Case Studies and Examples

Contents

In large groups, though the pool of talent and experience available potentially provides a wide range of views and a greater sharing of effort, the incentive to take an active part may be less. Also, in face-to-face discussion differences in relative participation increase to the point where one or two members may well begin to dominate and reticent members may fail to contribute (though they may enjoy relative anonymity). Where there is an agreed leader the need to counteract fragmentation places special demands on his or her awareness of the problems and skills in coping with them.

The smaller the group, the greater is the likelihood of close relationships, full participation, and consonance of aims. In a small group, roles are likely to be shared or rotated. Five to seven members is generally regarded as the optimum for leaderless groups. In the case of led groups, and for discussion purposes, groups of 15 tend to be the largest sizes for reasonably full participation. Online, 15 is certainly the largest for full participation. By dividing and arranging larger groups into smaller units however we can make the tasks of learning and its management both less demanding and less problematical.

Small groups (3-5) Close relationships Agreement on aims Can be cosy Limited range of views Roles naturally shared or rotated More intimate Cohesion Full participation likely	Larger groups (6-15) Some close, some distant Variety of aims Can be challenging Wider range of views Roles emerge More detached Fragmention occurs Leadership or rules needed to hold group together
EqualityDifferentiation

Figure 6.1 How the experience of large groups is likely to differ from that of small groups

Differentiation and Equality

Because of the natural tendency of larger groups to differentiate roles, equality is harder to achieve in large groups, a factor that is as likely to apply to online as face-to-face situations. Using structured activities breaks larger groups into smaller ones while still maintaining a sense of the whole group. Groups do not find it easy to work virtually (Rossen, 2001), so without careful structuring, and the use of active and interactive e-tivities, it is unlikely that discussion will move beyond sharing information, support and encouragement. E-tivities are based largely on participants 'making sense' of material through interaction with their peers and with their e-moderators. Online equalness is usually easier to achieve as no one has to wait a turn and shy people sometimes blossom. Be careful with humour and irony - it doesn't work well until participants are very comfortable - offence can be taken.

Return To Contents