarded him as the father of social psychology.

Freud, too, had certainly given a great deal of thought to the development of the child within the primary group and it is fair to say that modern psychoanalytic group therapy owes much to Freud’s speculative writings published in his Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921). In this book Freud speaks of the importance of the influence of the group leader and the way in which the group is held together by identification with the leader.

In Cooley’s terms primary groups were defined as groups which exhibited feelings of unity or solidarity, which operated in face-to-face relationships and which produced, mirrored and reinforced the social and moral normative expectations of an adult society. Usually, the family is considered to be a ‘primary group’. But so might be the school gang, a college club or a fraternity, or the play group or village. Generally, there are motives and incentives which cause group members to remain group members, and additional motives for belonging tend to result from the interaction itself.

After some popularity Cooley’s theory was disregarded for many years (Faris, 1937) and much more attention paid to the so-called ‘secondary groups’ (i.e. groups characterized by contractual relationship rather than primary relationship). Secondary groups are considered to be those larger social aggregates such as trade unions, learned societies, social classes, or religious denominations, which, whilst often possessing explicit written codes and rules for behaviour, are too unwieldy or too amorphous to act with the same intimate pervasiveness.

Increasingly, however, from the 1940s onwards more sociologists and social psychologists appear to have rediscovered what early cultural psychoanalysts (such as Harry Stack Sullivan and Trigant Burrow) had taken as central to much of their work: the importance of the primary agents of socialization. In fact the Second World War acted as a catalyst to the study of group dynamics. Factors like morale, the efficiency of the troops and subordinate relationships tended to come under closer scrutiny in order to maximize the effectiveness of the war effort (see the work of Stouffer et al., 1949). Also, much of the research in linguistics, psycholinguistics and socio-linguistics, particularly in the U.S.A., seems to have its roots in the work of social psychologists studying communication, attitude formation, rumour, role-playing and gang life. Indeed, many social psychologists regard language as the keystone to the study of the individual in society.

Particularly prominent in the study of group dynamics have been Lewin and his former students Lippitt and White. Kurt Lewin, a German Gestalt psychologist originally, who died in 1947, was largely responsible for a revival in interest in children’s social behaviour. He worked at Cornell and then at the University of Michigan. He was in large measure responsible for the establishment of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan. This centre has helped to make the university pre-eminent in the field of social psychology. Probably Lewin’s most famous generalization is that on the whole it is easier to change an individual’s behaviour when he is a member of a group than when he is separate and alone.

In 1938 An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and Democracy was published and in 1939 the results of the work with R. K. White on leadership in children’s groups became available. Lewin and his associates were also probably the first to study the effect of group decisions upon individual behaviour and attitudes (in the late 1940s and early 1950s). At about the same time R. F. Bales (1951) was developing his now famous system which he termed ‘an interaction process analysis’. He attempted to conceptualize social interaction in terms of a problem-solving sequence, and there is little doubt that, though a classic preliminary investigation, his categories are over-generalized. Bales attempted to devise a classificatory system which could be used to study the interaction of any group regardless of its background history and composition. Each of his categories places heavy emphasis on verbal communication, and the non-verbal aspects are probably not given sufficient weight (the unit of observation to be ‘the smallest discriminable segment of verbal or non-verbal behaviour’ – Bales, 1951). Bales suggests that each category can be taken to constitute a dimension exclusive of others. Thus, the observer would be able to place the observable behaviour of any group member into one of the following categories:

Categories used in the Bales Category System (adapted)

A The emotionally positive responses

1 Shows solidarity

2 Shows tension release

3 Agrees

B Problem-solving responses (answers)

4 Gives suggestions

5 Gives opinions

6 Gives orientation

C Problem-solving responses (questions)

7 Asks for orientation

8 Asks for opinions

9 Asks for suggestions

D Emotionally negative responses

10 Disagrees

11 Shows tension

12 Shows antagonism

The Bales system provides for scoring and profiles that can be used for comparative analysis of group functioning. In addition to the profile of general group structure, the observer also identifies each member and recipient during the process. Besides the Bales system there are several others in use (such as that of Carter et al., 1951) and there is also much work in the field of participant observation (such as that stemming from Whyte, 1943).

H. J. Leavitt, L. S. Christie, R. B. Luce and J. Macy considerably furthered the work of task communication and performance in small groups in the early 1950s. These studies showed that different degrees of efficiency in solution were related to both the nature of the task and the type of communication structure employed. Indeed, the main topics of concern to students of group dynamics seem to be those of communication and sentiment. Homans says (1951), ‘When we make a statement about the mutual dependence of, for instance, interaction and activity, we must never forget that sentiment also comes into the system and may affect the relationships described.’

Foremost in the study of group dynamics has been the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., and much of the impetus for the study of group dynamics in relation to educational psychology derives from the work of Alvin F. Zander and others (see particularly Trow et al., 1950). But small-group theory is useful not only in the study of education; it is of particular use in such fields as counselling, psychotherapy, business administration and social work generally. Very readable introductions exist in Josephine Klein’s The Study of Groups (1956) and W. J. H. Sprott’s Human Groups (1958) and a great deal of relevant material may be found in Readings in Social Psychology edited by Newcomb and Hartley in 1947 and in subsequent volumes by Maccoby, Newcomb and Hartley; Group Dynamics edited by Cartwright and Zander (1955) and Social Psychology by Secord and Backman (1964).

Dyadic relationships and communication

A useful starting point for the study of interaction is to take the simplest unit of sociological analysis, which is that of a pair of individuals influencing each other within a given social context. Georg Simmel (1858–1918) appears to have been the first to stress the importance of interaction. Indeed, his work is reputed to have had considerable influence on American sociology (though sociology is, of course, not merely or only concerned with interaction per se, but with the fact that the interaction is affected by the social structure within which it takes place. It therefore of necessity involves norms, status positions and obligations). This ‘interaction of self and other is the most elementary form of social system’ (Parsons and Shils, 1952) and present in more complex forms in all social systems.

In interaction ego and alter are each objects of orientation for the other. The basic differences from orientations to non-social objects are two. First, since the outcome of ego’s action (e.g. success in the attainment of a goal) is contingent on alter’s reaction to what ego does, ego becomes orientated not only to alter’s probable overt behaviour but also to what ego interprets to be alter’s expectations relative to ego’s behaviour, since ego expects that alter’s expectations will influence alter’s behaviour. Second, in an integrated system, this orientation to the expectations of the other is reciprocal or complementary.

Parsons and Shils maintain that this orientation is reciprocated not only in the relationship of two people (dyadic behaviour) but multiply reciprocated at different levels in small groups. Various methods of study can be employed to ascertain the perceptions made and expectations held by ego for alter (see in particular Cronbach, 1961).

Obviously, if one is to measure expectations and to reciprocate even at the level of dyadic behaviour, there must normally be some common code or system of symbols which is mutually accessible. Generalizations will have been made – often based on prior experience and normative assumptions. As Parsons and Shils point out, when such generalization has occurred and it is apparent that ‘actions, gestures or symbols have more or less the same meaning for both ego and alter [then] we may speak of a common culture existing between them, through which their interaction is mediated’. Another aspect of this is that the meaning of any communication from one person to another is to a large extent dependent upon the degree to which that communication fits into the recipient’s cognitive structure. Thus communication becomes a sort of ‘guessing game’. ‘Each person carries with him his cognitive field as a map of the world. He responds not to the world but to the map. When he receives a communication, the meaning it has is a consequence of how it can be fitted into the map’ (Runkel, 1956). In this theory accurate communication depends not on passing ‘packets of information’ but on the degree to which the cognitive maps of the communicators can be deemed similar. The interesting thing about both viewpoints quoted is that they point to an ‘appropriate’ set of expectations being built up in such a way that a number of appropriate reactions and complementary expectations form a normative pattern. The cultural habitat of even a dyadic relationship is not only a set of symbols of communication, but a set of norms for action. Put simply, you behave to some extent in the way you think other people feel is appropriate for you – and this behaviour tends to act as a conditioning factor upon their expectations and attitudes which they may well in turn modify in the light of your subsequent behaviour and which will in turn modify your attitudes towards them. Eventually some sort of equilibrium of expectations tends to exist in a given context.

Primary groups: leadership, conformity and cohesion

Passing from dyadic interaction to primary groups, it is as well to remember that in the larger situation, too, these members are not linked by ‘contractual obligation’, but by shared loyalties or common beliefs. In such groups relationships tend to be personal and intimate. Whilst family and friendship groups are obvious examples, informal spontaneous primary groups can also function, i.e. at a large party, at a conference, or a temporary community of some sort. ‘Primary groups obviously share many of the characteristics of a communal society’ and are 'primary in the sense that they can be found in all sorts of societies’. Much more important, ‘they provide the most significant social and psychological context for individual experience’ (Chinoy, 1954).

Within the confines of the primary group the child acquires much that is basic to his personality. This perception of others and their roles is of vital importance (see, for instance, the work of psychoanalysts on the importance of object relationships and particularly the work of Bowlby et al., 1966); yet much of this learning is not quantifiable since primary groups tend to operate informally and themselves ‘grow’ through the interaction, during which time regular patterns of behaviour and a sense of unity develop. Chinoy points out that such groups spring up wherever men and women meet together frequently – when children and friends play together, and in the midst of more highly organized groups in factories, offices, schools, etc. Furthermore, ‘without formal organization of any sort (and sometimes even as a reaction against formal organization) a structure of interrelated roles and statuses comes into being, based upon shared beliefs and values.’

We tend in thinking of small groups to concentrate upon the fact that the group usually consists of members who are behaving alike in certain respects. Indeed, we often use words like gang or clique to summarize their important effects in a somewhat denigratory way. But groups do not merely have identifiable interest in common – or cohesiveness and insulation from outside. One of the positive potentials in any group, as most psychotherapists are aware, is that group awareness and self-awareness (particularly the second)...