Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The purpose of this study was to examine group dynamics of educational leadership
students in cohorts and make comparisons with the group dynamics characteristics of
non-cohort students. Cohorts have emerged as dynamic and adaptive entities with
attendant group dynamic processes that shape collective learning and action. Cohort
(n=42) and non-cohort (n=51) students were surveyed on group variables of
participation, communication, influence, trust, cohesiveness, empowerment,
collaboration, and satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and effect size analyses were
used for data analysis. Significant differences were identified in trust, cohesiveness,
and satisfaction. However, findings show little effect on cohort structures in the areas
of participation, communication, influence, empowerment, and collaboration.
358
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
359
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
360
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
opinions may influence the group if Martin, 1952). Still the work of other
their arguments are well-reasoned, scholars suggests that several factors
confident, and flexible (Forsyth, 1999). contribute to group cohesiveness, such
When group members feel they are as risk taking, commitment to the
working on important issues that they group’s purpose, interpersonal
can influence, they feel more strongly attraction, and quality of group
connected to the group or more interaction (Carron, 1982; Owen, 1985;
cohesive. Stokes, 1983). Some research on groups
Trust is a crucial quality for report that all groups naturally evolve
cohesiveness and is the starting point toward cohesiveness (Alexander, 1985).
for group problem solving (Malnight, Even though researchers cannot agree
1989). Some scholars have argued that on all the dimensions that describe
trust advances greater use of honest, cohesiveness, group cohesion influences
unambiguous communication in groups members’ behaviors in important ways:
(Deutsch, 1973; Zand, 1972). However, high levels of group cohesion have been
both trust and candid communication associated with greater commitment to
take time and a shared sense of purpose group goals, participation,
(Fisher & Ellis, 1990). Fisher and Ellis communication, and self-confidence
explained that interpersonal trust and (Toseland & Rivas, 2001).
self-disclosure take time, history, Group cohesiveness is enhanced
conversation, and a belief in other’s when members are empowered to
capabilities. McClure (2005) concurred meaningfully impact group work
that trust and self-disclosure are not processes. Group empowerment is a
only determinants of cohesion, they are shared belief that the group can be
also measurable attributes of cohesive effective (Shea & Guzzo, 1987).
groups. Empowered groups share responsibility,
Cohesiveness is probably the motivation, and influence group process
most essential construct of group and effectiveness (Mathieu, Gilson &
behavior (Zander, 1982). Importantly, Ruddy, 2006). Individuals are
group cohesion is linked to improved empowered when they have input into
performance (Evans & Dion, 1991) and the direction of the group and when
effective communication (Rosenfeld & they are actively involved in the work of
Gilbert, 1989). Even with the the group (Toseland & Rivas, 2001).
considerable amount of research on Collective efforts to accomplish
group cohesion, there is no single group goals help maintain group
agreed upon definition of cohesion. cohesion and increase group
Early literature defined group cohesion satisfaction. Group satisfaction can be
as the sum of all the forces which act on defined as a sense of fulfillment about
individuals to remain in the group how well group members work together
(Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950). (Hecht, 1978). Satisfaction will be high
Critics of this model claimed that what when group members feel included and
actually kept groups together was their when they have participated. Similar to
resistance to disruptive forces (Gross & group communication, members feel
361
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
362
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
363
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
364
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
Table 1:
Group constructs and indicators incorporated in questionnaire
Number
Cronbach
Construct Indicators of
Alpha
Items
Participation Suggest ideas, add information and contribute to 13 0.755
discussion
Good listener
Support ideas of others and group works together
Friendliness of group members
Influence Certain members talk more and opinions are weighted 9 0.770
more
Certain members have more influence over topics
discussed and over the decision-making process
Opinions of others are listened to
Pressured to go along with decisions of cohort
365
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
366
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
367
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
368
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
369
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
ranging from -0.13 to 0.69. the cohort group. One explanation may
Communication produced an effect size be the problem of groupthink. The
of 0.06 with a confidence interval symptoms of groupthink include:
ranging from -0.35 to 0.47. The effect conformity, censorship of deviations
size for influence was 0.09 with a from group consensus, shared illusion
confidence interval ranging from -0.32 of agreement, and screening of adverse
to 0.50. information (Janis, 1982). Cohorts, as
highly cohesive groups, may produce a
Discussion conformity that leads to groupthink.
Although cohesiveness is desirable for
Our research confirms the the cohort effects of completion rate,
findings of previous studies (Barnett & motivation, sense of community, and
Muse, 1993; Basom et al., 1996; Brown- collaboration, it also produces
Ferrigno & Muth, 2001; Donaldson & groupthink behaviors: limited
Scribner, 2003; Hill, 1995; Young & discussion, alternatives not considered,
Brewer, 2008) on cohorts in educational and selective bias, which leads to
leadership programs that suggest a defective decision making (Janis &
strong sense of affiliation and a sense of Mann, 1977). This finding is consistent
purpose among cohort students. The with previous research which found
cohort participants in our study felt a that the intense togetherness of the
very strong sense of trust and cohorts created problems related to
cohesiveness due to the cohort structure groupthink (Barnett et al, 2000; Scribner
of the program. The climate of trust & Donaldson, 2001).
essential for cooperative behavior and Communication, in particular, is
successful group processes identified in essential for a collection of individuals
previous investigations (Burnaford & to become a cohesive group that can
Hobson, 1995; Teitel, 1997) is positively influence collective action (Drury &
associated with a cohort arrangement. Reicher, 1999). Yet, in the present study,
What is distinctive in this study is the difference between the cohort and
its examination of group dynamics of non-cohort group in communication
both cohort and non-cohort groups. The was negligible. On the other hand, the
findings indicate that open construct of communication provided
communication, working the highest mean in the non-cohort
collaboratively, group influence, and group of all the other group dynamics
empowerment seem to be positively, characteristics. It appears that being
albeit weakly, associated with cohort enrolled in graduate classes seems to
structures. Of particular interest is the facilitate communication itself. The
finding that group members’ cohort structure does not seem to make
participation in discussions was higher a difference in such an important
for non-cohort students than for cohort characteristic of group dynamics. This
students. This was contrary to what we finding does not support previous
expected with the findings of higher research which suggests superiority of
levels of trust and cohesiveness within the cohort structure when it comes to
370
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
371
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
372
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
373
References Basom, M., Yerkes, D., Norris, C., &
Barnett, B. (1996). Using cohorts
Alexander, M. (1985). The team as a means for developing
effectiveness critique. In transformational leaders. Journal
Goodstein, L. D. & Pfeiffer, J. W. of School Leadership, 6(1), 99-112.
(Eds.), The 1985 Annual:
Developing Human Resources (pp. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994).
101-106). San Diego, CA: Improving organizational
University Associates. effectiveness through
transformational leadership.
American Psychological Association Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2001). Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2001,
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: November). Issues related to the
American Psychological effects of cohorts on learners. Paper
Association. presented at the Annual Meeting
of the University Council for
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. Educational Administration,
(1995). Why employees speak to Cincinnati, OH.
coworkers and bosses: Motives,
gender, and organizational Burnaford, G., & Hobson, D. (1995).
satisfaction. Journal of Business Beginning with the group:
Communication, 32(3), 249-265. Collaboration as the cornerstone
of graduate teacher education.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Action in Teacher Education, 17(3),
exercise of control. New York: 67-75.
Freeman.
Burns, F., & Gragg, R. L. (1981). Brief
Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. diagnostic instruments. The 1981
M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts Annual handbook for group
in educational leadership facilitators, San Diego: University
preparation programs: Benefits, Associates, pp. 87-94.
difficulties, and the potential for
developing school leaders. Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in
Educational Administration sport groups: Interpretations and
Quarterly, 36(2), 255-282. considerations. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Barnett, B. G., & Muse, I. D. (1993).
Cohort groups in educational Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis
administration: Promises and for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
challenges. Journal of School Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Leadership, 3, 400-415. Associates.
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group
What makes teams work: Group cohesion and group performance:
effectiveness research from the a meta-analysis.
shop floor to the executive suite. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-
Journal of Management, 23, 239- 186.
290.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational (1950). Social pressures in informal
research: Planning, conducting, groups: A study of human factors in
and evaluating quantitative and housing. New York: Harper.
qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill Fisher, B. A., & Ellis, D. G. (1990). Small
Prentice Hall. group decision making:
Communication and the group
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of process (3rd ed.). New York:
conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale McGraw Hill.
University Press.
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd
Donaldson, J. F., & Scribner, J. P. (2003). ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-
Instructional cohorts and Wadsworth.
learning: Ironic uses of a social
system. Journal of School Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On
Leadership, 11, 644–655. group cohesiveness. American
Journal of Sociology, 57, 546-554.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (1999). The
intergroup dynamics of collective Hecht, M. (1978). Measures of
empowerment: Substantiating communication satisfaction.
the social identity model of Human Communication Research, 4,
crowd behaviour. Group Processes 350-368.
and Intergroup Relations, 2, 1-22.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985).
Durden, P. C. (2006). Creating Statistical methods for meta-
connectivity: An urban analysis. New York: Academic
collaboratory for preparation and Press.
practice in educational
leadership. In Dembowski, F. L. Hill, M. S. (1995). Educational
& Lemasters, L. (Eds.), Unbridled leadership cohort models:
Spirit: Best Practices in Educational Changing the talk to change the
Administration--The 2006 Yearbook walk. Planning and Changing,
of the National Council of Professors 26(3/4), 179-189.
of Educational Administration
(NCPEA). Lancaster, PA: Pro- Hill, M. S., & Ragland, J. (1995). Women
Active Publications. as educational leaders: Opening
375
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
376
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
377
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
378
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
Whitaker, K. S., King, R., & Vogel, L. R. Zaccaro, S. J., & McCoy, M. C. (1988).
(2004). School district-university The effects of task and
partnerships: Graduate student interpersonal cohesiveness on
perceptions of the strengths and performance of a disjunctive
weaknesses of reformed group task. Journal of Applied
leadership development Social Psychology, 18, 837–851.
program. Planning and Changing,
35(3&4), 209-222. Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial
problem solving. Administrative
Young, M., & Brewer, C. (2008). Fear Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.
and the preparation of school
leaders: The role of ambiguity, Zander, A. (1982). Making groups
anxiety, and power in meaning effective. San Francisco: Jossey-
making. Educational Policy, 22(1), Bass.
106-129.
379
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
Appendices
380
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
Appendix A
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, standard t-test and effect size for group dynamics characteristics
of E.S. estimate
Difference
(Hedges)
Confidence Confidence
Standard Error
Bias corrected
Group Dynamics Non-Cohort
test)
p-value for
Effect Size
Cohort group Interval for Interval for
pooled
Characteristics group
Mean
Difference Effect Size
381
Greenlee & Karanxha / COHORT GROUP DYNAMICS
Appendix B
Figure 1. Effect size estimate (corrected) with upper and lower confidence limits at a 95% confidence interval.
of E.S. estimate
Difference
(Hedges)
Confidence Confidence
Standard Error
Bias corrected
Group Dynamics Non-Cohort
test)
p-value for
Effect Size
Cohort group Interval for Interval for
pooled
Characteristics group
Mean
Difference Effect Size
382