“Formation of study group cohesion. Student group cohesion
GROUP COHESION IN STUDENT GROUPS OF 1-2 AND 4-5 COURSES
Suslova Yulia Alekseevna
3rd year student, Faculty of Psychology, Valueology and Sports, KSU, Russian Federation, Kurgan
Nikolaeva Irina Alexandrovna
scientific supervisor, Ph.D. psychol. Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of General and Social Psychology of KSU, Russian Federation, Kurgan
Considering the patterns of development of a small group as a certain combination of processes of group differentiation and integration, cohesion or unity of the group can be identified as one of the main parameters of the development of a small group.
The concept of “cohesion” is used to denote such socio-psychological characteristics of a small group as: the degree of psychological community, unity of group members, closeness and stability of interpersonal relationships and interactions, the degree of emotional attractiveness of the group for its members. In other words, cohesion is the interest of group members in its existence. The first empirical studies of group cohesion began in Western social psychology in the school of group dynamics. L. Festinger defined group cohesion as the result of the influence of all forces acting on group members in order to keep them in it. The forces that keep an individual in a group were considered to be the emotional attractiveness of the group for its members, the usefulness of the group for the individual and the associated satisfaction of individuals with their membership in this group.
Group cohesion- it's the same an indicator of the strength, stability and coherence of a group; it is based on interpersonal relationships between people.
Group cohesion is influenced by various factors that can either increase it or significantly reduce it. The most important factors of group cohesion include: group size, group composition, group success, the amount of time group members spend together, etc.
The relevance of research Cohesion problems are determined by the influence of this phenomenon on the effectiveness of the group and the development of the individual. The cohesion of the group determines its academic performance, the number of expelled students, etc. The cohesion of the group improves the socio-psychological climate and students’ satisfaction with their life in the group. Group support, which is characteristic of a close-knit group, liberates the individual, increases self-esteem, freedom of expression and creativity.
The degree of development of a scientific problem. The phenomenon of group cohesion was studied by such scientists as L. Festinger, T. Newcomb, A.I. Dontsov, A.V. Petrovsky, Ya.L. Moreno et al. The American psychologist L. Festinger was one of the first to devote a number of empirical studies to group cohesion, and one of the first definitions of group cohesion belongs to him.
Cohesion is not a uniquely positive phenomenon. In some cases, cohesion can arise in conditions of competitive struggle between groups or leaders and groups, in conditions external threat, or as conformal unanimity under authoritarian leadership. The consequences of such cohesion can be the search for a “scapegoat” in the group, fear of punishment (expulsion), as well as group-think and decreased responsibility. But, nevertheless, in most cases, group members perceive cohesion as an achievement of the group and dream of their groups being united.
Cohesion is a dynamic phenomenon; it is associated with the life history of the group, and, as follows from the theories of the development of the team by A.V. Petrovsky and L.I. Umansky, a group must go through several stages in its development in order to become cohesive. Thus, it takes time to build cohesion. In this regard, we made the goal of our work to study cohesion throughout the existence of the student group.
Target work: To study group cohesion in student groups in different courses of study.
An object: group cohesion in student groups of 1-2 and 4-5 years of university.
Item: features of cohesion in student groups of 1-2 and 4-5 years of university.
Hypothesis: Group cohesion among 1st-2nd year students is lower than that of 4th-5th year students.
Sample: 5 study groups, namely students studying in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th courses of the Faculty of Psychology, Valueology and Sports. The age range of respondents was from 17 to 22 years. The number of all respondents is 64 students.
Tasks:
1. Explore theoretical material on the issue;
2. determine the level and characteristics of group cohesion in student groups in different courses of study;
3. identify differences between the group cohesion of first-year students and senior students.
Methods:
1. Methodology “Determination of Seashore’s group cohesion index.”
2. Methodology “Determination of indirect group cohesion” (V. S. Ivashkin, V. V. Onufrieva).
Purpose of the technique- study of group cohesion mediated by the goals and objectives of joint activities.
$13. Method of mathematical processing and analysis of data: to determine the significance of differences between groups, the method of mathematical comparison (calculation of the Mann-Whitney U test) was used using Microsoft Excel for Windows.
Research results
Based on the data obtained using the first method (Table 1), we see that the group cohesion index for 1st year students is slightly lower than the cohesion index for groups of 2nd, 4th, and 5th year groups.
Table 1.
Data on the method"Determination of Seashore's Group Cohesion Index"
According to the methodology, the index for groups of 2, 4, 5 years corresponds to a high level of cohesion. According to the Mann-Whitney test highly significant differences at p ≤ 0.01 level were identified between groups 1 and 5 courses. In other cases, the differences were in the zone of uncertainty (at the p≤ 0.05 level), and there were no differences between the 2nd and senior years.
Business, moral and emotional qualities of a person, reflecting the value orientations of student groups, were taken as stimulus material for the “Determination of Indirect Group Cohesion” technique. Each group member was required to select from the proposed list only 5 qualities that, in his opinion, are necessary for a person as a member of the team; these are the qualities that are most valuable for successful teamwork. Based on all the qualities chosen by the group, we can draw a conclusion about which qualities the group values most. You can also determine what percentage the group assigns to business, moral and emotional qualities. This explains the level of group cohesion, mediated by the goals and objectives of joint group activities.
After counting the overall selected qualities and the most frequently selected ones, we calculated the percentage of selections that fell on emotional, business, and moral qualities. The percentage data is presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Percentage of choices falling on emotional, business and moral qualities
From the table we see that 2nd, 4th, 5th year students value more the business qualities that a person needs to successfully work together in a team, to achieve successful joint activities. And first-year students value more emotional qualities, which are important for interpersonal relationships, but not for productive ones, including educational activities.
Based on the data from both methods, it can be argued that there are still differences between the cohesion of groups of first-year students and groups of students 2,4,5. As the data from the second methodology show, these differences are due to the fact that first-year students do not yet have a good understanding of the goals and objectives of group activities, as evidenced by the low percentage of choice of business qualities.
Thus, the hypothesis of our work was partially confirmed, since the 2nd year groups had high cohesion, as did the 4th and 5th year students.
Conclusions:
1. The difference between 1st year students and senior students was revealed, both in the level of cohesion and in its grounds. 1st year students are united on the basis of emotional relationships, while senior students are united on the basis of business relationships.
2. In terms of the content of relationships, 2nd year students are closer to senior students than to first year students. The basis of cohesion for them is business relationships.
3. The dynamics of formation of cohesion in the student group are uneven. It is not “stretched” over the entire period of study. The main dynamic processes affecting group cohesion take place during the first year, and already in the second year, groups can be as cohesive as older students.
Bibliography:
- Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M.: Aspect Press, 2003.
- Vinogradova S.N. Features of socio-psychological components of student group cohesion // Psychological Journal. Samara, 2010, No. 2.
- Makarov Yu.V. Formation of group cohesion through social psychological training// Psychological journal., 2010.
- Fetiskin N.P., Kozlov V.V., Manuilov G.M. Socio-psychological diagnostics of personality development and small groups. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2002.
AND GROUP NORMS
Group cohesion- an important socio-psychological characteristic that shows the degree of integration of a group, its unification into a single whole. integration of the student group, in turn, represents a process of increasing meaningful connectedness and orientational community of students.
Main properties cohesive group are:
1) attractiveness of group members to each other, i.e. degree of mutual sympathy;
2) similarities between group members (in values, attitudes, behavior patterns, etc.);
3) features of group goals, their compliance with the needs of group members, clarity of formulation, the group’s success in achieving them;
4) the uniqueness of the relationship between the members of the troupe (consequences of cooperative and competitive strategies of behavior of group members);
5) satisfaction with group activities (studies, work);
6) the nature of leadership and decision-making (leadership style and actual participation of group members in the development of group decisions);
7) structural properties of the group (models of communication connections and status-role aspects of the structure);
8) group atmosphere (features of interpersonal relationships, the prevailing emotional tone of business and personal relationships);
9) size (dimensions) of the group.
In the process of group development, its cohesion may increase, which leads to the preservation of group membership (the number of departures from the group decreases); to strengthening the influence exerted by the group on its members (the phenomenon of conformist behavior increases); to increase the involvement of individuals in group activities; to increased individual adaptation in the group and a sense of personal security (increased self-esteem and decreased anxiety among members of the small group).
A number of studies show that increasing group cohesion does not necessarily increase (or decrease) its productivity. At least two factors can significantly influence the relationship between these variables: firstly, positive norms accepted in the group and, secondly, motivation for group activities.
But there is also an understanding of the compatibility of people in a group. Group Compatibility is the ability of people to coordinate their actions and optimize relationships in various areas and types of joint activities. There are several levels of compatibility:
Psychophysiological, that is, group members are compatible in temperament and coordinated in sensorimotor actions;
Psychological, when there is compatibility of characters, unity of intellectual, emotional-volitional and need-motivational manifestations within an association of people;
Socio-psychological, which characterizes the consistency of functional-role expectations and social forms of behavior of group members along business and interpersonal lines of relationships;
Sociological, which includes the value-orientation unity (similarity of values and meanings) of group members.
The compatibility of people in a group depends not only on their individual characteristics, but also on the norms shared by the members of this group, on their relationships to each other and to the common cause.
Let us consider the following characteristic of a student group, which influences the functioning of the processes of normative behavior (behavior associated with the implementation of group norms) in it.
Group(or social) norm, can be considered as some rule, standard of behavior in small group, which regulates the relationships in it. It is most often described as one of the elements of group structure, especially associated with status and role.
You can give general characteristics functioning of norms in the group:
1) norms are products of social interaction that arise in the process of a group’s life, as well as those introduced into it by a larger social community;
2) the group does not establish norms for every possible situation; norms are formed only in relation to actions and situations that have some significance for the group;
3) norms cannot be applied to situations as a whole, regardless of the individual group members participating in it and the roles they play, but can regulate the implementation of a particular role in different situations, i.e. act as purely role standards of behavior;
4) norms differ in the degree to which they are accepted by the group: some norms are approved by almost all its participants, while others find support only among a small minority, and some do not approve at all;
5) norms differ in the degree and breadth of deviance (deviation) they allow and the corresponding range of sanctions applied.
The effectiveness of a group may depend on whether it puts pressure on its members to conform their actions, thoughts, and values to those of others (i.e., to conform to group norms). In conditions of changing and ambiguous social reality, the simplest solution to this problem for a person is to adhere to group norms that allow each participant to understand, accept and reinforce the world in which he lives, as well as belong to it. Highlight positive and negative norms. Positive norms include those that support the goals and objectives of the group’s life and stimulate the moral behavior of its members. Negative norms include those that encourage negative criticism, violations of discipline, antisocial behavior, etc.
Anyone who deviates from the norm begins to be seen as a source of social threat, so the majority of group members will exert pressure on him pressure so that he returns to the “true path” and again becomes “like everyone else.” This pressure can manifest itself in the form of ridicule, social condemnation, even outright rejection of the “deviant person.” Depending on their reaction to group pressure, people are usually divided into conformists, nonconformists and collectivists. Conformists change their behavior by agreeing with the group. Nonconformists On the contrary, they successfully resist group pressure and act in their own way. Collectivists selectively react to the influence of the group, agreeing with the opinion of the majority if it corresponds to universal human values.
It should be noted that group cohesion has a level nature: from emotional unity to the similarity of value orientations of group members. Therefore, the group cohesion index is most often determined by the frequency of coincidence of opinions, assessments, and positions of its members in relation to significant objects (activity goals, group norms, events, individuals, etc.).
To diagnose the cohesion of a student group, the following methods exist: determining the Seashore group cohesion index, “What is more important?” , “How many heads, so many minds.”
INDEX DEFINITION
GROUP COHESION SEASHORE
Target. Determine the level of group cohesion.
Age group: from adolescence.
Material: a form containing 5 multiple choice questions (for each group member).
Sample form
Table of contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….3
Chapter 1. Student group cohesion and motivation
learning from students………………………………………………………..5
1.1. The concept of group cohesion…………………………...5
1.2. The emergence of group cohesion among students……7
1.3. The basis of group cohesion among students……………10
1.4. Motivation for learning among students……………………….12
Summary……………………………………………………………………………….18
Chapter 2. Methodology and methods of researching the problem………….20
2.1. Methodology and principles…………………………………..20
2.2. Research methods and techniques…………………………21
2.3. Sampling rationale…………………………………….22
2.4. Progress of the study……………………………………………………….23
2.5. Data processing methods…………………………………24
Chapter 3. Analysis and interpretation of results
psychodiagnostic research…………………………………25
3.1. Data on diagnostic methods
personal and group values……………………………...25
3.2. Data on diagnostic methods
educational motivation of students…………………………………..28
Summary………………………………………………………………………………33
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...34
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………..35
Literature………………………………………………………………………………36
Introduction.
Relevance of the research topic: a person has always been in society and has always been a member of various groups with whose attitudes he agrees.
A person in a group feels in his place, because cohesion is the result of agreement, similarity of value orientations, views; the search for common directions, ideas, and interests with other people is determined by the need for social recognition, which will provide the individual with security and emotional comfort. This means that it will allow you to develop and be interested in work and educational activities, to be motivated to work, without being interfered with by external factors. The cohesion of small permanent groups, such as student groups, is multifaceted, dealing not simply with personal and group attitudes, but also with constant close interpersonal interactions. The success of the group, the performance of the group and its members depend on cohesion. Reduced anxiety and interest in activities that require high motivation to be successful. The motivation of the group members who are stronger in learning will influence the increase in the motivation of the weaker members if the cohesion in the group is high. The motivation of each group member, the efforts he made to be recognized in the group, will influence the motivation of the entire group as a whole.
The study of group cohesion is present in the works of Festinger L., Cartwright D., Levin K., Godefroy J., Rudestam K, Petrovsky A.V., Volkov I.P., Aleksandrov A.A. and etc.
Research on educational motivation and student motivation was carried out by N. Heckhausen, N.V. Mormuzheva, A.A. Rean, Markova A.K., Bozhovich L.I. and etc.
Purpose of the study: to identify the relationship between student group cohesion and learning motivation.
Object of study: cohesion of the student group, motivation for learning in a psychological group.
Subject of research: the relationship between student group cohesion and learning motivation.
Research hypotheses:
1. the cohesion of the student group increases the learning motivation of all its members.
2. The longer the interpersonal interactions of the student group, the higher the motivation for learning in the group will be.
Research objectives:
1. To study the phenomenon of cohesion of small groups, various approaches to the study of cohesion of small groups in Russian and foreign psychology.
2. Study the level of cohesion in student groups.
3. To study the phenomenon of motivation to learn in students, various approaches to the study of motivation of student groups in Russian and foreign psychology.
4. To study the relationship between student group cohesion and learning motivation.
Methods: systems approach(B.F. Lomov, 1971); the principle of development (S.L. Rubinstein, 1968); psychodiagnostic method.
Techniques:
1) Methodology for diagnosing personal and group values (A.V. Kaptsov, L.V. Karpushina),
2) Methodology for diagnosing educational motivation of students (A.A. Rean and V.A. Yakunin, modification by N.Ts. Badmaeva).
Chapter 1. Cohesion of the student group and students’ learning motivation
1.1. Concept of group cohesion
Group cohesion is an indicator of the strength, unity and stability of interpersonal interactions and relationships in a group, characterized by the mutual emotional attraction of group members and satisfaction with the group. Group cohesion can act both as a goal of psychological training and as necessary condition successful work. In a group formed from strangers, some of the time will necessarily be spent achieving the level of cohesion necessary to solve group problems.
The concept of “cohesion” is used to denote such socio-psychological characteristics of a small group as the degree of psychological community, unity of group members, closeness and stability of interpersonal relationships and interactions, the degree of emotional attractiveness of the group for its members.
Group cohesion is also the subject of close attention from domestic and foreign experts who have not come to a single definition of this phenomenon.
The beginning of the systematic study of group cohesion dates back to the late 40s, when the first special studies were carried out under the leadership of L. Festinger. L. Festinger, a student of K. Lewin, has the most common definition of group cohesion as “the result of all the forces acting on the members of the group in order to keep them in it.” Almost two decades later, D. Cartwright will practically repeat the original definition: “group cohesion is characterized by the extent to which group members want to remain in it.” T. Newcome (1969) had his own approach to the formation of group cohesion, who connected the concept of group cohesion with the concept of “group consent.” The author defined group agreement as the similarity, coincidence of opinions and views that occurs in the process of direct interaction between group members.
Close in this approach seems to be the understanding of cohesion as the value-oriented unity of a group, proposed by A.V. Petrovsky and V.V. Shpalinsky, which means similarity, coincidence of values regarding the subject of joint activity, its goals and motives.
A.A. Aleksandrov understood group cohesion as an indicator of the strength, unity and stability of interpersonal interactions and relationships in a group, characterized by the mutual emotional attractiveness of group members and satisfaction with the group.
Thus, group cohesion contributes to a person's satisfaction from being in a group. The forces of group cohesion have two components: firstly, the degree of attractiveness of one’s own group, and secondly, the force of attraction of other available groups. A group can therefore be defined as a collection of individuals connected in such a way that each perceives the benefits of the association as greater than can be obtained externally.
Socio-psychological compatibility in a group means that the given composition of the group is possible for the group to provide its functions, that group members can interact. This is one of the most important internal factors influencing the psychological climate in the group.
According to N.N. Obozov, cohesion in a group is an effect of a combination of people that gives maximum results of activity with minimal psychological “costs” of interacting persons. Cohesion can be considered in connection with two main types of group activity: business (instrumental) and emotional (interpersonal). In fact, in the case of instrumental compatibility, we are talking about harmony, which is associated with the success of activities.
1.2. The emergence of group cohesion among students.
In the scientific psychological literature one can find many diverse characteristics of criteria for the level of development of student study groups, ranging from the unity of ideological orientation and value orientations in them to such signs as “coincidence of formal and informal structure”, “high academic performance” and even the absence of conflicts in groups. From this set of criteria, the most significant groups can be distinguished:
1. the level of social significance of the subject activity of the student group, the fulfillment of the main student function, the influence on the harmonious development of the personality of a team member;
2. level of cohesion as the value-oriented unity of the group;
3. level of organizational unity of the group;
4. level of satisfaction of group members with the state of affairs and relationships in the group;
5. level of her emotional culture;
6. level of all types of group social activity;
7. level of group self-awareness and the need for its development.
Based on the two-factor group model, English psychologists G. Stanford and A. Roark identified the following seven stages in the development of group cohesion.
1. The stage of forming students’ ideas about the place of study and each other. The first interpersonal interactions at this time are still very cautious and lead to the formation of dyads. The teacher is perceived as the only authority.
2. The period of formation of group norms, the beginning of the formation of group identity.
3. Conflict stage - clashes are observed between individual members of the group due to their overestimation of their capabilities and the desire to solve all the problems themselves......
Literature
1. Andreeva G.M. "Social Psychology". M., 2003.
2. Antipova, I.G. Attitudes to educational activities of high school students and students Text. / I.G. Antipova // Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. psychol. Sci. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.
3. . Aseev, V.G. Motivation for learning activities and personality formation Text. / V.G. Aseev. M., 2006.
4. Verbitsky, A.A. Development of student motivation in contextual learning / A.A. Verbitsky, N.A Bakshaeva. M.: Research Center for Problems of Quality of Training of Specialists, 2000.
5. Verkhova, Yu.L. Formation of personal and professional orientation students in contextual learning: abstract of... Ph.D. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.07 / Yu.L. Verkhova. - M., 2007.
6. Dontsov A.I. "Psychological unity of the team." M., 2002.
7. Dontsov A.I. "Problems of Group Cohesion." M., 2009.
8. Krichevsky R.L., Dubovskaya E.M. Psychology of the small group. 2001
9. Marisova L.I. "Student team: basics of formation and activity." Kyiv, 2005.
10. Nemov R.S., Shestakov A.G. questions of psychology "Cohesion as a factor of group effectiveness", 2001
11. Platonov Yu.P. "Psychology of collective activity". 2000.
12. Psychology of joint activities of small groups and organizations / resp. ed. Zhuravlev A.L. - M.: Society: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001.
13. Psychological and pedagogical support for multi-level higher education/ Ed. Kaptsova A.V. - Samara, 2003
14. Maklakov A.G. General psychology: Textbook. a manual for university students and students of courses in psychological disciplines / A.G. Maklakov. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008
15. Markova A.K. Formation of learning motivation: Book. for the teacher / A.K. Markova, T.A. Matis, A.B. Orlov. - M.: Education, 2000
16. Sidorenkov A.V. Group cohesion and informal subgroups // Psychological Journal. 2006. No. 1
17. Fetiskin N.P., Kozlov V.V., Manuylov G.M. Socio-psychological diagnostics of personality development and small groups. - M., 2002.
We carry out all types of student work
Factors of group cohesion of a student group at different stages of training
Type of work: Coursework Subject: PsychologyOriginal work
Excerpt from work
Relevance. Groups play a role in human relationships. They influence our perceptions and attitudes, provide support in stressful situations, and influence our actions and decisions.
The very first and one of the important steps in the education of students is the formation of a cohesive group with developed socially significant goals and self-government bodies. It is the formed student group that has power and can become a source of transformation of modern reality.
In sociology, a group is defined as two or more individuals who interact with each other in such a way that each individual influences and is influenced by every other individual. The essential features that distinguish a group from a simple aggregation of people are: interaction, some duration of existence, the presence of a common goal or goals, the development of at least a rudimentary group structure, the awareness of its members as “we” or their membership in the group.
The problem of group cohesion is based on the understanding of the group primarily as a certain system of interpersonal relationships that have an emotional basis. In addition, there is an approach to the study of cohesion that is based on the idea that the main integrator of a group is the joint activities of its members. The “stratometric concept of group activity” integrates factors such as interpersonal relationships, value-oriented group unity and joint activities.
Object of study: group cohesion of a student group as a socio-psychological phenomenon.
Subject of research: the influence of interpersonal relationships and the nature of activities on the group cohesion of a student group.
Hypothesis: the factors of group cohesion among junior students are interpersonal relationships, and among senior students, joint group activities.
Analyze the problem of group cohesion in the works of researchers;
Highlight the characteristics of the student group as a social community;
To study the influence of the nature of activity and interpersonal relationships on group cohesion of 1st, 3rd and 5th year students;
Research methods:
To achieve the goal of the study, solve the problems and test the hypothesis put forward, we used a set of scientific methods adequate to the object and subject of the study:
theoretical analysis of general and specialized literature on the research problem, empirical methods: Methodology for determining the degree of value-orientation unity of a group (Kondratiev M. Yu); Questionnaire of Interpersonal Relations (A.A. Rukavishnikov (OMO)); “Sociometry” (J. Moreno); “Determination of the level of joint activity” (K.E. Lishchuk).
Methodological basis: The most intensive development of the problems under consideration in the works of T. Newcomb, who introduced the concept, introduces a special concept of “consent”; A. Beivelas attached particular importance to the nature of group goals. A. V. Petrovsky developed a “stratometric concept of group activity.”
Practical significance: we selected diagnostic methods aimed at identifying the level of group cohesion, as well as identifying factors of group cohesion in 1st, 3rd and 5th year students.
Experimental base: Experimental base: MOU VIEPP Volzhsky, 1st, 3rd and 5th year educational psychologists in the amount of 47 people.
Chapter 1. Theoretical basis and problems of group cohesion
1.1 Group problem cohesion in works of researchers
Cohesion is interpreted by many foreign authors as an attraction. This understanding is most concentrated in the review publication of B. Lott, who defined cohesion as “a group property that is derived from the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes of group members.”
The interpretation of cohesion as a predominantly emotional phenomenon of interpersonal relationships is inherent, however, not only to many foreign researchers. A review of domestic work in this area of group psychology, carried out by A. I. Dontsov, also reveals a number of attempts at an “emotional” approach to the problem. Domestic authors do not use the concept of attraction. Cohesion is described in their studies as a sociometric phenomenon, operationally expressed by the ratio of in-group (in favor of one’s own group) and out-group (in favor of some external groups) sociometric choices, which is qualified by experts as one of the manifestations of interpersonal attraction.
Cohesion as a result of group membership motivation. Although the identification of cohesion with interpersonal attraction is quite common in the literature, nevertheless, there are, in our opinion, more interesting attempts to understand the essence of the phenomenon under discussion. One of them belongs to D. Cartwright, who proposed perhaps the most comprehensive model of group cohesion, which is based on the idea of cohesion as a certain resulting force or motive that encourages individuals to maintain membership in a given specific group.
D. Cartwright emphasizes that certain characteristics of the group will have a motivating force for the subject only if they meet the corresponding needs included in his motivational basis of attraction to the group. Unfortunately, just as at the time when D. Cartwright’s work was written, so now the question of the relationship between these two types of variables (the characteristics of the group and the needs of its members) can safely be classified as poorly studied.
Cohesion as a value-oriented unity of group members. In the description of the two previous models of cohesion, it is not difficult to find something in common, namely, their inherent emphasis on the predominantly emotional nature of the phenomenon. To some extent, the antithesis of both approaches is the concept of group cohesion as the value-oriented unity of its members, developed by A. V. Petrovsky and supporters of the stratometric concept of group activity.
It should be noted, however, that the very idea of considering the similarity, or unity, of a number of personal characteristics of group members (for example, their opinions, values, attitudes) in the context of the problem of cohesion is not new. The idea that the similarity of individuals in opinions, values, and attitudes is one of the conditions for their mutual attraction, and therefore for the growth of motivation for group membership, and in turn cohesion, was expressed in foreign literature back in the early 50s. It is associated primarily with the classical studies of L. Festinger and T. Newcomb.
In a different aspect, the issue that interests us is considered within the framework of the stratometric concept of the team of A. V. Petrovsky. But before we present the corresponding views of the supporters of this direction, we emphasize that they have been presented to the domestic reader in the past by a large number of publications.
According to A. V. Petrovsky, “cohesion as a value-orientation unity is a characteristic of a system of intra-group connections, showing the degree of coincidence of the group’s assessments, attitudes and positions in relation to objects (persons, tasks, ideas, events) that are most significant for the group in as a whole." Value-oriented unity in a team is, first of all, a convergence of assessments in the moral and business spheres, in the approach to the goals and objectives of joint activities.
Within the framework of the approach under consideration, A.I. Dontsov identified one of higher forms value-orientation unity in a group - subject-value unity, which reflects the coincidence of value orientations of group members relating to the subject of joint group activity, and empirically demonstrates the legitimacy of such an understanding of cohesion.
As can be seen from the above materials, the interpretation of cohesion as a value-oriented unity, especially in the most clearly visible activity-determined examples (for example, in the form of objective-value unity), practically eliminates its emotional component from the analysis of this group phenomenon. It would be more accurate to say that this component is taken into account, but, as the supporters of the discussed approach emphasize, only in relation to the superficial layer of intragroup relations, which is the third psychological level of group structure in the conceptual scheme of A. V. Petrovsky.
There is cohesion of the instrumental type, which should include the subject-value unity of the group, which is dominant for groups focused primarily on solving problems of a professional (instrumental) nature. This does not mean that the emotional sphere of a group’s life and the corresponding cohesion of the emotional type are not “moments” of group life that deserve attention.
When describing the structure of a small group, two of its main features were identified: multi-level and multidimensional. Multi-levelness is represented by systems of intra-group relations hierarchically located in the “space” of group functioning, uniformity is represented by individual, or partial, dimensions of the group structure, each of which reflects the vertical connection between positions of group members of different degrees of prestige. The partial components of the group structure (a kind of “separate structures”), in particular, include: formal status, role, sociometric and communicative dimensions, positions of leadership and social power. In addition, the possibilities of static and (especially) dynamic, procedural representation of group structure through appropriate model constructions are shown.
An important factor in the life of a group is the norms that function within it - unique regulators of the group process. The features of normative behavior related to the influence of norms shared by the majority or minority of group members and the consequences of deviations from group standards were discussed. Analysis of various forms of agreement of individuals with the opinion of the majority indicates the need differentiated approach to this issue. This kind of agreement in some situations can play a positive role, helping to maintain the integrity of the group and the effectiveness of the tasks it solves, while in other situations it provokes stagnation tendencies that hinder the development of the group process. An effective counteraction to these tendencies in some cases is the activity of the group minority, which introduces elements of novelty and creativity into the life of the group and thereby contributes to its dynamization. Taking into account the simultaneous influences of the group majority and minority requires viewing normative behavior not as a unidirectional, but a reciprocal, reciprocal process of social influence.
Literary data point to the complex nature of such an integrative characteristic of a group as its cohesion, due to the conjugation of many determining factors: intergroup, group, personal. In turn, the consequences of cohesion have a tangible impact on various aspects of the life of the group: from the personal adaptation of its members to the overall productivity of the group.
1.2 Student group as a social community
A social community is a relatively stable collection of people who are characterized by more or less similar features of life activity and consciousness, and, consequently, interests.
Commonalities various types are formed on a different basis and are extremely diverse. These are communities formed in the sphere of social production (classes, professional groups etc.), growing on an ethnic basis (nationalities, nations), on the basis of demographic differences (sex and age communities), etc. 1, p. 98]
A group is a clearly limited in size collection of people, which is isolated from the wider society as a certain separate psychologically valuable community, united in the logic of some significant grounds: the specificity of a given and implemented activity, socially assessed membership in a certain category of people included in the group, structural compositional unity, etc.
A student group is understood as a social community, which is characterized by the presence of direct personal interactions and contacts. Such interactions play a special role, as they ensure the satisfaction of the most important individual and social needs: education, health, social activities, recreation, entertainment, that is, those that make up the everyday meaning of our life. 27 p.49]
A. V. Petrovsky suggests using the structure of a small group for this, consisting of three main layers, or “strata”:
the external level of the group structure is determined by direct emotional interpersonal relationships, i.e., what has traditionally been measured by sociometry;
the second layer is a deeper formation, denoted by the term “value-orientation unity” (COE), which is characterized by the fact that the relationships here are mediated by joint activities. Relations between group members are built in this case not on the basis of attachments or antipathies, but on the basis of similarity of value orientations (A.V. Petrovsky believes that this is a coincidence of value orientations relating to joint activities);
the third layer of group structure is located even deeper and involves an even greater inclusion of the individual in joint group activities. At this level, group members share the goals of group activity, and it can be assumed that the motives for choice at this level are also associated with the adoption of common values, but at a more abstract level. The third layer of relationships is called the “core” of the group structure.
The three layers of group structures can simultaneously be viewed as three levels of group cohesion. At the first level, cohesion is expressed by the development of emotional contacts. At the second level, further unification of the group occurs, and now this is expressed in the coincidence of the basic system of values associated with the process of joint activity. At the third level, group integration is manifested in the fact that all its members begin to share the common goals of group activities. 22, p.143]
In the above definition of the concept “student group” the following characteristics of a student group were recorded:
1) an organized community of people,
2) unification of people based on education,
3) the presence of relations of cooperation, mutual assistance and mutual responsibility,
4) the presence of common interests,
5) the presence of common (unifying) value orientations, attitudes and norms of behavior.
Along with the listed signs, you can also find some others: for example, a sign of stability of a group of people studying together, or a community of people studying together as individuals, as participants social relations, etc.
There is also a sign of purposeful controllability of the process of functioning and development of this group of people studying together. At the same time, the importance of self-government is especially emphasized.
Attention is drawn to some special requirements that the team places on authority and leadership. In particular, such as the requirement for organic unity of formal and informal leadership and authority. In addition, attention is drawn to the fact that the collective presupposes the voluntary choice of its individual, identification of oneself with this group. As an important sign student team call competitive relations between its members, in contrast, for example, to relations of simple competition.
Collaborative learning allows you to:
transfer your knowledge and skills to other team members;
solve more complex and voluminous problems than individually;
make fuller use of each person's individual abilities;
to censure the deeds and actions of comrades that do not meet the moral standards accepted in the team, and even punish the offenders, up to and including dismissal.
There are three elements in the structure of a student group: the leadership group, the so-called core and the peripheral part.
The student group leader himself is a member of the group capable of leading him and who is recognized in this role by the majority of the members of this group. It is important here that two qualities coincide in one person - the so-called formal and real leadership. The leadership group of the work collective is made up of the leaders of the student group, taken in its main areas.
The core of a student group is a group, usually constituting 30-40% of the total number, which is the bearer of the consciousness, collective norms and traditions that have developed in a given group. In addition, we can talk about a student group with a different number of cores, as well as unique nuclear-free groups. Most of the latter are characterized by underdevelopment of collectivist qualities proper in one respect or another, or in all respects in general. Each case of such deviations from some norm requires special study and represents a particularly significant and, in general, fruitful object of the student group.
In social psychology, special terms are used that indicate the state of the individual in interpersonal relationships - the role, status, well-being of the student in the group:
“Star” - A member of a group (collective) who receives nai large quantity elections. As a rule, there are 1-2 “stars” in a group. In the table given In example 17, these are students numbered 5 and 7 on the group list.
“Bazhany” - A member of a group (collective), who receives half or slightly less than the number of elections, loyal to the popular.
“stamped” - A member of a group (collective) who receives 1-2 elections.
“Isolation” - A member of a group (team) who has not received any choice. In the example given, the second student on the list is in this state.
“Discarded” - The one who is called when answering the question “Who would you like to work with or relax with?” (3rd and 5th questions of the questionnaire.
Research into groups and collectives shows that the “desired” and “repressed” are in the majority.
Thus, each member of the group (team) takes a certain position, which is not always the same in business and personal relationships. For example, one student in business relations has the status of “pushed aside”, in personal terms - “desired”, the second - in personal terms - “star”, and in business ones - “desired”. But there may also be a coincidence of status: “desired” in business and personal relationships.
An important phenomenon in interpersonal relationships is socio-psychological reflection - the ability of an individual to perceive and evaluate his relationships with other members of the group. The most important concepts in defining a student group as social institution are the concepts of “content of learning” and “nature of learning”. It is very important to find out the specifics of applying these concepts to the problems of a student group.
By the nature of learning we usually mean a certain set of the most general and stable characteristics of the educational process, internal and external conditions. In fact, the nature of learning refers to some of the most general forms of learning.
Each student group, from the moment of its creation, goes through a number of life stages, begins to live its own life, improve, change, “grow up,” gain strength and fully reveal its potential, i.e. become mature.
A formed student group, like any living organism, goes through several stages in its development: the first corresponds to infancy and adolescence; the second - to the period of effective work and mature age; the third - weakening of potential, aging and ultimately either elimination or renewal. (American researchers identify five or more stages of team maturity: grinding in, close combat, experimentation, efficiency, maturity, etc.)
Conclusions on the first chapter Foreign authors understand group cohesion as attraction. Among the reasons for sympathy, researchers include: the frequency of interaction between individuals, the cooperative nature of their interaction, the style of group leadership, frustration and threat to the flow of the group process, status and behavioral characteristics of group members, various manifestations of similarities between people, success in completing a group task, etc.
Domestic scientists describe cohesion in their studies as a sociometric phenomenon, operationally expressed by the ratio of in-group and out-group sociometric choices. A. V. Petrovsky defines the structure of the group as: 1. direct emotional interpersonal relationships; 2. “value-orientation unity” 3. inclusion of the individual in joint group activities.
A student group is understood as a social community, which is characterized by the presence of direct personal interactions and contacts. 27, p.77]
We recorded the following characteristics of a student group: an organized community of people, a union of people on the basis of receiving an education, the presence of relationships of cooperation, mutual assistance and mutual responsibility, the presence of common interests, the presence of common (unifying) value orientations, attitudes and norms of behavior. Special terms are used in social psychology. , indicating the state of the individual in interpersonal relationships - the role, status, well-being of the student in the group. Each member of the group (team) occupies a certain position, which is not always the same in business and personal relationships.
Chapter 2. The essence and specificity of group cohesion at different stages of learning
2.1 Basic methods and methods determining the influence of character activities and interpersonal relationships on group cohesion students
Based on data on the phenomenon of group cohesion, which includes: direct emotional interpersonal relationships; “value-orientation unity”; inclusion of the individual in joint group activities. We selected the following methods:
1. The sociometry method was developed by the Austrian-American psychologist D. L. Moreno. Sociometry refers to socio-psychological tests and allows you to measure interpersonal relationships, connections of preference that arise in the situation of choosing a partner in a particular activity or situation.
Using sociometry, you can identify popularity and leadership, charisma, group conflict, integrators and outsiders of the group. This method also allows you to assess the socio-psychological climate in the group, measure communication competence, and identify the value orientations of the group.
When conducting sociometry, participants are guaranteed anonymity, their names are encrypted, and the results are presented only in encrypted form.
2. As a basic technique for identifying direct emotional interpersonal relationships, we chose the Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (IRR) by A. A. Rukavishnikov. This questionnaire identifies the following needs:
The need for inclusion. This is the need to create and maintain satisfying relationships with other people, from which interaction and cooperation arise.
Need for control. This need is defined as the need to create and maintain satisfying relationships with people based on control and power.
Interpersonal need for affect. It is defined as the need to create and maintain satisfying relationships with other people based on love and emotional relationships.
3. Definitions of the value-oriented unity of the group (COE) (). Designed to determine the degree and nature of the COE of the group being studied.
Using the methodology for determining the value-orientation unity (VOU) of a group allows the experimenter to answer the question of whether this particular functioning group can be considered a cohesive community, as well as to experimentally determine the degree of expression of this most important group characteristic.
The creators of this methodological procedure proceeded from the fact that the analysis of the phenomenon of group cohesion cannot be reduced to the consideration of such, in their own way important characteristics interpersonal relationships, such as the frequency and intensity of contacts of community members, the degree of their mutual sympathy, etc. Following their argument, which is difficult to disagree with, we have to admit that in a number of cases of intensification of interpersonal contacts of group members, sometimes a sharp intensification of their interaction can to be a direct reflection not of centripetal, but, on the contrary, of centrifugal forces, naturally leading not to unity, but to the actual disintegration of the community. In this regard, within the framework of the theory of activity-based mediation of interpersonal relationships, a fundamentally different approach to understanding the psychological essence of the phenomenon of group cohesion as a value-orientation unity of members of a contact group was developed. In essence, we are talking here about the degree of consistency of opinions and positions of members of a particular community in relation to the most significant objects for its life.
4. “Formation of positive group motivation” This test is used for collective assessment of factors related to the formation of group activities. For effective group work certain prerequisites are required. Along with the importance of the process of jointly solving problems and problems in a group, one should take into account the climate in the group, “growing” the group to a certain degree of maturity, and the process of preparing group members to work together. Thus, the advantage of group work is achieved through a synergistic effect, which is possible when the participants in the interaction enter into a kind of psychological resonance, feel comfortable and confident, and when their activity increases.
5. To determine the characteristics of group activity, we compiled a questionnaire based on three research questions: “is there positive interdependence among group members?”, “is there personal responsibility for the work done in the group”, “is there simultaneous interaction between students?” These questions were compiled based on the following signs of joint activity:
Positive interdependence of participants (the goal is perceived as a single one, requiring the combined efforts of all group members).
Personal reporting of each person on the work done in the group (organization of activities involves division of labor, establishing a relationship of responsibility for one’s part of the work).
Simultaneous interaction of students (when preparing a group assignment and group performance in the lesson).
Equal participation of everyone in the work of the group.
Group reporting (activity control is partially carried out by the students themselves).
Reflective activity in groups (collective analysis and self-analysis). 5 p.345]
2.2 Features of the nature of activities and interpersonal relationships on group cohesion of students
To confirm the hypothesis, we conducted a study of group cohesion at different stages of training. 47 students took part in the study.
The sociometry technique was carried out on a training group of first-year educational psychologists. The group consisted of 18 people. 15 respondents participated in the study. Based on the data obtained during the survey, tables were built with the primary answers of all respondents (encoded by letters) (Appendix 1).
Based on the existing number of mutual elections and their potential number, the group cohesion index is calculated using a special formula. It is believed that with values of this index of about 0.6−0.7, cohesion is quite high, connections are saturated, there are almost no “isolated” group members. In the group under consideration, the index is 0.52. This result means low group cohesion at the moment.
The sociometry technique was also carried out on a training group of third-year educational psychologists. The group consisted of 15 people. 15 respondents took part in the study.
Based on the existing number of mutual elections and their potential number, the group cohesion index was calculated and is 0.66. This result means high group cohesion at the moment.
The sociometry technique was also carried out on a training group of fifth-year educational psychologists. The group consisted of 17 people, 15 respondents participated in the study (Appendix 3).
Based on the existing number of mutual elections and their potential number, the group cohesion index was calculated and is 0.61. This result means that group cohesion is not high at the moment.
Figure 1 — Results using the “sociometry” method
In this regard, we can say that in the first year group cohesion is at a low level. By the third year, connections in the group become more extensive, and integrators appear. In the fifth year, connections remain strong, but there are significantly fewer integrators.
The external level of group structure is determined by direct emotional interpersonal relationships in the group. In order to determine the nature of interpersonal relationships in the student group, we used the “Interpersonal Relationships Questionnaire (IMR)” technique by A. A. Rukavishnikov, V. Shutts. This technique identifies interpersonal needs. This technique was carried out by three training groups of psychologists.
A group of first-year educational psychologists showed following results(Appendix 4).
The need for inclusion. This need to create and maintain satisfactory relationships with other people, on the basis of which interaction and cooperation arise, is at a high level. Students feel good among their group members and tend to develop interpersonal relationships (80%). There is a need for inclusion in the group, a desire to create and maintain a sense of mutual interest (70%). Inclusion behaviors are aimed at creating connections between people.
Need for control. This need is defined as the need to create and maintain satisfying relationships with people based on control and power. First-year students try to take responsibility combined with a leading role (80%), and in this group there is a need for dependence and hesitation when making decisions (60%).
Interpersonal need for affect. It is defined as the need to create and maintain satisfactory relationships with other people, based on love and emotional relationships. Group members are more inclined to establish close emotional relationships (60%), and less willing to avoid establishing close contacts (40%). Also, some students are more careful when choosing people with whom they create deeper emotional relationships (60%), another part demands that others indiscriminately establish close emotional relationships with them (40%).
In the third year, the results of the daily methodology showed the following results (Appendix 5).
Need for control. The majority of students in the 3PP group do not accept control over themselves (80%). At the same time, one part of students tries to take responsibility (60%), while the other avoids making decisions and taking responsibility (40%).
In the fifth year, the results of this technique showed the following results (Appendix 6).
The need for inclusion. Students feel good among their classmates and tend to expand their connections in the group (70%). Third-year students have a strong need to be accepted in their group (60%), and some third-year students tend to communicate with a small number of people (40%). .
Need for control. The majority of students in the 5PP group do not accept control over themselves (80%). At the same time, one part of students tries to take responsibility (60%), while the other avoids making decisions and taking responsibility (40%).
Interpersonal need for affect. The majority of third-year group members (80%) demand that others indiscriminately establish close emotional relationships with them. In the group there are those who are careful when identifying loved ones intimate relationships(50%) and those who tend to establish close sensual relationships (50%).
Figure 2 - Results obtained during the “Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (IRR)” technique
Based on the results obtained, we can say that in the first year there is a high level of need for communication, in the third year the need for communication with group members decreases, and in the fifth year this trend continues. In the first year, the tendency to establish close relationships is higher than in the third; in the fifth year, this need is at a low level. Also, the acceptance of control from the group in the first year is significantly lower than in the third, but in the fifth year control decreases.
The next criterion for determining the development of a group is the value-orientation unity of the group. To do this, we used a technique for determining the value-orientation unity (COE) of the group. It allowed us to answer the question of whether this particular functioning group can be considered a cohesive community, as well as to experimentally determine the degree of expression of this most important group characteristic.
We determined a measure of the consistency of opinions among members of the surveyed community regarding what qualities a leader should have. We introduced each subject to a generalized list and asked to indicate the five most important characteristics for a leader from those included in the consolidated list.
The methodology was carried out on a training group of first-year educational psychologists (Appendix 7). Group members carried out next choice, in their opinion, the five qualities that are most valuable for a leader.
Based on the existing number of choices of personality traits, the COE index was calculated, it is 28%.
Third-year students made the following choice of the most important characteristics for a leader (Appendix 8).
Based on the existing number of choices of personality traits, the COE index was calculated, it is 64%, this indicator of the level of cohesion is at the average level. Fifth-year students made the following choice, the most important characteristics for a leader (Appendix 9).
Based on the existing number of choices of personality traits, the COE index was calculated, it is 45%, this result can be called the average level.
Figure 3 — Results obtained during the “COE” technique
The next layer of group structure is the joint activities of the group. To determine it the following were used:
1. “Determination of the level of joint activity” Lishchuk K. E.
During the study, we obtained the following results: in the first year, the group is not sufficiently motivated for a positive result in their activities. In the third year, the group is sufficiently focused on achieving success in their activities. In the fifth year, the group is not sufficiently motivated for positive results in activities, and the results obtained are lower than the results of the first year.
Figure 4 - Results obtained when carrying out the methodology “Determining the level of joint activity”
2. A survey was conducted, the purpose of which was to get an answer to the following research questions: “is there a positive interdependence among group members?”, “is there personal responsibility for the work done in the group”, “is there simultaneous interaction between students?” The following results were obtained (Appendix).
In the first year, it was revealed that 18% of students were dissatisfied with joint activities, while 82% were satisfied with joint activities. Also, a small part of 18% would prefer independent work to group work, 36% want to work only with a few specific group members, the remaining 46% preferred independent work to group work.
It turned out that there was no personal responsibility of everyone for the work done in the group. Students do not distribute questions among all group members when preparing for the exam. Some students partly believe that they are responsible for preparing for the seminar in front of the entire group (36%), the rest do not share this opinion (64%).
It can be said that in the first year there is interaction between students. The group has such responsibilities as: leisure organizer and duty officer. The group has established communication and organization of activities, while 63% are satisfied with the effectiveness of the dissemination of information in the group, 27% are only partially satisfied, 9% are dissatisfied at all.
The results of the third-year survey showed the following: 80% have a desire to work in a group, and 20% have a desire to sometimes arise, while 80% of respondents enjoy working together, 20% are dissatisfied with joint activities.
It turned out that there was no personal responsibility of everyone for the work done in the group. 90% of third-year students distribute questions among themselves when preparing for the exam. At the same time, 20% of respondents, when preparing for the seminar, believe that they are letting their group down, 40% believe that the responsibility lies only partly with them, the remaining 40% are confident that they will not let the group down if they do not prepare for the seminar.
We can say that in the third year there is a high level of interaction between students. The group has such responsibilities as: the one who monitors changes in the schedule, the person on duty, the one who informs about events at the institute, the organizer of the group’s leisure activities. The group has established communication and organization of activities; 70% are satisfied with the dissemination of information in the group, the remaining 30% are partially satisfied.
In the fifth year, students enjoy working in a group, while 90% would prefer independent work to group work, and 10% would prefer individual work group.
Fifth-year students do not distribute questions when preparing for exams among all members of the group; only some students (20%) distribute questions among some members of the group. At the same time, 20% of respondents, when preparing for the seminar, believe that they are letting their group down, 40% believe that the responsibility lies only partly with them, the remaining 40% are confident that they will not let the group down if they do not prepare for the seminar.
It turned out that in the fifth year there is simultaneous interaction between students. The group has such responsibilities as: the one who monitors changes in the schedule, the one who informs about events within the walls of the institute, the organizer of leisure activities. The group has established communication and organization of activities; 70% are satisfied with the dissemination of information in the group, the remaining 10% are partially satisfied, 20% are dissatisfied at all.
Figure 5 - Results obtained from the survey Based on the data obtained, we can say that our hypothesis that the factors of group cohesion among junior students is interpersonal relationships, and among senior students joint group activities, was not confirmed.
Chapter Two Conclusions An important aspect of group structure is how cohesive it is. In the first year, group cohesion is at a low level. By the third year, connections in the group become more extensive, and integrators appear. In the fifth year, connections remain strong, but there are significantly fewer integrators.
In the first year, the desire to look for new connections within the group is greater than in the third and fifth years, but at the same time, the need to find new connections remains quite high in these courses. In addition, there is a tendency to reduce the need to communicate with a large number of people within one’s group. If in the first year this need is at a fairly high level, then by the fifth year it decreases significantly.
In the first year, most people tend to avoid responsibility for making decisions, while by the fifth year this need becomes one of the leading needs in communication. It can also be said that first-year students do not accept the control of the group over themselves, while in the third year there is dependence and fluctuations in decision-making; by the fifth year, dependence on the group decreases, but at the same time it is higher than in the first year.
The need to establish close relationships in the first year is higher than in the third, in turn, in the fifth year this need is greatly reduced; fifth-year students have almost no tendency to establish close sensual relationships. In the first year there is no strong need to establish close relationships; by the third year this need increases greatly, and in the fifth year the need to create deep emotional relationships ceases to be relevant.
Conclusion
Characteristics of the system of intragroup connections, showing the degree of coincidence of assessments, attitudes and positions of the group in relation to objects, people, ideas, events that are most significant for the group as a whole. Cohesion as a trait expresses the degree of like-mindedness and unity of action of its members, and is a general indicator of their spiritual community and unity. In a group formed from strangers, some of the time will necessarily be spent achieving the level of cohesion necessary to solve group problems. The military calls this process “combat coordination.”
The main factors of group cohesion include primarily:
the similarity of the main value orientations of group members;
clarity and certainty of group goals;
democratic style of leadership (management);
cooperative interdependence of group members in the process of joint activities;
relatively small group size;
absence of conflicting microgroups; prestige and traditions of the group.
Specific indicators of psychological cohesion are usually:
the level of mutual sympathy in interpersonal relationships (the more group members like each other, the higher its cohesion);
the degree of attractiveness (usefulness) of a group for its members: it is higher, the greater the number of people satisfied with their stay in the group - those for whom the subjective value of the benefits acquired through the group exceeds the significance of the efforts expended."
Group cohesion consists of the following levels
1. direct emotional interpersonal relationships;
2. “value-orientation unity”
3. inclusion of the individual in joint group activities.
A student group is understood as a social community, which is characterized by the presence of direct personal interactions and contacts.
IN course work The following questions were considered:
1. The concept of a student group as a social community, characteristics of the group, structure of the group.
2. Characteristics of the characteristics of the student body.
3. Approaches to the problem of cohesion, the concept of cohesion, forming cohesiveness, approaches to measuring group cohesion, types of work collectives depending on their cohesion, “personality-cohesion” variables.
If in the first year a group is formed, interpersonal relationships develop, relationships become stronger, a value-orientation unity begins to form, a desire arises to unite in the name of educational and leisure activities, in the third year connections within the group continue to strengthen, integrators appear, responsibilities within the group expand , the dependence of group members on the group arises. The group becomes united, the desire to work in the group increases, space appears for disseminating information (the group has a common email, a page on social network), group members are interested in achieving a common goal.
In the fifth year, the group lacks common goals, value-orientation unity, and interpersonal connections are destroyed.
The group will cease to exist in just a few months, so patterns such as a decrease in interpersonal connections, a decrease in the level of value-oriented unity, and the level of joint group activity are insignificant.
This study will help to take into account the peculiarities of the development of interpersonal relationships within a group at various stages of the educational process, the dynamics of the formation of the value-orientation unity of the group, and the peculiarities of interaction in the group in the educational process.
1. Andreeva G. M. Social psychology. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1998. 431 p.
2. Anikeeva N.P. Psychological climate in the team M.: Education, 2005. 224 p.
3. Antonyuk V.I., Zolotova O.I., Mochenov G.A., Shorokhova E.V. Problems of socio-psychological climate in Soviet social psychology./Social-psychological climate of the team. M., Science. 2000. p. 5−25.
4. Belinskaya E. P., Tikhomandritskaya O. A. Social psychology: Reader. - M.: Aspect Press, 2003. - 475 p.
5. Bagretsov S. A., Lvov V. M., Naumov V. V., Oganyan K. M. Diagnostics of socio-psychological characteristics of small groups with external status St. Petersburg: Iz-vo Lan, 1999. - 640 p.
6. Vichev V.V. Morality and social psychology. M., 1999.
7. Dontsov A.I. Psychology of collectives. M. Publishing house of Moscow State University, 2004. 246 p.
8. Dontsov A.I. On the concept of “group” in social psychology. West. Moscow un-ta. Psychology. 1997. No. 4. p. 17−25
9. Dontsov A.I. Problems of group cohesion. M.: MSU, 1979. 128 p.
10. Zhuravlev A.L. Social and psychological problems of management.
11. Applied problems of social psychology. M. 1999. 184 p.
12. Neimer Yu. L. Cohesion as a characteristic of the primary Collective and its sociological dimension - Soc. research 1995. No. 2
13. Krichevsky R. L., Dubovskaya E. M. Psychology of a small group: Theoretical and applied aspects. M. Publishing house of Moscow State University, 2001, 152 p.
14. Kono T. Strategy and structure of Japanese enterprises. M.: 1987.
15. Kolominsky Ya. L. Psychology of relationships in small groups. Minsk, 1976
16. Krysko V. Social psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006, 432.
17. Krysko V. Dictionary-reference book on social psychology St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003, 416.
18. Kunz G., O. Donnell. Control. Systemic and situational analysis of management functions. M.: 1981.
19. Levin K. Field theory in social sciences. M.: 2000.
20. Obozov N. N. Psychology of small groups. Social Psychology. L. 1979.
21. Petrovsky A. V. Personality. Activity. Team. M.: Politizdat. 1982.- 255 p.
22. Petrovsky A.V. Psychological theory team. M. Pedagogy. 1979. - 315 p.
23.. Platonov K.K., Kazakov V.G. Development of the system of concepts of the theory of psychological climate in psychology. /Social psychological climate of the team./Ed. Shorokhova E.V. and Zotova O.I.M.: 2006. p. 32−44.
24. Platonov Yu. P. Psychology of collective activity: Theoretical and methodological aspect. L. Publishing House of Leningrad State University. 2000. 181 p.
25. Psychology. Textbook. /Ed. Krylova.M.: “Prospekt” 1998. 584 p.
26. Psychology. Dictionary/Ed. Petrovsky. M. 2000. 586 p.
27. Sidorenkov A. V. Informal subgroups in a small group: socio-psychological analysis. Rostov n/d: RSU, 2004.
28. Fetiskin B. E. Social psychological development individuals and small groups
29. Shakurov R. X. Social and psychological problems of teaching staff management. M., 1982.
30. Shaw M. E. Group dynamics. NY. 1971.
Application A
Table A1 - Sociometric matrix 1PP | ||||||||||||||||||||
Figure A1 - Results obtained during the “sociometry” technique in the 1st year. Sociometric status index
Application B
Table B1 - Sociometric matrix 3PP
Figure B1 - Results obtained during the “sociometry” technique in the 3rd year. Sociometric status index
Application IN
Table B1 - Sociometric matrix 5PP | ||||||||||||||||||||
Figure B 1 - Results obtained when conducting the “sociometry” technique in the 5th course. Sociometric status index
Application G
Figure D1 - Results obtained when conducting the “Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (IRR)” method in the 1st year
Application D
Figure D1 - Results obtained when conducting the “Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (IRR)” method in the 3rd year
Application E
Figure E1 - Results obtained during the “Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (IRR)” method in the 5th year
Application AND
Table G1 - Results obtained during the “COE” technique at 1st point
Justice | responsibility | sociability | modesty | Willingness to help | Admitting mistakes | Demandingness | Performance | Perseverance | Caution | Ability to avoid punishment | Physical strength | agreeableness | ||||
Figure G1 - Figure. Results obtained during the implementation of the “COE” technique in the 1st year.
Application Z
Table H1 - Results obtained when carrying out the “COE” technique at 3PP
Justice | responsibility | sociability | modesty | Willingness to help | Admitting mistakes | Demandingness | Performance | Perseverance | Caution | Ability to avoid punishment | Physical strength | agreeableness | ||||||
Figure 31 - Results obtained when carrying out the “COE” technique in the 3rd year
Appendix I
Table I1 - Results obtained when carrying out the “COE” technique at 5PP
Justice | responsibility | sociability | modesty | Willingness to help | Admitting mistakes | Demandingness | Performance | Perseverance | Caution | Ability to avoid punishment | Physical strength | agreeableness | ||||
Figure I 1 - Results obtained when carrying out the “COE” technique in the 5th year
Appendix K
student cohesion interpersonal attitude Training program to build student group cohesion.
The cohesion of a student group is an important aspect of its activities. However, often the group is united, but not for the implementation of educational goals, but to satisfy a variety of non-educational needs. The situation becomes especially tense when the cohesion of the group is directed against one of its members. Therefore, it is necessary to organize and conduct special events to develop group cohesion of the student body with a positive vector for the development of its orientation.
For this purpose, it is necessary to conduct socio-psychological training “Development of student group cohesion.”
Purpose of the training:
* increasing group cohesion, developing the team as an integral group entity.
Training sessions develop the following skills and abilities:
* goodwill, interest and ability to build trusting relationships with each other;
* emotionally empathize with a classmate;
* cooperate and act together;
* coordinate your actions with others and jointly solve assigned tasks;
* resolve conflict situations;
All this contributes to the rapprochement and development of the sense of “We” in the student body.
The content of the training program “Development of Student Group Cohesion” is based on solving problems that are close and understandable to students: how to build relationships in a team and resist pressure; how to understand another person during a conversation, and how important it is to be able to convey your thoughts and feelings to your interlocutor. Thus, communicative competence is formed, and on its basis group cohesion dynamically develops.
We have developed a training program aimed at building the cohesion of the student group.
1. Lesson. Self-respect.
1) Getting to know each other. Establishing contact.
Participants sign badges. The presenter introduces himself and says a few words about what will happen.
2) Rules for working in a group.
The master is then set certain rules group work that is necessary to ensure that all participants feel comfortable and safe. The rules are written out in advance on a piece of Whatman paper, and after acceptance by the group, they are fixed in a visible place. During all subsequent classes, the group rules are located there and are reminded by the presenters at the beginning of the class.
List of rules:
1. Listen carefully to each other.
2. Do not interrupt the speaker
3. Respect each other's opinions
4. I am a statement
5. Non-judgmental judgments
6. Activity
7. Stop rule
8. Confidentiality Each of the points of the rules is explained by the presenter.
3) Warm up. "Switch places"
Description of the exercise Participants sit on chairs in a circle. The leader goes to the middle of the circle and says the phrase: “Swap places” those who... (knows how to fry eggs)." At the end, some sign or skill is named. The task of those who have this skill or sign is to change places. The task of the leader is have time to sit in any vacant seat. The one who did not have time to sit becomes the new driver.
Psychological meaning of the exercise: Warm-up, creating conditions for getting to know each other better, understanding how much we have in common, and increasing the participants’ interest in each other.
4) Basic exercise. "Good and Bad Deeds"
Description of the exercise Participants are randomly divided into two teams. Each team is given a sheet of Whatman paper, felt-tip pens or markers and A4 paper. The task of one team is to write as many actions as possible that allow a person to respect himself more. Accordingly, another task is to write down as many actions as possible, because of which a person’s self-respect is lost. If desired, each team can support the words with pictures of corresponding actions.
Discussion Each team presents its topic. Then there is a general discussion, at the end the presenter summarizes everything that has been said. It is very important to pay attention to the fact that everyone has a choice between certain actions, but every time we choose one or another behavior, we gain or lose self-respect.
Psychological meaning of the exercise Children’s awareness of the connection between actions and self-esteem. Isolating the very concept of self-respect and discovering its connection with mutual respect. And this is a necessary condition for full communication, without which the development of cohesion is impossible.
5) Final exercise. "Thank you!"
Description of the exercise Participants stand in a circle, and the leader invites everyone to mentally put on their left hand everything that they came with today, their baggage of mood, thoughts, knowledge, experience, and on right hand- something new I learned in this lesson. Then, everyone clapping their hands hard at the same time and shouting - YES! or THANK YOU!
Psychological meaning of the exercise Final ritual. Allows you to reflect on the content and result of the last lesson, as well as end it beautifully on a positive emotional note.
Lesson 2. “Beautiful Garden”
1) Warm up. Exercise “Say hello”
Description of the exercise The presenter invites everyone to shake hands, but in a special way. You need to greet two participants with both hands at the same time, and you can only let go of one hand when you find someone who is also ready to say hello, i.e., your hands should not remain idle for more than a second. The task is to greet all group members in this way. There should be no talking during the game.
Psychological meaning of the exercise Warm-up. Establishing contact between participants. A handshake is a symbolic gesture of openness and goodwill. It is important that eye contact occurs in this case - this contributes to the emergence of closeness and a positive internal attitude. The fact that the action occurs without words increases the concentration of group members and gives the action the charm of novelty.
2) Basic exercise. "Beautiful garden"
Description of the exercise Participants sit in a circle. The presenter suggests sitting quietly, you can close your eyes, and imagine yourself as a flower. What would you be like? What leaves, stem, and maybe thorns? High or low? Bright or not very bright? Now, after everyone has presented this, draw your flower. Everyone is given paper, markers, and crayons.
Next, participants are invited to cut out their own flower. Then everyone sits in a circle. The presenter spreads a cloth of any fabric, preferably plain, inside the circle, and distributes a pin to each participant. The fabric is declared to be a garden clearing that needs to be planted with flowers. All participants take turns coming out and attaching their flower.
Discussion It is suggested that you admire the “beautiful garden” and capture this picture in your memory so that it shares its positive energy. Notice that although there were many flowers, there was enough space for everyone, everyone took only their own, the one they chose. See what different, different flowers yours is surrounded by. But there is also something in common - some have the color, others the size or shape of the leaves. And all flowers, without exception, need sun and attention.
Psychological meaning of the exercise Art therapy itself is a very powerful tool that is used for psychological correction and serves to explore feelings, develop interpersonal skills and relationships, strengthen self-esteem and self-confidence. In this case, the exercise allows you to understand and feel yourself, be yourself, express your thoughts and feelings freely, and also understand the uniqueness of everyone, see the place you occupy in the diversity of this world and feel part of this beautiful world.
Final exercise. "Thank you!"
Lesson 3. Development of communication skills. Non-verbal communication
1) Warm up. Exercise “Let’s line up”
Description of the exercise The presenter offers to play a game where the main condition is that the task is completed silently. You cannot talk or correspond during this time; you can only communicate using facial expressions and gestures. “Let's see if you can understand each other without words?” In the first part of the exercise, participants are given the task to line up by height, in the second part the task becomes more complicated - they need to line up by date of birth. In the second option, at the end of the construction, the participants take turns voicing their birthdays, while checking the correctness of the exercise. Psychological meaning of the exercise Warm-up. Demonstration of the possibility of adequate exchange of information without the use of words, development of expression and non-verbal communication skills. The unusual conditions in which the participants find themselves include interest, force them to find ways to more accurately convey their thoughts to another person, to contact each other in order to achieve a common goal.
2) Basic exercise. "Drawing on the back"
Description of the exercise Participants are randomly divided into three teams and lined up in three columns in parallel. Each participant looks at the back of his comrade. The exercise is performed without words. The presenter draws some a simple picture and hides it. Then the same picture is drawn with a finger on the back of each last team member. The task is to feel and convey this drawing as accurately as possible further. At the end, those standing first in the teams draw what they felt on sheets of paper and show it to everyone. The presenter takes out his picture and compares it.
Participants are invited to discuss in teams the errors and discoveries that were made during the exercise. Draw conclusions, then, taking these conclusions into account, repeat the exercise. In this case, the first and last team members change places.
Discussion Discussion in a general circle. What helped you understand and convey sensations? How did the first and last team members feel in the first and second cases? What prevented you from doing the exercise?
Control
The methodology is intended to determine the group cohesion of student groups and can be used by educational workers in order to optimize the educational process.
Test instructions
The methodology gives seven psychological characteristics of the class. Test teachers choose one of three proposed statements (A, B, C), which, in their opinion, most reflects the actual state of the class being studied.
It is advisable to carry out this test at the beginning and at the end school year to obtain comparative results. 2-3 teachers should be involved in determining the cohesion of the group (class).
Test material
Assessed psychological characteristics of study groups or classes:
- I think that all students feel warm, cozy and comfortable in the classroom, they are among friends.
- Not everyone feels the friendly support of the class.
- There are lonely guys in the class.
- Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class
- Basically, the guys value class.
- The majority of students do not think about the importance of class in their school life.
- I think there are guys who would like to change classes.
- Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class
- It feels like the class cares for every student.
- The class goes beyond caring for itself and the school in its activities and shows care on a large scale.
- We can say that the class is more concerned about external matters such as discos than internal ones - the protection of each student.
- Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class
- You can express satisfaction with educational work in the classroom.
- I think that educational work in the classroom can be supplemented with some important points.
- I believe that it requires a radical change.
- Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class
- You can positively evaluate the collective creative activities carried out in the class.
- We should introduce collective creative activities into practice more often.
- The class does not need new collective creative activities.
- Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class
- I think there is a basis for common friendship in the class.
- Mostly they are friends in groups, they don’t have anything in common.
- Friendship between everyone in the class is impossible.
- Choose one statement that best reflects the state of the class
- I think that most children show their abilities and interests in the classroom.
- The classroom has too limited opportunities for children to demonstrate their abilities.
- There are many children in the class whose abilities and interests have not yet been discovered.
Data processing and interpretation
The answers received are converted into points using the following table:
The overall total result in points is calculated. The highest score can be 100, the lowest - 65.
High level of group cohesion– 76-100 points (there is a close-knit team where the individuality of each student is valued and respected; students not only carry out active, meaningful activities within the class, but also have a positive impact on others).
Average level of group cohesion– 46 – 75 points (there is no unity of the team in the class, there are only separate groups based on sympathies, common interests, etc., the positive activities of students are limited only by the boundaries of their class).
Low level of group cohesion– 30-45 points (students are disunited, there are only individual leaders who suppress the personalities of others, collective affairs are carried out sporadically and do not have a significant impact on both the students of this class and those around them).
Critical level of group cohesion- below 30 points (students are disorganized and almost uncontrollable, there are no leaders among themselves, and there are no authorities among adults - teachers).
