In every group, structured or not, the group process has many effects on the overall group. This paper will look at the group processes of our cohort, the interactions between subgroups, and the way that it has affected the overall distance learning cohort. It will look at themes which have played out during our most recent trip to campus, namely subgroups formed, as well as the difference in anxiety levels between the foundation and concentration groups and the behaviors that were demonstrated. Next it will identify and discuss instances of here-and-now moments within the groups and consider the process commentary that we saw emerge and reflect on possible meanings for it. Finally it will depict how the groups illustrated the concepts of
…show more content…
While it was not intended, we all seemed to gather together each evening to eat dinner and simply talked about the day 's happenings. In this way, we used process commentary and processed much of the day’s observations by asking each other questions and each shared our unique perspectives.
Another contributing factor which lead to the lack of cohesion on campus was the use of separate classrooms. There was little time for the entire cohort to meet where interaction and intermingling could occur. We would have liked more opportunities to learn with and engage with the other members of the cohort so we could better understand them, get to know them and as a result, would have created better cohesion.
Due to the lack of group cohesion among groups on campus, it was unclear if there was the same level of group processing and absorbing of group content in the other groups. Yalom (2005) stated that it is important for group members to develop an understanding of themselves so that they can begin to learn and understand themselves better. Yalom (2005) describes this kind of “deeper understanding” is directly related to how each person behaves and hopefully the group member will learn that their behaviors may be self-defeating and counterproductive. When a group member gets to a point of self-awareness the group itself can become the “antechamber of change” where they go to practice their new behaviors (Yalom, 2005). The antechamber of change became our subgroup rather than the larger
While it was not intended, we all seemed to gather together each evening to eat dinner and simply talked about the day 's happenings. In this way, we used process commentary and processed much of the day’s observations by asking each other questions and each shared our unique perspectives.
Another contributing factor which lead to the lack of cohesion on campus was the use of separate classrooms. There was little time for the entire cohort to meet where interaction and intermingling could occur. We would have liked more opportunities to learn with and engage with the other members of the cohort so we could better understand them, get to know them and as a result, would have created better cohesion.
Due to the lack of group cohesion among groups on campus, it was unclear if there was the same level of group processing and absorbing of group content in the other groups. Yalom (2005) stated that it is important for group members to develop an understanding of themselves so that they can begin to learn and understand themselves better. Yalom (2005) describes this kind of “deeper understanding” is directly related to how each person behaves and hopefully the group member will learn that their behaviors may be self-defeating and counterproductive. When a group member gets to a point of self-awareness the group itself can become the “antechamber of change” where they go to practice their new behaviors (Yalom, 2005). The antechamber of change became our subgroup rather than the larger