The ANG 1212 Language Practice course was a university course for first year English majors in the spring semester of the 1995/96 academic year in Janus Pannonius University of Pecs. The course had twelve students. The meetings were held on Mondays between 9.40 a.m. and 12.10 p.m. in the Arizona Room in Szepesy Ignac street. This room is a well–lit and well–equipped place where every group–member had access to a computer.
During the first two academic years, the language practice courses are the most important courses for every English major, because they are worth three credits and their completion is essential for being able to take up certain other courses; for example: the completion of the four language practice courses is a primary condition for all literature courses.
The ANG 1212 Language Practice group was a decision–making group, because students studied there together for the same goal (which was passing the end–of–term Proficiency exam 1 and further improving their language skills), they communicated with one another both verbally and on the computer through Group Systems, they often solved together certain tasks given by the tutor, and they were more or less aware of one another`s role in the group.
1.2. The Concept of Role
Wilson and Hanna make a distinction between two kinds of roles in their book Groups in Context. Leadership and Participation in Small Groups.: the formal and the informal roles. Formal roles such as president, secretary, or chairman are titles given by the rest of the group; whereas informal roles reflect functions that each member fulfills in the group. (1990:149–150)
This study concerns itself only with the informal roles, since in the ANG 1212 Language Practice Group there was only one formal role, the role of the tutor, the others had no titles, it was the function that each member fulfilled that counted from the point of view of the group`s working. This study undertakes to briefly describe what kinds of roles appeared in the group. The author has to admit that it was hard for her to observe eleven students, and she
apologies from those who recognize themselves and think that the author classified them into the wrong category.
1.3. An Overview of the Roles Group Members had had in previous University Groups
On the first meeting on 5 February 1996 the tutor asked the students to type into the computer a short answer about what roles they had had in previous university groups.
Only few students approached the question from a functional point of view; the others gave information only about whether they had been active or passive. Six of all twelve members present felt that they had been passive in previous groups, but three of them gave themselves a functional role like observer or listener. Four members gave answers which suggested that they had been neither active nor passive but sort of in between the two, and only two students claimed that they had been unequivocally active.
During the semester, I observed that more and more members who were up till then passive volunteered to play an active role in the group, and that a seemingly passive participant can also be a useful member of the group if I look at her 2 function in the group.
2. Functional Roles in the ANG 1212 Language Practice Group during the Spring Semester of the 1995/96 Year
Benne and Sheats divide functional roles into three categories in their essay "Functional Roles of Group Members":
(1) Group task roles which give information about how a person helps a group to achieve its goals. This category has thirteen roles: initiator–contributor, information seeker, information giver, opinion seeker, opinion giver, elaborator–clarifier, coordinator, diagnostician, orienter–summarizer, energizer, procedural assistant, secretary–recorder, and evaluator–critic.
(2) Group building and maintenance roles which are responsible for creating and maintaining the cohesiveness and effectivity of a group. Eight roles are included in this second main category: supporter–encourager, harmonizer, tension releaser, compromiser, gatekeeper, feeling expresser, standard setter, and follower.
(3) Self–centered roles which describe how each individual behaves in a group. These roles are not always productive, they sometimes hinder the group`s work. This category involves eight roles: blocker, aggressor, deserter, dominator, recognition seeker, confessor, playboy/playgirl clown, and special–interest pleader.
(quoted in Wilson and Hanna, 1990:154–161)
For practical reasons, the author will keep to these three main categories, but she will change some of the roles Benne and Sheats described are within these main categories, since not all of them can be applied to ANG 1212 group members, because, first, the size of the group is different to the number of roles Benne and Sheats created; second, some of the roles reflect behaviours which the author did not find at any of the group members; and third, the functions of a few require the invention of new roles 3, since their behaviour cannot be described by means of Benne and Sheats` roles.
In this study, the author will not include her role since she spent the meetings observing other members` behaviour and she may not be able to describe her role objectively, but she will include the tutor`s role, because he was also an integral part of the group.
2.1. Group Task Roles
2.1.1. Initiator–contributor
The role of the initiator–contributor was served by
Student 1 in the group. She was the most creative member of the group, she came up with new ideas on every single meeting when she was present. Generally she was the first to react when the tutor offered the participants a choice about what they would like to do on that meeting. Although she was not the main spokesperson during discussions, she kept on creating interesting ideas and giving new directions to the discussion.
2.1.2. Information giver
According to Benne and Sheats, the role of information giver is usually shared by more group members. (quoted in Wilson and Hanna, 1990:155) It is true that in the group the author was observing were five or six students who offered useful pieces of information to the group, but they did it only once or twice. However, there was one member, Student 2, who constantly provided the group with information. Sometimes she gave also the exact source of the information, but usually she began her information–giving by saying "I have read somewhere..." Despite this fact, her pieces of information were never doubted by any member of the group. She was one of the most recognized and liked person in the group.
2.1.3. Opinion seeker
Student 3 who played the role of the opinion seeker in the group was one of the two dominant participants, but whenever she embarked on a long monologue she interrupted it twice or three–times by asking other participants` opinion in connection with the topic she was speaking about. She often asked questions like "Anita, what is your opinion?" or "Gabor, what do you think?" during the course.
Student 4 has just written a study about personal relationships in the group. One of the questions on her opinionnaire was "Who do you think would be the most suitable student to replace the tutor?" The author of this study thinks that this opinion seeker–behaviour of Student 3 makes her the most appropriate to replace the tutor if it would be needed.
2.1.4. Opinion giver
Student 4 was not an active participant in the group. She spoke up few times, and when she did so, she always gave her opinion about that she had just heard. Her most frequent expressions on the meetings of the group were: “In my opinion..." and "I think you are right/wrong." During the course, she was the student who interrupted the tutor the most often.
2.1.5. Elaborator–clarifier
The person fulfilling the role of the elaborator–clarifier has two functions: (1) elaborating or summarizing the topic the group is discussing and (2) testing ideas and understanding. (Wilson and Hanna, 1990:156) Student 5 had many functions in the group, but this role was the most characteristic of her. Usually she played this role well, but sometimes she roughly cut other members short by saying things like "Anita wanted to say that..." or "Gabor thinks that..." But if the author ignores these few mistakes, she can safely state that Student 5 was a useful member of the group.
2.1.6. Coordinator
Student 6 is an outboarder and she was always about one and a half hours late – except for two meetings. But when she arrived, she could join in the group`s work without any difficulty. The best example for her playing the coordinator role was the forth meeting when the author was giving a presentation on "Group Cultures." Student 6 missed the first half of it, but immediately after arriving she was able to ask questions about the topic, and she was the one who directed the discussions which followed the presentation. The author thinks that her quality that she was listenning and concentrating whenever any other member of the group was speaking made her to be suitable for this role.
2.1.7. Energizer
Student 7 was one of the most energetic and most optimistic members of the group. Her positive approach to work had an effect on every other participant. On the meetings she was always smiling and took pleasure in participating in the group`s work. She encouraged other students, using both verbal and nonverbal signs (the author observed that sometimes she lifted her upper lids to make another participant start speaking).
2.1.8. Secretary–recorder
Student 8 is one of the most hard–working students the author knows. During the meetings she was always busy taking notes. She remembered to do every homework. She put down in her notebook what the group were doing at every single meeting and she could recall it when someone asked her to do it.
2.1.9. Evaluator–critic
The evaluator–critic role was served by the tutor. Since he was the group leader, it was his duty to evaluate and criticize other members` opinion and ideas. But, however, he did not play this role in a dictatoric way, he gave everybody a chance to tell her opinion, even if it was contrary to his opinion. And everytime when the group had to make a dicision together, the tutor did not finalized it until each member – who wanted – told her ideas.
2.1.10 Complementizer*
The author labelled this person, Student 9, with the complementizer role, because her function was to do things which were not directly linked with the activity of the group, but it sort of comlemented it. When the tutor offered an alternative activity for two or three people, she was always the first to put up her hand. She was the member who did the most home assignments (like elaborating on a chapter from Groups in Context) in the group. During group discussions she preferred to stay outside as an observer or do an alternative task.
2.1.11 Continuity maker
Student 10 was one of the most cheerful and creative members of the group. She was not particularly active during the course, but, nevertheless, she was a very useful member, because whenever the group`s work broke off (due to lack of ideas), she came up with something new.
2.1.12 Observer*
Student 11 was the most passive member of the group. She hardly spoke during the whole course, but she was litenning and taking some notes when other people were talking. Seemingly she did not made much contribution to the group`s work, but her observations can be useful for her – and maybe for other members` – essay.
2.2 Group Building and Maintenance roles
2.2.1 Supporter–encourager
Student 3 showed valuable personal qualities in the group, because not only did she take a large part of the group`s work upon herself, but she encouraged and appriciated the other students. In the previous chapter, the author classified Student 3 as an opinion seeker, but whenever she received an answer to her question she showed some appriciation or encouragement.
2.2.2 Harmonizer
In the group there was no occasion when the members were quarrelling. But, however, some small differences of opinion did emerge. These times Student 2, the oldest and wisest student, was the one who found the solution. Usually she did it by finding the middle course between the opinions of those students who did not agree.
2.2.3 Tension releaser
Student 1 and Student 7 were cheerful and friendly participants. Most of the times they were smiling and their vivacity effected the other students as well. They together fulfilled the role of the tension releaser, since both of them has a good sense of humour which they shared with the others.
2.2.4 Compromiser
The compromiser role is similar to the harmonizer, in fact, the two roles are nearly the same. Student 6 had difficulty in arriving to the meetings in time, but when she was present, she seemed to behave like an outsider who rather made compromises between other students than taking up a position herself.
2.2.5 Gatekeeper
The gatekeeper role was fulfilled by the tutor and he played the role well. During discussions, he tried to draw everybody into the conversation, but, at the same time, he did not force those who definitely wanted to hold their tongue. And he made sure that nobody feel uncomfortable by a topic.
2.2.6 Standard setter
Student 10 always strives for the maximum and she expected the other members of ANG 1212 to do so. For instance, when the results of the Proficiency Test were posted out, this person was upset that only the passmarks were written on the sheet and not the maximum marks, because, as she said, she always wants to compare herself to the maximum.
2.2.7. Follower
Student 8 and Student 11 did not volunteer to actively take part in discussions, but they showed some positive feedback which other – more active – participants appriciated. Although Student 4 always told her opinion on the meetings, she can be included in this category from the point of view of group building and maintenance, since she always showed – with nodding or smiling – when she agreed with another participant.
Student 5 and Student 9 were both active and useful members, but the author could not evaluate them according to the roles of this second main category, because they did not contributed to maintaining the cohesiveness in the group.
2.3. Self–centered Roles
2.3.1. Blocker
The role of the blocker was fulfilled by three members in the group, but all of them blocked the group unintentionally. Student 8 is a silent and shy person, she rarely spoke on the meetings. She was not a deserter 4, she was interested in the group`s work, but she blocked the group`s activity by depriving it of her ideas (she must have had some but did not shared them with the group).
Student 2 was a different kind of blocker. She was a useful group member but she was too pedantic. She attached great importance to every small detail, kept hearing words on the tape–recorder (when the group were doing listenning comprehension) that no other member of the group heard, and on the tenth meeting she even quarrelled with the tutor about whether or not England is on a continent. (She said that England cannot be found on any of the continents which the tutor found strange.)
Student 6 was also a blocker but she – like Student 8 and Student 2 – did not do it deliberately. As the author has mentioned in the chapter about group task roles, she is an outboarder, so she could not arrive in time – except for two meetings – due to the bus service. Her constant lateness disturbed the group`s activity, but it is true that when she was present she actively participated in the group`s activity.
2.3.2. Dominator
The dominator role was played by Student 3 and Student 5 in the group. They two took the brunt of the work upon themselves, but they played this role differently. When Student 3 was playing this role, she offered everyone a chance to tell her opinion, in fact, usually she was functioning as a dominator when no one volunteered to act or speak. On the contrary, Student 5 always wanted to be in monopoly, she often interrupted others, and, what is more, she answered questions which the tutor put to other students. For example, once the tutor asked the author`s opinion about something, the author began to speak but she stopped for a moment, looking for the expression which fitted best into the context, and then Student 5 interrupted her and finished the answer.
2.3.3. All–around helper*
Student 9 was a friendly and helpful participant, everyone who had a problem could turn to her. She helped Student 5 to find employment at the IFOR–forces (she gave her telephon numbers and useful pieces of advice), she offered the other students coke (she brought a bottle of coke with herself to every meeting), and when someone asked her to do something, then not only did she help but she gave a broad smile.
2.3.4. Acquaintance maker*
Student 8 attended another Language Practice course in the autumn semester, so she was a newcomer to this group. Before joining the group, she did not know the other participants, she knew two or three people by sight at most. Getting acquainted with everyone lasted her almost a semester long.
2.3.5. Argumenter*
Student 2, as the author have mentioned in the chapter on group maintenance roles, is the oldest and wisest student. Her favourite activity seemed to be arguing – with anyone about anything. During the course, she argued not only on the meetings but also in the breaks.
2.3.6. Fun maker*
Student 1 is a nice, friendly, and funny girl. She has a good sense of humour, during the course, she was always smiling – on the meetings, in the breaks, at arriving to the meetings, and at leaving. She sometimes entertained the others with jokes.
2.3.7. Fun maker`s assistant*
Student 1 and Student 7 are close friends. During pair–works, they worked together – smiling and laughing. In the group, her most characteristic features were her witty remarks.
2.3.7. Theorist*
Student 4 is an aesthetics major, she is known of her abstract thinking. Her opinions and comments were not always perceived by the others.
2.3.9. Equality maker*
A tutor is formally above the students. But the tutor of this group wanted to make the students feel that he was not above them; he treated the students as an equal. But, however, 70 percent of the group thought that the tutor was above them. (Vote session Report, 1996:4)
3. Conclusion
This study is a novel analysis of group behaviour; it focuses on each person`s functional role according to Benne and Sheats` model.
For the author it was an intriguing task to observe her fellow–students from this aspect, but, nevertheless, she thinks that the variety of roles appeared in this group was not satisfactory. A few persons` roles were alike, and in the chapter "Group Building
and Maintenance Roles" the author found two students who she could not label with a role, because they did not show any of the behaviours in that category.
Looking back to the course, one of the author`s aims was realized (nobody failed the Proficiency exam), but the other was not, because – in the author`s opinion – eight students in this group were not enough creative.
1 The Proficiency exam is the most significant examination for every first–year English major, because students who fail it will not get the three credits for the Language Practice Course (that is: they have to repeat the course a year later).
2 In the group there were ten female and only two male members. In order that the male members not be recognized, the author refers to every group member with the personal pronoun "she" (or with its different cases: "her," "herself") throughout this study.
3 The roles which are defined by the author of this study and not by Benne and Sheats will be marked with an asterix.
4 A deserter is someone who acts indifferently in a group, merely sits there and daydream. (Wilson and Hanna, 1990:160)
No comments:
Post a Comment