A DistributedLearningCommunity by GMU and VirtualSchool
Case Study of a Well Functioning Group in LRNG572 - Taming the Electronic Frontier By Emily L. Miller Sociology 305 (experimental) Professor Borkman 5 May 1997
Also see Case Study of Two Poorly-functioning Teams by Thomasina Borkman and Case Study of Two Well-functioning Teams by Leslie P. Friedly.

At the beginning of the semester I was unaware of how I would be graded in the SOCI 305 class and therefore, most of the semester the work was very ambiguous. We, the students that participated in the "experimental" class, found out as we went along how we would be graded for the semester.

This paper reports on the findings of one well functioning group within the LRNG 572 - Taming the Electronic Frontier class. It proves that a group does not have to work completely face-to-face in order to successfully complete and present a digital project within one semester, given a deadline of April 22, 1997. This case study describes how the well functioning group worked together: their methods of communication, the leadership that was present or not present, the norms that were formed with the group, the roles that were established, the socioemotional atmosphere of the group, and my acceptance as a member of the group.

Social Context of the Team

The teams formed based on individual answers to questions that Brad Cox, the professor for LRNG 572, asked in the first of the computer tasks. Questions were based on leadership ability, working in groups, and computer literacy. Groups were made up of 5-7 people within the two different sections of the LRNG 572 class: Taming the Electronic Frontier and Digital Commerce.

Students in the LRNG 572 course were graded on the following: (1) computer tasks assigned weekly, (2) digital project plan, (3) preparing the digital project along with implementing the project, (4) marketing the project, and (5) a final presentation of the project. The grading was based on individual effort (completion of computer tasks and exams). The grading would be done by Brad Cox on his assessment of the final project and presentation of the project. All of the above had specific deadlines that were to be met. If the deadlines were not met however, the student would be graded down a point (scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest possible grade) for each day the task was late. The computer tasks weighed 30%of the final grade, the exams weighed 30%, the projects weighed 30%, and participation had a weight of 10%. The teams were not structured. They could communicate and work however they chose to. Brad looked over the computer tasks and graded them when they were completed but as far as the digital project was concerned the teams used their own discretion in completing the task.

Methods

Research was done by participating in one of the teams from the LRNG 572 class. I was placed into a team just as all of the LRNG 572 students were; by answering the questions that Brad requested in the first task. As a result of being placed directly into the team, I got to make first hand observations of how the team worked together; instead of just being an "outside observer" to the group. Therefore, I was included in all e-mails, discussion tool messages, and face-to-face meetings that were held to discuss the tasks and the digital project.

Interviews were conducted midway through the semester of all of my team members. Prior to the interviews some computer tasks were completed that had to be done "as a team", a face-to-face meeting was required, in order to complete the tasks. Therefore, I had already gotten to know the team members beforehand. I asked sixteen questions in all. I did the interviews via e-mail because it was too difficult to plan face-to-face meetings at the time they needed to be completed. I made all members aware that I would provide confidentiality and anonymity, that no names or other identifying information would be used, and that their answers were going to be used in conjunction with my observations of the group as the basis for my final research paper/case study of the group. All members replied with answers within a week. I then recorded the answers by printing out the e-mails and going over them. At this time, a sociogram was made of the team members regarding who they would prefer to work with thus far in the semester.

One of the second computer tasks that had to be done was writing a biography and posting it onto your digital wagon (the homepage that reported all of your personal information, along with the tasks to be done for the week and your grade for the corresponding task. This is where you would enter in all of the computer task answers for Brad to see). Once people within the teams finished their biographies other members of the team could read them by accessing them through the Virtual School webpage. This was the first way of getting to know your teammates. One of the third computer tasks was what was called the "Desert Crash Simulation" and it forced all team members to get together face-to-face and meet to discuss the task. The point of the task was to force all teammates to get together and complete a task. All groups members could not move ahead until every one of the members entered in their data from the face-to-face meeting, at which point everyone could move ahead.

The task itself was composed of a question that involved making choices and ranking certain materials if you were stuck in the desert. All team members had to rank the materials on their own before coming to the face-to-face meeting. Once at the meeting team members were to rank the items once again based on a group decision. Once this was completed all members were to enter the rankings into the computer. Once everyone within the team had done so, it was at that point that the team would get credit for the task and be able to move ahead.

Findings

Overall, the team that I participated in ended up becoming a very well functioning group. They worked well together in order to get the digital project completed successfully and by the deadline. They communicated well amongst one another whether it was utilizing personal e-mail, the discussion tool, or face-to-face meetings to do so. I characterize this group as "well functioning" as a result of my observations of the group and their overall working together to complete the digital project.

Leadership

It was during the Desert Crash Simulation when all team members were forced to get together face-to-face to discuss and come to a group consensus on the rankings of different materials. During this task was when I saw the first type of leadership occur - emergent leadership. The team was without a leader to this point and someone just emerged and became the leader of the team. Team member Banker became the teams leader during the Desert Crash Simulation because of their expertise on the subject of the task. Banker had some background knowledge of the criteria that was used on the task and therefore, all other team members went along with what Banker had to say. We all agreed to use Banker's answers for the consensus. We read the answers aloud and made sure that all members had written down the same thing. Therefore, we could all move ahead with the tasks after everyone inputted the answers into their digital wagon.

At all other face-to-face meetings there was no apparent leader. No one team member stood out above any other. Each member spoke equally at the meetings and had input on whatever topic was being discussed. There was not one person that took charge or dominated the discussions.

After the first set of interview questions were completed I realized that every member of the team agreed with my observation of there not being an evident or obvious leader. Everyone stated that they thought that every member of the team contributed equally to the teams discussions and e-mail messages. They all agreed that no one person was in control of the teams progress - they all work together equally to get the tasks completed.

Communication

Students in LRNG 572 were told that they could use any form of communication tool in order to get their digital project completed. The means of communication that were utilized by my group are as follows: (1) the discussion tool, (2) personal e-mail accounts, (3) telephone, and (4) face-to-face meetings.

The discussion tool was the means of communication that was used most frequently and most overall by the entire group. It was fast, reliable, and easily accessible through everyones digital wagon. Messages sent using the discussion tool would be automatically recorded on the virtual school webpage so that other members could read them as soon as they were sent. The only problem that occurred with this form of communication was that it was not private. All other students in LRNG 572 had access to this discussion tool and all of the messages that were sent on it. Therefore, my group decided as one of their norms that if the message was important and members wanted it kept confidential within the group that they would utilize personal e-mail accounts for those messages. The discussion tool would be used for all other messages. Messages that were alright for other students to be reading. The reason for this privacy was in order to keep the others groups in the LRNG 572 class from knowing what our digital project was. That way they could not steal the idea - a big problem when creating a business. Not to mention the competition that would have been created.

Face-to-face meetings were a major part of my group. We met several times in the Johnson Center on Saturday or Sunday afternoons to discuss the computer tasks and the creation and implementation of the digital project. I feel that these face-to-face meetings helped my group overall because it made communication within the group easier and quicker. All members could see the reactions of the other members by actually being able to see their faces. Therefore, there was no ambiguity of what was going on in the discussion. If concerns came up, questions could be answered right away. I feel that the face-to-face meetings added to the well functioning of the group. The group members were able to interact more with one another. Tasks were completed on time and concerns were answered and discussed right away. Therefore, any conflict was alleviated.

The Sociogram

A sociogram was made of the group after they answered the first set of interview questions mid way through the semester. A sociogram is a diagram of the relationships among group members (Forsyth, 33). They were each asked, in confidentiality, which two group members they liked to work with the most. A diagram was made with the answers to the question. Each member of the group is represented by a circle. The arrows going from the members represent the group member that the person chose as one they liked to work with. From the diagram you can identify if there are isolates (who are chosen by no one), stars (chosen by most members) and subgroups (with reciprocal choices) (Borkman, 5).

After the project was completed but before the class was over I asked all of the group members to answer the same question: which two group members did they like to work with the most or would choose to work with again? The following sociogram represents their responses.

I concluded from the sociograms that the group worked well together. It was obviously difficult for them to choose just two members that they would work with or liked to work with. Some members responded to the interview questions by not choosing just two and saying that they would have no preferences or that they would work with all of the members again.

Norms

Norms were established during a face-to-face in which tasks were being completed by all groups members. The meeting that took place was the second face-to-face meeting that my group had. Part of their task was to establish a set of norms that would entail: (1) what communication tools would be used, (2) what the communication tools would be used for, (3) attendance policy, (4) frequency of e-mail use, (5) frequency of face-to-face meetings, and (6) roles within the group (who would do what).

The norms that were set by the group are as follows:

• face-to-face meetings would occur on an "as needed" basis
• attendance at face-to-face meetings was not mandatory but if a member knew that he/she would not be able to attend then they were to notify another member of the group
• use of the discussion tool was to be for all messages except for those that were thought to be private
• the discussion tool was to be the main form of communication between group members
• private messages (about digital product, i.e. press release) would be made via personal e-mail accounts
• the discussion tool was to be checked at least once daily
• roles within the group are: (1) Programmer/s, (2) Competition Researcher, (3) Financial Information Researcher, and (4) Marketer

Norms were agreed upon by all members of the group when they were each brought into question. Each member of the group contributed to the forming of the norms for the group by giving his/her opinion of the norm being discussed.

Roles Within the Creation of the Digital Project

Although roles were established during the creation of norms for the group, I came up with my own roles that I felt were apparent in the group. They are similar to the roles that the group members decided upon but based on my observations of the groups members within the group. The roles that I found my group members taking on and how I described them are as follows:

• Programmer - created the webpage for the digital project; worked on revisions to the webpage throughout the semester
• Banker - researched financial information for the digital project; sought out a financial institution that was viable for the digital project that the group conceived; made arrangements to get account set-up for the digital project
• Organizer/Programmer - worked on the creation and revisions of the webpage for the digital project; always brought something to face-to-face meetings to keep group on task and in order; used the discussion tool often as way of letting other group members what needed to be concentrated on for the tasks at hand
• Researcher - before the digital project was created, researched all competition by going through various web browsers and reading up on similar webpages
• Marketer - put together the marketing plan for the digital project; wrote up a press release for the digital project; created a flyer for advertising the digital project

Although each group member had a specific role that he/she played in the creation of the digital project, each member of the group equally helped one another when they were not working on their own task. All group members agreed at a face-to-face meeting that they would be equally responsible for all of the requests that came in once their digital project was up and running. They came up with a schedule of weeks and who would take the requests for the certain weeks. All group members were willing to help each other out regardless of the role that they were placed in. The roles that were established during the creation of the norms were based upon expertise in the specific area of the role. For example, the Marketer was placed in that role as a result of having prior knowledge in the field of marketing.

Socioemotional Atmosphere

Group members were very aware of one another as a person. What I mean is that they were very polite towards one another, whether it be face-to-face or via e-mail. At times, they went beyond the tasks and asked each other about their personal lives and their careers. When a group member was having trouble fellow groups members would kindly help them out. Throughout my observations on the discussion tool I noticed many socioemotional comments towards one another. One that stands out in my mind is "I personally really appreciate that." This comment shows the respect that each group member had towards the others. The group always seemed as though they enjoyed working together on the project. Everything was not always about "getting the task done" although that is what the group was there for. They were social with one another during face-to-face meetings. We would always end up in conversations that were not entirely related to the task at hand. This was especially evident during the formation of the group when we had to complete the Desert Crash Simulation because at this point we were all just getting to know one another.

Acceptance in the Group

Although I was only put into the group as an observer, my fellow group members accepted me as one of the group. They did not look at me as though I was an "outsider looking in" but as a participating member of the group. At the first face-to-face meeting we all tossed jokes around about a comment that was made during the taping of one of Brad's lectures on Tuesday night. A gentleman had referred to the Sociology 305 students as "moles" in the LRNG 572 groups. As a result of this comment, I went to the first face-to-face meeting with some reluctance of my acceptance into the group. I had hoped that my group members were not going to be that negative towards my becoming part of their group. Once the ice was broken and everyone had introduced themselves I brought up the comment that the gentleman had made to see what they thought about it. My fellow group members could not have disagreed with that man more. They were very interested in the research that I would be doing as part of their group and accepted me with open arms. We joked around about the comment and throughout the semester I was sarcastically known as "the mole."

As a participatory member of the group, and not just an observer, I attended face-to-face meeting, responded over e-mail and used the discussion tool. I went by the norms that the other group members came up with just as they followed them. I offered my help when it came time to advertising the digital project because I had prior knowledge of where and when to advertise on-campus because of my job at George Mason University. I offered any suggestions that I had when it came to coming up with a digital project. Since I was the youngest of the group I also offered my advice regarding the target audience of the project.

Conclusion

Although I was an observer to the group, I was very much accepted as a member of the group. The group communicated very well. They did not communicate as much as I had expected them to at first but they always kept in touch and on task. As norms were set in the group there was no ambiguity of what was to be expected from each group member throughout the semester. Roles were established and tasks were given to individuals based on some sort of prior knowledge or experience. Group members liked working with one another to the point that when asked who they would like to work with most they could only answer that they had no preferences, that they liked working with everyone. The group was a very socioemotional group along with being very task oriented. This resulted in group members getting along and completing the task at hand, which was to create, advertise, and implement a digital project on the Internet. The group was very successful in completing their digital project and staying on task throughout the semester. There were no known conflicts between group members; none that I was made aware of or noticed via e-mail, discussion tool or face-to-face meetings. As a result of all members working so well together and functioning so well as a group, there was no apparent leader. This did not, however, result in any conflict within the group or the completion of the project being tardy. It had no affect on the groups effectiveness and capability of completing the digital project. Therefore, the group that I observed and was a member of was a very well functioning group.

Forsyth, Donelson. Group Dynamics. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California, 1990.