The purpose of psychoeducational groups is to teach group members a new skill or provide them with previously unknown information that will be of benefit (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). They specifically work well for functioning individuals who have a lack of knowledge in a particular area (Corey & Corey, 2006). In this group, the purpose was to teach members new communication skills, help them learn how to better manage and express their emotions, and how to improve interpersonal relationships. Psychoeducational groups for adolescents are beneficial because the peer interaction that occurs in these groups lets members observe and try out new behaviours in a controlled, nonthreatening environment (Bore, Hendricks, & Womack, 2013; Sayder, 2008; Van
…show more content…
Furthermore, since the group only had a day and a half to meet, there was not enough time to engage in intensive therapy. Psychoeducational groups are also beneficial in this circumstance because they allow services to be delivered to more people than if the same education was provided individually, (Khattab & Jones, 2007) and they have been found to be useful with children and adolescents to increase social skills (e.g. Sommers-Flanagan, Barrett-Hakanson, Clarke, & Sommers-Flanagan, 2000), which was one of the goals of this group. Lastly, peer pressure from group members may help to ensure that concepts discussed in the group are taken seriously (Akos & Levitt 2002), a positive aspect to group therapy that does not exist in individual counselling or …show more content…
Most of the members were quite shy, speaking to the facilitator as opposed to other group members. This group interaction, as with many of the interactions that occurred at the beginning stage of this group, had a round robin pattern, as members each took turns speaking in the group (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). As the group started to develop, however, group interaction patterns changed, and often followed a free floating pattern instead, as members responded to other members and the leader when they had something valuable to contribute to the discussion (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). The physical arrangements of members in the group positively contributed to the likelihood of round-robin and free-floating interaction patterns, because members sat in a circle, so they were able to see all members in the group. Free-floating interaction is beneficial for psychoeducational groups, such as this one, because it is a group centered as opposed to leader-centered form of interaction (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). Group-centered interaction patterns help increase group members’ feelings of responsibility to the group, group morale, and member-to-member communication (Carletta, Garrod, & Fraser-Krauss, 1998). Thus, it allows members to learn from other members, and gives each person in
Furthermore, since the group only had a day and a half to meet, there was not enough time to engage in intensive therapy. Psychoeducational groups are also beneficial in this circumstance because they allow services to be delivered to more people than if the same education was provided individually, (Khattab & Jones, 2007) and they have been found to be useful with children and adolescents to increase social skills (e.g. Sommers-Flanagan, Barrett-Hakanson, Clarke, & Sommers-Flanagan, 2000), which was one of the goals of this group. Lastly, peer pressure from group members may help to ensure that concepts discussed in the group are taken seriously (Akos & Levitt 2002), a positive aspect to group therapy that does not exist in individual counselling or …show more content…
Most of the members were quite shy, speaking to the facilitator as opposed to other group members. This group interaction, as with many of the interactions that occurred at the beginning stage of this group, had a round robin pattern, as members each took turns speaking in the group (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). As the group started to develop, however, group interaction patterns changed, and often followed a free floating pattern instead, as members responded to other members and the leader when they had something valuable to contribute to the discussion (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). The physical arrangements of members in the group positively contributed to the likelihood of round-robin and free-floating interaction patterns, because members sat in a circle, so they were able to see all members in the group. Free-floating interaction is beneficial for psychoeducational groups, such as this one, because it is a group centered as opposed to leader-centered form of interaction (Toseland & Rivas, 2012). Group-centered interaction patterns help increase group members’ feelings of responsibility to the group, group morale, and member-to-member communication (Carletta, Garrod, & Fraser-Krauss, 1998). Thus, it allows members to learn from other members, and gives each person in