This study investigate how small group interaction influences the development and shared mental models in work group .Small group and teams are social structures ubiquitous in work and personal life. The group experience brings together individuals who interact through communication events.
Successful group interaction requires active group participation. Members may be invited to ask and respond to questions, express opinions, negotiate and give suggestions, all to achieve the objectives of the meeting. Towards this end, every member of the group has a role to play. However, there is usually one person who manages the discussion.
This person has to open the discussions, introduce the subject, invite people to contribute ideas, interrupt to seek clarification and finally, close the discussion. The other members of the group may be required to put forth arguments, substantiate them, negotiate, and seek clarification, etc. If the discussion is managed well, it may turn out to be a most fruitful and enjoyable event. The emphasis in this question is thus on the oral communication skills which group members who need to interact in group should have in order to work effectively in groups.
One problem might be having your reality amended by the person in the group that the majority give away their power to. Group interaction is very difficult for an individual to negotiate. Group interaction is the study of groups, and also a general term for group processes. Relevant to the fields of psychology, sociology, and communication studies, a group is two or more individuals who are connected to each other by social relationships.
Because they interact and influence each other, groups develop a number of dynamic processes that separate them from a random collection of individuals. These processes include norms, roles, relations, development, need to belong, social influence, and effects on behaviour. In organizational development (OD), or group interaction, the phrase “group process” refers to the understanding of the behaviour of people in groups, such as task groups, that are trying to solve a problem or make a decision.
An individual with expertise in group interaction, such as a trained facilitator, can assist a group in accomplishing its objective by diagnosing how well the group is functioning as a problem-solving or decision-making entity and intervening to alter the group’s operating behaviour. Because people gather in groups for reasons other than task accomplishment, group process occurs in other types of groups such as personal growth group’s example encounter groups, study groups, prayer groups. In such cases, an individual with expertise in group process can be helpful in the role of facilitator.
Well researched but rarely mentioned by professional group workers, is the social status of people within the group (i.e., senior or junior). The group leader (or facilitator) will usually have a strong influence on the group due to his or her role of shaping the group’s outcomes. This influence will also be affected by the leader’s sex, race, relative age, income, appearance, and personality, as well as organizational structures and many other factors.
Interactive processes among group partners and the relationship of these processes to problem-solving outcomes are investigated in 2 contrasting groups. The case study groups were selected for robust differences in the quality of their written solutions to a problem and parallel differences in the quality of the group member’s interaction. In 1 group correct proposals were generated, confirmed, documented, and reflected upon. In the other, they were generated, rejected without rationale, and for the most part left undocumented.
The analyses identified 3 major contrastive dimensions in group interaction—the mutuality of exchanges, the achievement of joint intentional engagement, and the alignment of group members’ goals for the problem solving process. A focus on group-level characteristics offers a distinctive strategy for examining small group learning and paves the way to understanding reasons for variability of outcomes in collaborative ventures. These dimensions may usefully inform the design and assessment of collaborative learning environments.
For such forms of convergence to occur, students must organize themselves to engage in coordinated activity. Coordination is fundamental for the establishment of what has been called mutual knowledge or common ground. Although it may be true that in most conversations mutual knowledge can be assumed or “is readily established,” problem-solving conversations present special mutual knowledge problems. Further, what is taken to be understood may fluctuate as the current state of knowledge unfolds. Participants must keep track of what has been established and what has been revised.
The relative fluidity and fragility of common ground demands on going attention to the ideas and partial understandings of participants. Speakers need to monitor the attention and feedback of listeners, and listeners must work to make sense of the possible meanings that speakers are seeking to communicate. Strategies for clarifying ambiguities in the terms that are used must be developed and engaged, and means of establishing co-reference with pointing, gaze, and bodily orientation must be utilized. Material resources often must be brought to bear on the path toward mutual knowledge.
To understand sources of variability in collaborative outcomes, we need portraits of student interaction and the various ways students manage the often challenging task of working out problems together. By focusing on the group or “ensemble,” it is possible to provide descriptions of interactions that capture the dynamic interplay in meaning-making over time in discourse between participants, what they understand, the material resources they have available and choose to utilize, the type of contributions that they make and how those are taken up in a given discourse.
It is also possible to capture the relationship between the interactional work of coordination that collaborative groups require and what is considered the intellectual work that goes on. To solve this problem, one must identify the major problems one must consider, identify the important variables relevant to finding answers to these problems, identify the numerical information relevant to solving the sub problems, and use this information to solve the sub problems.
Some groups work together successfully to solve problems while others do not. In particular, researchers have shown that group work can induce many beneficial outcomes in comparison to traditional forms of instruction increased learning, decreased racial tension, more positive student attitudes toward school, etc.
Furthermore, group problem-solving often involves mutually contested information, unlike most interactions previously studied such as narratives or initiation-reply-evaluation. Some actions seem both responsive and neutral. For example, “let me think about that for a moment” and “finish your proposal first” seem like neutral evaluations because they postpone evaluation.
The conclusion to overcome, we should Evaluate a health-related group activity related to the goals of the group, procedures for meeting group goals, and the type of participation, roles and behaviours of the group members . The importance of coding and analysis of group interaction in order to better understand collaborative work has long been recognized. It has been also acknowledged that using such analysis for feedback purposes can enhance collaborative behaviour.
Research bearing on three aspects of small group learning is examined: (1) the relationship between interaction and achievement, (2) cognitive process and social-emotional mechanisms bridging interaction and achievement, and (3) characteristics of the individual, group, and reward structure that predict interaction in small groups. A better understanding of human interactions is able to observe communication among fellow classmates.
The conclusion is that an individual’s role in group interaction is an important influence on learning, and that interaction can best be predicted from multiple characteristics of the individual, group, and setting.