2016 Annual Conference

This session reviews paradoxical team functioning in two adult teams enrolled in an online group dynamics course. Despite similar group composition and identical decision-making tasks, stark contrasts in communication, trust, cohesion, and conflict during synchronous experiential learning activities demonstrated how individual-level factors can affect team dynamics and learning.

Adult educators and program administrators who have teamwork embedded in the curriculum, utilize group projects in courses, or are interested in implementing synchronous experiential group learning activities into online courses may enjoy learning how adult students studying group dynamics responded to their own team dynamics and critically reflected on their role in those dynamics. Others with a general interest in learning how adults experience and navigate the complex dynamics that occur when people work together in groups or teams, either in the classroom or in their professional lives, may also benefit.

Adults are constantly required to work in groups and teams in their professional lives. Unfortunately, far too many groups operate inefficiently due to poor group dynamics, which often leads to relationship conflict and long-lasting negative emotions that affect future participation, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Adults and adult educators who understand group dynamics and can implement effective strategies to enhance group functioning will be more capable leaders, educators, and team members.
This session reviews various data, critical reflections, and lessons learned from an 8-week online group dynamics course that utilized synchronous experiential learning to teach group dynamics. Two teams of adult students completed three identical team decision-making tasks via synchronous video conferencing. These sessions were recorded, which allowed students to review and analyze the dynamics operating within their teams, critically reflect on their role in creating those dynamics, and apply the input-process-output model (Hackman, 1987) to their team experience. Despite similar set-up factors (team size, diversity, support) and identical tasks, the two teams displayed markedly different team processes (communication, trust, decision-making, cohesion, and conflict), which influenced team and personal outcomes (perceptions of learning) and satisfaction and highlights the importance of individual inputs (personality, motivation, values) in developing and leading effective teams.