Building a Learning Community
by Randee Lipson Lawrence
National-Louis University
This paper investigates the lifeworld of the cohort learning group by exploring the intersubjective experience of the participants from their perspective. To be in a cohort is to be part of a community of learners. The essential structures of a learning community that emerged through the research include: group identity, mutual commitment, a safe environment and familiarity, as well as the roles of the participants and the instructor in the community.
Introduction
This hermeneutic investigation focused on understanding the lived experiences of adult learners as participants in cohort groups in non-traditional graduate and undergraduate programs at one university. Data were obtained through conversational interviews and focus group discussions with 29 students, and through a review of reflection papers written by an additional 18 students. Hermeneutic phenomenological reflection was the methodological tool for thematic analysis. Key areas of the investigation included experiential and collaborative learning, critical and feminist pedagogics, and the role of the group in the learning process of the individual. A particular focal point was the ways in which students formed and sustained learning communities. As a facilitator of adult learning groups I have observed that students come into the learning group with no prior knowledge of each other and perhaps little in common except a mutual desire to complete their degree. As time goes on, something happens to this collection of individuals: they become a group. As they work together and share experiences over time, they get to know one other. In many cases, the group becomes an essential part of the learning process. Many students remark that their self-confidence has increased, sometimes dramatically, and they acknowledge how much they have learned from each other. (Lawrence, 1996)
Findings
Developing a Group Identity
Over a period of time, cohort members developed a collective identity. They were more than individual learners taking classes together. They were part of a group, and that group would have a significant impact on their learning. Having a group identity is important in the development of strong cohorts. This does not happen merely by chance. People need time to get to know one another, to test out how they work together and how individuals are perceived. In some cases, depending on the personalities of the individual members and their commitment to the group process it may never happen, or it may happen to varying degrees. Students in cohorts typically progress through a series of stages as they build their community. The first stage is often characterized as isolation. In this early stage of the group's development, there is often an atmosphere of excessive politeness. People are reluctant to self disclose or express strong views because they are unsure of how they will be perceived by the group. In the next stage, the exploratory phase, people spend time getting to know one another. As they begin to share their experiences, opinions, and values, and listen and respond to others, they begin to develop a sense of how they work together as a group. In the bonding stage, the group begins to see itself as part of an interdependent community of learners. Once a group has bonded, the members feel a strong identity and allegiance to that group.
All cohort learning groups are temporary communities. In the disengagement stage, as the groups near completion and prepare to go their separate ways, members often feel a bittersweet sense of loss. Even though the group is no longer physically together, the spirit of the learning community often remains.
Several factors appeared to influence the group in developing a strong identity. Three out of the five programs included in this study had a group dynamics class as the first course in their sequence. In all cases, the course was strategically placed there to assist in the development of strong cohorts. Students studied the development of small groups while using their own group as a laboratory for observation of group behavior. 'Me participants in this study indicated that this course was critical in helping the group to form an identity and laying a foundation for future interdependent work.
The physical arrangement of the room was cited by some participants as contributing to the development of group cohesiveness In the cohort learning environment, the chairs are typically arranged around a conference table or in a circle so that participants can see one another. This is conducive to group discussion as opposed to the one way communication between teacher and student found in a traditional lecture hall. The space in the center of the circle is open for participants, including the instructor, to connect to one another's ideas and engage in dialogue. In this way an open community for teaming is created. (Palmer, as cited in Sheridan, 1989)
Other factors which influenced the groups' development included a common goal, and the establishment of group norms and guidelines to include democratic participation. As the groups develop their identity, certain norms or unwritten codes for behavior become evident. Groups form their own personality or culture. Each group has its own set of rules and expectations for what is acceptable in that group. The establishment of ground rules by and for the group in the early stages of their coming together, along with the unique contributions of each individual, can significantly contribute to their developing a group identity and make a difference in how they function.
Commitment
Commitment emerged as a major component of the cohort experience. Those cohorts where shared commitment was a norm experienced a strong sense of community. Members shared equally in the responsibility for making the group work. In some groups, the importance of commitment was most illuminated by its absence. In the cohorts where members lacked commitment or where some members were more committed than others, resentment and indifference inhibited the group from becoming a learning community. Commitment was expressed on many levels, including commitment to self, to the process, to the group and to the individuals that make up the group. Commitment implies a willingness to be interdependent with one another. There is a high level of reciprocity, of give and take. Each individual member assumes a degree of responsibility for the well being of the total group. Participants felt that because they knew they would be together for an extended period of time, there was a greater investment and commitment to the group process. Barb expressed her commitment to the members of her cohort in this way: "I feel that when I get with my classmates, those four hours belong to them, so I feel very giving about it because I receive that back... I look at it as a commitment to myself as well as to other people."
MacGregor (1990) believed that for collaborative learning to occur, students needed to be equally committed members to a process which implied interdependence and shared responsibility. This often required reframing the student role from one of passive receptacle, or independent learner, to one of active participant and creator of knowledge. As Bouton and Garth (1983) observed, many students are somewhat resistant to accepting this increased interdependency and responsibility for others. Secure in their traditional student role, they may feel uncomfortable and ineffective in giving and receiving feedback and involving others in their learning process.
Sometimes there were different degrees of commitment among the group members. Certain members were perceived as "not carrying their weight." This often resulted in those people who really valued the group experience feeling disappointed and angry about not getting their needs and expectations met. If there is a strong group norm established to participate and contribute equally to the process, the group may exert pressure on the nonparticipants. Individuals who do not comply may become ostracized from the group.
A Safe Environment
Cohort members indicated that they learned more in a safe, non-threatening environment. As participants felt more comfortable with their group members, they more freely expressed what they were thinking and feeling, without fear of being judged. Increased trust led to increased levels of self- disclosure. Communication was more honest. People felt free to challenge others and openly disagree with their views.
Many adult students enter their program with some trepidation. They are unsure how they will be received by other group members. As students get to know one another, they become more comfortable in their environment, and the tension related to wondering how one's comments will be perceived by the group lessens. Anne, who had returned to school at the age of 53 to pursue her Master's degree, articulated: "I have been very afraid most of my life to express my opinion because somebody was going to deny that and shoot that down. So for me to blossom and grow I needed to be in a respectful atmosphere and a somewhat nurturing environment." Jill Tarule, in her work with returning women students, described this new found freedom of expression as "developing a new voice"(1988). Kate connected the development of voice to the acquisition of learning.
In our group, each person was able to express what they felt without any stigma. This is very important for learning to take place. Without any expression, there is no real proof of your learning. You can take thoughts inward and go away with them but without sharing your thoughts you contribute nothing to yourself and others.
Palmer (1987) studied communal ways of knowing in the classroom. He believed that in order for learning to occur in a community, conflict had to be present.
Healthy conflict is possible only in the context of supportive community. What prevents conflicts in our classrooms is a simple emotion called fear. It is a fear that is in the hearts of teachers as well as students. It is a fear of exposure, of appearing ignorant, of being ridiculed. And the only antidote to that fear is a hospitable environment. (p.25)
Palmer's distinction of "healthy conflict" is one to take note . Unhealthy conflict can be destructive to the learning community. If the atmosphere is not perceived as safe, conflict can lead to mental and physical withdrawal from the group. If the environment is seen as hostile, people are less likely to express their ideas and accept the ideas of others. While Palmer underscores the importance of creating a safe environment, he appears to put the onus for doing so on the teacher. The teacher, however, is only one member of the community, albeit an influential one. It appears to me that the responsibility for creating a safe space for learning needs to be shared by all of the group members.
Some writers (Ellsworth, 1989; Henry, 1993-94) believe that the classroom as a safe space is only a reality for those coming from a position of relative privilege. For women of color and other oppressed groups, there are no safe spaces. Helen did not feel a personal connection with her group. Although she believed she could say whatever she wanted, she found her classmates to be somewhat guarded. She did not believe her group was comfortable enough to be open with each other and trust that what theysaid would go no further.
A safe environment not only contributes to greater self-disclosure, it enhances other forms of communication as well. Participants felt freer to question and challenge one another, they teamed to listen to others in nonjudgmental ways and they were more open to being challenged by others. This led to increased levels of learning. In a learning community that is perceived as safe, the participants not only listen more carefully to others, ask questions and challenge one another, they also are more open to challenge from others.
The above discussion seems to suggest that authentic communication where people are free to express their views and to question and challenge others, can only take place in a positive environment where there is mutual trust and participants feel safe from the threat of ridicule or personal attack. Bridges(1988) questioned this assumption. He saw the classroom as a segment of a larger society. Students will undoubtedly find themselves in groups that are not supportive or caring where they will want to express disagreement. He questioned whether promoting a safe environment for discussion in the classroom wasn't actually doing the students a disservice.
My anxiety is that the establishment of a deliberately reinforcing group discussion and the protection of individual contributors from the "risk" of public expression of opinion may merely reinforce the practice of speaking one's opinion only in those social contexts in which one can feel fairly assured of support and acceptance. (p.89)
Bridges' point is well taken, yet herein lies a paradox. While I share his concern about creating a culture of dependence where people are unable to speak their minds in the absence of a nurturing environment, in the cohort such an environment is critical. As previously discussed, returning adult students are often fearful and intimidated by others. They need to learn to express their opinions and critically question others, but if they don't feel safe they have a tendency to withdraw and little learning occurs. The classroom is a laboratory where students can test out new ways of expression. Because the atmosphere is safe, they are less at risk. Once they experience some success and their confidence level increases, they will be more ready to speak out in less than friendly environments.
Familiarity
The literature on collaborative learning clearly points out the benefits of students working together in groups. ( Bruffee, 1993; MacGregor, 1990; Sheridan, 1989 and others) One of the major limitations to collaborative learning cited by these researchers is that the time frame of a traditional university class frequently does not allow sufficient time for a group to develop the knowledge and trust of one another that is needed for real collaboration to occur. Participants in cohorts create a shared history over time. 'Me students in this study spent a four hour block of time together each week for fourteen to eighteen months. Because they were together for an extended period of time, they got to know one another beneath the surface. They felt more comfortable in the group because they knew what to expect from one another. They began to view each other as individuals with many dimensions, as opposed to the roles they represented. Brian articulated that there was a significant difference in how the class related to one another in the cohort as opposed to people who were taking one class together. "We got to know their culture and their background and how they really felt about things. And that made a big difference to me."
Many students found that communication was more open and honest because they knew each other so well. As people got to know one another and shared their experiences, they developed insight into each other, so that later, when comments were made, they knew more about where that person was coming from. They were able to respond to the whole person, rather than just his or her words. Schutz (1967) alluded to this phenomenon in his discourse on intersubjective understanding in The Phenomenology of the Social World . "The observer can draw much more reliable conclusions about his subject if he knows something about his past and something about the over-all plan into which this actions fits. (p. 115)
Some participants expressed concern that they were too familiar with their classmates, which sometimes led to intimidation (no one could hide behind a facade) or stereotyping based on early impressions. A potentially negative aspect of familiarity was that people sometimes formed initial impressions of others which colored how they viewed those people throughout the program. This "automatic vision" can lead to prematurely labeling individuals by setting up expectations for who they are and what they can offer, which prevents seeing them in their fullness. (Lawrence and Mealman, 1996)
Group Roles
Cohort members are parts of a whole. As individuals they take on different roles, which can facilitate or hinder the group process. Roles serve important and necessary functions, from keeping the -roup on task to providing comic relief when tensions arc high. A cohort is like a mini society. In a society. people take on roles of shopkeeper, teacher, healer, spiritual leader etc. These roles are necessary for the community to function. In a cohort, roles may develop and change over time but they all contribute to the functioning of the group. Each member of the group contributes in different ways which enriches the learning for all. Sometimes these roles are formal and sometimes they are more implicit. The cohort has an advantage because group members continue together through several courses-, different students can emerge as leaders at different times. Faculty and student roles in the cohort arc often less distinct.
Cohort members tended to take on specific functional roles which were recognized by the other group members. Shara observed that some members who were more concrete in their thinking brought the group "back to Earth" when the discussion became very abstract and theoretical and people were getting lost. Rose noted that if the group needed something documented, they would look to Wendy to fulfill that role. Other roles were described as leader, observer, note taker, class mother, jokester, peacemaker, victim and rescuer.
In most cases, the group members tacitly agreed on the roles they assumed and seemed to feel comfortable performing them. In some situations, assumptions about roles proved to be faulty. Jerry observed that certain [male] members, including himself, were dominating the group. They had assumed that the quieter members did not want to contribute to the group discussions. When questioned, they admitted that they did want to participate but felt silenced by the louder voices.
As the group moves through the different courses, there are multiple opportunities for leadership. At various points throughout the program, almost everyone assumes a leadership role. Group roles are not static and permanent but can and often do change over time. The length of time members spend in the cohort allows for people to develop their talents in different ways.
The Instructor's Role
The instructor played a significant role in the development of the learning community. Instructors were facilitative by paying attention to the dynamics of the group and not letting certain members dominate or manipulate others. The style of facilitation had a lot to do with how the groups functioned. Whether the instructor encouraged critical discourse or any kind of group discussion at all influenced how the group worked together. Whether the instructor was flexible about how requirements were met or insisted that it is one way or no way made a difference. Whether the instructor encouraged the students to share their experiences and individual work with one another was significant. It would seem in the cohort, since the group is the constant whereas the instructor is only there for a few weeks, that the students would assume the bulk of the responsibility for the group and how it works together, yet the instructor has great influence. He or she could use authority in coercive and hierarchical ways or could use it to empower students to take on leadership roles.
The instructor of the first course is particularly significant. Many participants credited their first instructor for setting the tone for the program by encouraging them to work closely together and to get to know each other, creating a safe environment and facilitating a discussion of ground rules. Mark used the phrase "planting a seed" to describe how his first instructor set the expectation that the group would work together and help each other. She helped them to establish norms and ground rules right from the beginning, which made a significant difference for him. Horton (1990) used a similar gardening metaphor to describe how educators nurture the growth of their students. "Your job as a gardener or as an educator is to know that the potential is there and that it will unfold. Your job is to plant good seeds and nurture them until they get big enough to grow up ... People have a potential for growth, it's inside, it's in the seeds." (p. 133)
To be effective with a cohort group, the instructor needs to value and respect people's experience and knowledge. This is especially important because students often don't value their own experiences or respect their own knowledge. It is the responsibility of the educator to teach them how to do that (Horton, 1990; Horton and Freire, 1990) In this way the instructor is also a role model. As the instructor validates an individual's knowledge, group members begin to see value in the knowledge of others as well as themselves and become more open to sharing their knowledge, learning from others and creating knowledge with others.
At first glance, critical, feminist and other self-proclaimed liberatory educators (Shor and Freire, 1987) may be seen to view the classroom as a democratic space where students and teachers have an equal share of the power. Yet, in the academy that is never entirely possible. As long as faculty maintain responsibility for setting course objectives, for evaluating students and for accountability to accrediting bodies, they maintain authority. Even in classrooms where students are encouraged to develop their own objectives and engage in self and peer evaluation, the instructor maintains influence over the group in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways. For example, in the presence of an authoritarian teacher, students who typically engage in lively conversation will often sit there silently. This also affects the dynamics of the community outside of the classroom.
Instructors also influenced the groups in positive ways. Sometimes all it took was a gentle shove, and a passive learner had perceived permission to learn what he or she wanted to learn in a way that was most meaningful.
Summary
The concept of community is central to the lived world of cohorts. The structure of the community is shaped over time as the group develops its own personality, culture, and identity. The cohort participants are united in a common struggle, effort and goal. For optimal group functioning there needs to be shared commitment on the part of the participants, a sense of interdependence and shared responsibility. If the commitment is lacking, the group cannot function as a community. Participants need to feel safe in their environment to find their voice in order to freely express their thoughts. The length of time that the participants spend together enhances the feeling of community. Anxiety decreases as people get to know one another and what they can expect from their peers The instructor is considered a significant member of the cohort even though he or she may only be with the group for one course. He or she is a catalyst who helps the group to become a cohesive unit by creating a safe space for the exploration of ideas and encouraging group reflection and interaction. The instructor has the power to positively influence the group dynamics by remaining flexible and open to student input about alternative approaches. He or she can also negatively impact the dynamics by rigidly adhering to a set agenda and discouraging critical discourse. Instructors are endowed with particular authority. They can use it to dominate over students or to empower them to take on leadership roles.
Building a learning community is sometimes impeded by students' resistance to granting authority for the construction of knowledge to themselves and their peers. Further research aimed at ways in which faculty can work with this resistance and promote collaborative learning is needed, particularly when most systems in higher education seem to work against this process.
References
Bouton, C., & Garth. R. Y. (1983). Students in learning groups: Active learning through conversation. in C. Bouton & R. Y. Garth (Eds.), Learning in Groups (pp. 73-81). New directions for teaching and teaming 14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bridges, D. (1988). Education, democracy and discussion. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Bruffee, K A. (1993). Collaborative learning, higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Education Review 5_9 (3), 297-324.
Henry, A. (1993-94). There are no safe places: Pedagogy as powerful and dangerous terrain. Action in Teacher Education, xv (4), 1-4.
Horton, M. (1990). The Long Haul. New York: Doubleday.
Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lawrence, R. L. (1996). Co-learning communities: A hermeneutic account of adult learning in higher education through the lived world of cohorts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
Lawrence. R. L. & Mealman, C. A. (1996). Seizing learning opportunities: Embracing a collaborative process. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Alliance/ACE Conference, (pp.29-51). St Pete Beach, Florida.
MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform. In M. D. Svinicki (Ed.), The Changing face of college teaching (pp. 19-30). New directions for teaching and learning 42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. J. (1987). Community, conflict, and ways of knowing. Change, 19(5), 20-25.
Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the social world (Walsh, G. & Lehnert, F., Trans.). Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
Sheridan, J. (1989). Rethinking andragogy: The case for collaborative learning in continuing higher education. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 37(2), 2-6.
Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A Pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. New York: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.
Tarule, J. M. (1988). Voices of returning women: Ways of knowing. In L. H. Lewis (Ed.), Addressing the needs of returning women (pp. 19-33). New directions for continuing education 39. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Randee Lipson Lawrence. Ed. D., National-Louis University
200 S. Naperville Rd. Wheaton, 11 60187.
E-mail address: rlaw@whe2.nl.edu
Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education
Michigan State University - October 15-17, 1997.
