The Experts below are selected from a list of 309 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lisa Linnenbrinkgarcia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
socially shared regulation in collaborative Groups an analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and Group Processes
Cognition and Instruction, 2011Co-Authors: Toni Kempler Rogat, Lisa LinnenbrinkgarciaAbstract:This study extends prior research on both individual self-regulation and socially shared regulation during Group learning to examine the range and quality of the cognitive and behavioral social regulatory sub-Processes employed by six small collaborative Groups of upper-elementary students (n = 24). Qualitative analyses were conducted based on videotaped observations of Groups across a series of three mathematics tasks. Variation in the quality of social regulation as a function of Group Processes (positive and negative socioemotional interactions, collaborative and non-collaborative interactions) was also considered. Findings suggested that the synergy among the social regulatory Processes of planning, monitoring, and behavioral engagement was important for differentiating quality variation between Groups. Positive socioemotional interactions and collaboration also appeared to facilitate higher quality social regulation. Implications for comprehensively supporting high quality social regulation, alongsid...
Elain Barrettpower - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the effects of diversity on small work Group Processes and performance
Human Relations, 1998Co-Authors: James B Shaw, Elain BarrettpowerAbstract:Diversity is an increasingly important factor in organizational life as organizations worldwide become more diverse in terms of the gender, race, ethnicity, age, national origin, and other personal characteristics of their members. The exact impact of within-Group diversity on small Group Processes and performance is unclear. Sometimes the effect of diversity seems positive, at other times negative, and in other situations, there seems to be no effect at all. In this article, we suggest that these types of findings might be explained by using a "Group-development" model to examine the impact of diversity on Group Processes and performance. Our model uses concepts from Jackson et al.'s (1995), Milliken and Martins' (1996), and other models, as well as our own concepts, to show how diversity affects Group development and performance. Among the concepts included in the model are readily detectable personal attributes, underlying personal attributes, cognitive paradigm dissimilarity, cognitive costs and rewar...
Toni Kempler Rogat - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
socially shared regulation in collaborative Groups an analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and Group Processes
Cognition and Instruction, 2011Co-Authors: Toni Kempler Rogat, Lisa LinnenbrinkgarciaAbstract:This study extends prior research on both individual self-regulation and socially shared regulation during Group learning to examine the range and quality of the cognitive and behavioral social regulatory sub-Processes employed by six small collaborative Groups of upper-elementary students (n = 24). Qualitative analyses were conducted based on videotaped observations of Groups across a series of three mathematics tasks. Variation in the quality of social regulation as a function of Group Processes (positive and negative socioemotional interactions, collaborative and non-collaborative interactions) was also considered. Findings suggested that the synergy among the social regulatory Processes of planning, monitoring, and behavioral engagement was important for differentiating quality variation between Groups. Positive socioemotional interactions and collaboration also appeared to facilitate higher quality social regulation. Implications for comprehensively supporting high quality social regulation, alongsid...
Morris Zelditch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Twenty-Five Years of the Group Processes Conference: A Review Essay
Advances in Group Processes, 2014Co-Authors: Morris ZelditchAbstract:Abstract Purpose The primary purpose of this chapter is to assess the effects of twenty-five years of the Group Processes Conference on advances in the study of Group Processes that have taken place between 1988 and 2014. Design/Methodology/Approach This chapter places the twenty-five years of the Group Processes Conference in the context of the changes that have taken place between small Groups research in the 1950s and Group Processes research in the 1980s and beyond. Findings Between the 1950s and 1980s small Groups research reinvented, reconceptualized, and reinvigorated itself as Group Processes research. In this period, small Groups research, its applied research, and its research programs became increasingly theory-driven, and its concept of the Group and its levels increasingly abstract, general, and analytic. As a consequence of these changes, the concept of the field itself became increasingly analytic. The Group Processes Conference was at once a reflection of these changes and a driving force in the subsequent advances in Group Processes research. It both quickened and amplified the effects of individual-level factors and of thirty years of Advances in Group Processes on the transformation of the field and was also, like Advances in Group Processes, a driving force in the subsequent advances in Group Processes research. The present chapter concludes with an analysis of the mechanisms of the effects of the Group Processes Conference on Group Processes research. Originality/Value The program for the twenty-fifth year of the Group Processes Conference celebrates its effects on the field of Group Processes research.
-
Thirty Years of Advances in Group Processes: A Review Essay
Advances in Group Processes, 2013Co-Authors: Morris ZelditchAbstract:Abstract Purpose This chapter reviews 30 years of Advances in Group Processes. Its primary purpose is to study the part the series has played in the advances in the study of Group Processes that have taken place between 1984 and 2014. Design/methodology/approach This chapter places the 30 years of Advances in Group Processes in the context of the changes that took place between small Groups research in the 1950s and Group Processes research in the 1980s and beyond. Findings Analyzing the policies of Advances in Group Processes and its contents, this chapter reflects on its role in the advances in Group Processes that have taken place since the 1980s. Between 1950 and 1980, small Group research reinvented, reconceptualized, and reinvigorated itself as Group process research. Between the two periods, small Group research, its applied research, and its research programs became increasingly theory-driven and its concept of the Group and its levels increasingly analytic. As a consequence of these changes, the concept of the field itself became increasingly analytic. The changes between the two periods in its theory, research, application, programs, and in its concept of the Group and the way the field was conceptualized led to marked advances in Group process research in the 90s and beyond – to more theory, more impact of it on application, and more, and more cumulative, growth of it. Advances in Group Processes was at once a reflection of the changes that took place between the two periods and a driving force in the advances in Group Processes research that have taken place ever since. Originality/value Advances in Group Processes is a fundamental resource for the development of theory and research on small Groups and Group Processes. This chapter provides an overview of its contributions and places them in the context of the development of the field as a whole.
L Adrianson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
gender and computer mediated communication Group Processes in problem solving
Computers in Human Behavior, 2001Co-Authors: L AdriansonAbstract:The study reports results from an experiment investigating aspects of communicative Processes, using face-to-face (FtF) communication and computer-mediated communication (CMC). The latter was performed in two variants: participants writing under their own names or participants writing anonymously. There were two problems to be solved, both having ambiguous solutions. The theoretical aim was to determine if gender would influence communication equality, social relations, and communicative Processes. Furthermore, private and public self-awareness was studied in order to identify differences between the media and between the sexes. The results show that participants discussing FtF were more private self-aware than participants in CMC, and females were more private self-aware than males. Females produced more messages in FtF communication than they did in CMC, and there were also more opinion change from females than from males. Social judgements were more positive from females than from males. A qualitative analysis showed that females expressed more opinions and agreements in FtF communication than in CMC, but also that they agreed more than males in responding to messages from a male. There were also more disagreements in FtF communication than in CMC.
