Cognitive Learning Approach - Report Example

Group Assignment Reflection (Institution) (Name) (Course) (Module) (Instructor) Date of submission Introduction The cognitive learning theory is just one of the many theories in psychology that explains learning paths. This theory focuses on the internal memory process and their role in learning. Cognitive theorists look at the conscious thoughts and emotions for clues to how people differ from one another and what guides their behaviour. These skills have been used in a number of areas among them developing learning and teaching skills. Conventionally, the theory relies on gathering and organising information into mental schemata for ease of understanding. This paper looks at the use and application of the cognitive skills in the team formation process following the Bruce Tuckman’s four (sometimes five) stage team formation model. The Tuckman model The Bruce Tuckman’s four stage team formation model was developed to assist in team formation and functioning. The model is developed into four steps for successful team work. The five stages are; forming, storming, forming, performing and adjourning (Wheelan 2005; O’Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). Each stage is characterized by unique events and calls for a different application of cognitive skills. The forming stage involves identifying team members. In this stage, members may question the team composition and conflict is common. Where members have the freedom to choose team mates, conflict can be averted (Wheelan 2005). The team leader can be chosen at this stage in order to offer guideline to the team on such issues as arranging team meetings. In a small group, the issue of team leadership is usually inconsequential as coordination and communication is easy. Group formation skills and activities Teams and groups are essential components of the work and learning environment. Working in teams allows duty and role sharing among group or team members depending on the task at hand and the purpose of working in groups/teams. A team usually consists of 2-12 members in the learning environment while the number of members varies greatly in work environments depending on the task among other factors. Team formation is the most important and fundamental step in any team work effort. Utmost care must be taken when articulating the purpose of the group and how it is formed. Wheelan (2005) writes that the “how” of group formation is more important than the “why”. For groups to be formed, people need to interact, adjust their behaviour in response to one another and be well coordinated to work as a collective entity (O’Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). This implies that personal attributes and compatibility must be considered in choosing the members of the group. Again, Wheelan (2005) advises that coordination of attitudes is important in choosing the group members. Michaelsen, Parmelee and McMahon (2008) say that unfamiliar team members may take time, usually at least four working sessions to trust each other which may hamper team progress. This is where the role of cognitive skills kicks in choosing team members as it saves time and facilitates overall team success. Forming The forming stage involves choosing the different members to of the team. The cognitive approach dictates that the choice of group members will be informed by a person’s perception of the task at hand and the skills of the potential group members. A person mandated to form a team will categorize and choose potential team members according to their skills and capabilities in solving certain problems relevant to the task (Belbin 2010) Persons with experience in team formation use their knowledge to categorize tasks by solution strategies and the perceived capabilities of potential team members. How a person attains and utilizes knowledge brings into light the issue of types of knowledge. Psychologists identify four major types of knowledge namely, dispositional, propositional, metacognitive and procedural. Propositional knowledge is one of the kinds of knowledge that is very important in this stage. Propositional knowledge is defined as knowledge about things i.e., gives weight to ‘that’. It relies on theory a lot and requires and does not involve any practical application of knowledge. In this situation, a person or persons interested in accomplishing a certain task have the knowledge that a team can do better. As such, the idea of that a team performs better than individuals in accomplishing a certain task clearly point to a dire need for propositional knowledge (Belbin 2010; Elen 1995). The persons involved should also be aware that team formation requires a long process such as shown by the Tuckman team formation model. However, this cognitive approach to this type of knowledge does not recognise personal and physiological aspects of the body that may impact team work. Procedural knowledge is paramount in this critical stage. Procedural knowledge is paramount in performing a task that has well laid procedures. The procedures in this stage involve identifying the specific persons to be involved in the forming the team. However, procedural knowledge comes in handy where the procedure is relatively static. Experts in team management have advanced further the ideas and activities that are involved in the forming stage. Beyerlin and Johnson (2008) indicate that orientation is a core issue where the teams are being formed. The authors indicate that orientation is very relative to the working or learning situation. In most cases, teams in the work environment can be formed by persons who have worked together in the past thereby decreasing the time taken and depth of orientation activity because members are already acquainted. Where teams are formed by new persons, the forming phase might take longer than usual as the members get to acquaint themselves with one another. Dispositional knowledge refers to knowledge on ‘how’. This kind of knowledge is important in the forming stage not only to team leaders but to all members. Persons who have worked together in a team in the past are better placed in organising and leading teams by virtue of their experience. Such members are skilled in forming teams and getting the right members with the right skills. Dispositional knowledge comes in handle in enabling the team leader to ensure that the team is balanced in terms of skills. Again, the team should neither be too large nor too small. Wheelan (2005) says that in academic situations, the teams should be sized from one to twelve members maximum. On the other hand, teams in the work environment tend to vary greatly in size depending on the task at hand. He however cautions persons and organisations intending to operate in teams to avoid forming large teams to accomplish relatively huge tasks. The author is of the opinion that relatively large tasks that can be accomplished by large teams are better broken down into smaller tasks with smaller teams formed to accomplish the tasks. Persons with dispositional knowledge in teamwork should be aware of such issues. Thus, dispositional knowledge and past experience in team work comes in handy at this stage. Metacognitive knowledge is the other kind of knowledge in psychology. This kind of knowledge is defined as the awareness of one’s cognitive abilities. This kind of knowledge is very important as the members are aware of their strengths and weaknesses. As such, persons keen on forming a group will tend form a balanced team in which their weaknesses and their strengths complement each other. This implies that the task must be defined beforehand in order for the members to identify their potential strengths and weaknesses in accomplishing that task. Elen (1995) writes that “learners, who are primarily oriented towards performance goals focus on own and perceived ability, are product-oriented and refers to an implicit entity theory of intelligent” (p. 71). This kind of knowledge is popularly linked to reality versus idealism. Realists argue that individuals need to acknowledge the limitation of their skills and knowledge in certain areas. For instance, for individuals keen on forming a team, there are some individuals who are likely to come out declaring their unwillingness to lead the team as they believe they do not have the necessary skills required in team leadership and management. Therefore, at the forming stage, individuals should carefully examine and access their capabilities and their potential place and contribution towards the team. The forming stage is thus complete with the members already identified. However, in some situation more so in class work, team membership is decided by other people other tan the team members. In most cases instructors and lecturers will form team based on their knowledge about the capabilities of each of the members in order to strike a balance. This is a response to a tendency to students forming groups along friendship lines as opposed to academic purposes. Therefore, with the team already formed, the next step is the storming stage as per the Tuckman model. Storming The storming stage practically translates to the introductory cum brainstorming sessions aimed at gathering ideas on how to handle the task at hand and where roles and positions within the team are questioned. At this stage, different personalities come out. Michaelsen, Parmelee, McMahon (2008) say that it is common for the team leader’s suitability to be questioned at this stage and conflict is common. This stage forms the means success or failure to a team. This is so because different personalities come clearly for unacquainted members. In case of large teams, there is need to appoint a team leader who possesses leadership qualities necessary to guide the team in accomplishing its goals. The team deliberates on the name if need be. Other activities that might be carried out at this stage involve drafting a timetable for team meetings which is convenient to all members. Once again, the different kinds of knowledge in the cognitive field can be applied differently in this stage. Propositional knowledge as aforementioned pertains to the ‘that’ of knowledge. At this stage of team development, team members are already identified. The team leader takes a more central position in stamping his authority to manage conflict. The Tuckman model indicates that this stage is characterised by conflict as different personalities come forward (Cheong 2010). Members present their differing views on the best way to address the task. Personal issues and differences might also surface. Some members also suggest reformation of groups while others may express to leave the group or mobilise some members to secede and form another group. Members should thus employ conflict resolution strategies where it arises. These strategies will be in use as long as the team exists as conflict is a common issue in team work. Through propositional knowledge, members should be aware that conflict is common in teams. As such, members should be ready to compromise where necessary in order to push the team agenda forward. The storming stage also requires employment of dispositional knowledge. Once again, dispositional knowledge will be most relevant to group members who have experienced working in teams in the past. Michaelsen, Parmelee, McMahon (2008) investigated a umber of persons who had experience in working in teams and questioned their views on the team in the early stages known as storming. The authors found out that some respondents who had experience in team works were pessimistic about working in teams while others were so much into the idea of working in teams. The authors thus deduced dispositional knowledge in team works can be either beneficial to teams or detrimental. Such experiences shape knowledge which in turns shapes their behaviour which surfaces as resistance to working in teams of supporting the team (Damschen, Schenepf & Stuber 2009). Where resistance to team work is not obvious, team members can rebel through minimal participation and contribution which undermines the team. Cognitive theorists however do not explain the reasons behind this kind of resistance to learning. Nonetheless, it cautions people and teachers and team organisers about resistance to team formation. Procedural knowledge comes in handy at this stage too. Members can acquire this type of knowledge from existing literature. A number of books explicitly explain the procedures involved in this particular stage and other stages of the Tuckman model (Awad 2004; Belbin, 2010; Wheelan 2005). This accounts and procedures however totally ignore the emotional contribution of members and the self of each member. This approach also makes a questionable assumption that al teams are willing and ready to follow the procedures laid down which is not practical. The metacognitive arm of knowledge also applies in this stage. This knowledge works hand in hand with dispositional knowledge especially in this stage. For team members who have had good experience with working in teams in the past should provide leadership and encouragement to other team members (Cheong 2010). Given that it at this stage can disintegrate, team leaders should act as motivators. Their behaviour and actions should be trained at encouraging others to work for the common good to the team. Nonetheless, the approach remains mute on motivating team leaders. It is impractical to assume that team leaders are always in high spirit and inspired to motivate others. Some personal issues may crop up preventing it. Norming stage This stage is transitional in nature and is characterised by better understanding and stability and unity of purpose. The role of the team leader becomes more pronounced as he/she assigns the role. At this stage, group members should inform the team leaders about their strength and weaknesses (O,Rourke & Yarbrough 2008). Group members should be assigned roles and tasks that best utilize their strengths and talents. This stage is characterized by increased cohesion, more collaboration, trust, open communication and appreciation of differences. Propositional knowledge requires that members be accommodating to one another. Team members should employ team management theories. Brainstorming is one of the favoured ideas in team work. Members should be aware that they are free to make their ideas known; all ideas on how the team can accomplish the given task and achieve its goals should be appreciated. Nonetheless, members should be aware that positive criticism and appraisal are part of the deal. This stage is short that it does not warrant consideration of other kinds of knowledge in depth. Nonetheless, this stage some element of procedural knowledge in that it should be the transition period before serious work on the task at hand commences. Performing This pertains to the actual performance of the task. This stage is the most critical in achieving laid goals and objectives of the team. The performing stage is characterised by numerous meetings where members deliberate on the progress of the team. Members who have been assigned specific roles in the team report back o the team and findings are discussed. While these are some of the common activities, in this group it is important to note it calls for different types of knowledge as recognised by the cognitive approach of learning. One expert in team development and management, Belbin (2010) writes in his book that there are several categories of behaviour in teams; asking, informing, proposing, opposing, delegating, building and commenting. Propositional knowledge in this case will rely solely on the knowledge of the topic at hand. For instance teams in an organisation can be formed by employees from different departments. This implies that team members should be assigned roles that match their professional qualification and working expertise gained from their relevant departments. However, such members should be open to receive information and ideas from the rest of the team. Again, members should be willing to carry out extensive and intensive research in order to attain more knowledge on the essentials necessary in achieving the team goals. Dispositional knowledge applies in this stage to ease the workload of the team. For instance, teams involved in research can benefit from team members with experience in data collection methods. However, much of the dispositional knowledge gained from experience in working in teams fades into the background as maintenance work as more focus is directed to the task itself. Deadlines have to be observed and respected hence members must also be motivated to work within the given time framework and produce results. This kind of knowledge comes in handy too in encouraging members to express their views freely. Some issues that might have been overlooked in the storming stage might crop up during this stage. Dispositional knowledge in this context will allow leaders to identify unresolved conflict in the team. Such incidences calls for a storming session similar to the storming stage only smaller in significance to allow arising discontent and to be resolved (Hellriegel & Slocum). Elen (1995) says that major conflicts arising at this stage are signs of poor metacognitive skills and suppression of conflict during the storming stage. She adds that when conflict is suppressed instead of being well managed in the storming stage, it arises later in the team’s lifecycle. Metacognitive knowledge applies to individual group members. They must be willing to give their utmost in every way. Cook and Klumper (1999) identify the metacognitive skills of the team leader in ensuring the success of the team. The authors acknowledge that the team leaders should restore calm, boost members’ confidence and belief in the team and be in control of team something that demonstrates insight. The cognitive approach argues that team leaders should familiarise themselves with leadership skills and work by them (Basjes 2002). This includes such issues as good communication skills. The cognitive approach thus assumes that classifying skills as those necessary for leaders does wonders in ensuring the success of the team. In unison, all members should consult widely among themselves as one of popular metacognitive activities. Elen (1995) suggests that self-regulated activities such as monitoring, testing and questioning revision and evaluation should be encouraged. This activities should be planned well and it’s the responsibility of the team leader to assess himself or herself on his/her abilities to oversee member self evaluation. Failure to plan on the accomplishment of the task impedes the success of the team. This stage highlights the purposes of forming the team as results or findings or even the team report is made. The report should highlight the fact that the task was accomplished by all team members in equal measure. The Tuckman model has a minor stage called adjourning (Belbin 2010). This stag does not involve a lot of activities as it pertains to disbanding the team. Team members are required to return any borrowed items either from fellow members or from outside. The accomplishment of the task does not spell an end to the team in case follow up, revision or clarifications are needed. However, the team exists in an inactive mode until the work presented in accepted and then after the team is declared officially disbanded. The cognitive approach to leaning has its advantages and limitations. The advantages observed above include the ability of the theory in showing the particular types of thinking possible at various stages. Again, the theory has gives added weight to a focus in mental processes. The approach has its weaknesses too. Among them is the fact that it is unable to explain complex cognitive, perceptual dimensions in human development. Conclusion There are different kinds of knowledge and different methods of attaining knowledge. This paper has demonstrated the application of the cognitive learning approach in acquiring the different kinds of knowledge in team formation and development. It is apparent that the approach is very effective in categorising learning into steps and activities. The team making process can be taught and used in the learning process through the various steps of the Tuckmodel. The Tuckman team formation model itself being a product of the cognitive approach. References Awad, E. (2004). Knowledge management. London: Pearson education Belbin, R. (2010). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. 2nd ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Beyerlin, M. & Johnson, D. (2001). Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams. virtual teams, Vol. 8, JAI Press INC, Greenwich, Connecticut Damschen, G., Schnepf, R. & Stuber, K. (2009). Debating dispositions: issues in metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of mind. Cologne: Walter de Gruyter Cheong, C. (2010) “From Group-based Learning to Cooperative Learning: A Metacognitive Approach to Project-based Group Supervision” Journal of emerging transdiscipline. Vol 1(1), 1-23 Cook, M. & Klumper, W. (1999). Metacognitive, Social and Interpersonal Skills and Aptitudes in Officer Performance with Distributed Teams. http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-055///MP-055-27.pdf Elen, Jan (1995). Blocks on the road to instructional design prescriptions: a methodology for I.D.-research exemplified. Pittsburgh Leuven University Press, Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. (2007). Organizational behavior. London: Cengage O’Rourke, J. & Yarbrough, B. (2008). Leading groups and teams. London: Cengage learning Sternberg, R. Mio, J. & Mio, S. (2009). Cognitive psychology. London: Cengage Learning. Read More