Sometimes, it may be desirable to promote the disruption of established workgroups in order to promote the students’ ability to work with different persons, working conditions, and leadership styles. We describe the impact of different techniques to promote the disruption of workgroups in b-learning contexts. The results show that the groups tend to keep unchanged, even if they are not working properly and that a non-sense game and a technique of creation of groups based on common interests can provoke healthy disruptions in the existing groups, promote the creation of new groups without installing conflicts, and increase the students’ motivation. The results of our study are useful for teachers and trainers who promote workgroups in their courses and are interested in improving their students’ motivation with their workgroups and in helping the students work with different groups and develop behavioral skills.

1. Forcing
Disrup=on
in
b-­‐Learning
Workgroups
Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of Education,
Research, and Innovation (ICERI)
Madrid, November, 19-21, 2012
Rosário
Cação
15
de
Setembro
de
2012

2. Forcing
Disrup=on
in
b-­‐Learning
Workgroups
Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of Education,
Research, and Innovation (ICERI)
Madrid, November, 19-21, 2012
Rosário
Cação
15
de
Setembro
de
2012

3. Forcing
disrup=on
http://actioncoachchuckkocher.com/files/
2011/07/ChangeAhead.jpg
-­‐
Some'mes,
it
may
be
helpful
to
promote
a
smooth
disrup'on
of
exis'ng
groups
and
the
crea'on
of
new
groups
-­‐
Forcing
the
students
to
change
groups
can
help
develop
and
deploy
a
set
of
competences
that
the
labor
market
values

4. Working
as
a
group
(+)
Take
advantage
of
different
abili'es,
backgrounds,
and
interests
(-­‐)
A
group
takes
'me
and
effort:
it
requires
interac'on,
mo'va'on
towards
a
shared
goal,
adapta'on,
and
balance
of
individual
needs
and
styles

5. It
is
not
the
strongest,
nor
the
most
intelligent,
of
the
species
that
survives,
but
the
one
that
is
the
most
adaptable
to
change
(Megginson,
1963)
Conflicts
and
change
are
part
of
the
development
process
of
a
group
and
are
inevitable

6. The
disrup=on
of
a
group
can
be
good
and
desirable
Purpose:
Understand
the
impact
of
a
pedagogical
strategy
in
provoking
the
disrup'on
of
workgroups
and
the
crea'on
of
new
ones

7. Research
Ques=ons
Q1: If no rules are given, do workgroups tend to emerge based on physical
proximity and social relations between the individuals?
Q2: Do workgroups tend to stabilize in terms of their members, even if they
are not working properly?
Q3: Is it possible to provoke a disruption of the workgroups and the re-
creation of new groups, without imposing that change or creating conflicts?
Q4: Do the individuals appreciate being exposed to different colleagues,
working styles, and leadership styles, even if they had intended to keep
working with their initial group?
Q5: Can nonsense and useless techniques provoke group changes as well
as pedagogically sound techniques provoke, at least for short-term tasks?

8. Laisser-­‐
• “Shall
we
work
together?”
-­‐fair
• “May
I
join
you?”
approach
Techniques • Ice
breaking
game
• Senseless,
foolish,
and
used to create Lollypop
childish
and disrupt approach
the groups
• Based
on
common
working
interests
MiniOST

9. Strategy
Check on
Laisser-faire group conflicts,
approach changes and
Reflection
consolidation
F2F1
F2F2
F2F3
F2F4
F2F5
First
week
Second
week
Third
week
Forth
week
FiQh
week
Lollypop MiniOST
Online approach approach
interaction

10. Results
The
crea=on
of
the
The
consolida=on
The
lollypop
effect
The
MiniOST
first
group
of
the
groups
disrup=on
• The group was a result of a coincidence
• Clues from the presentations made online during the first week
• Emergent social relations
• Physical proximity
• Entering the room together and the number of available seats were
considered strong influences to the creation of the groups
• Difficulty in recalling how the group was created

11. Results
The
crea=on
of
the
The
consolida=on
The
lollypop
effect
The
MiniOST
first
group
of
the
groups
disrup=on
• Stability:
• Groups working well
• Social relations
• No need to change: no major problems inside the group
• Signs of conflits and decrease of motivation
• Resistance to change:
• “A group is like a pill. You have to take it. Period”
• Affraid of hurting the colleagues’ feelings

12. Results
The
crea=on
of
the
The
consolida=on
The
lollypop
effect
The
MiniOST
first
group
of
the
groups
disrup=on
• Opportunistic collaboration: “All I needed was an extra hand, not a
genius”
• Expressive group changes
• “An healthy change”
• An opportunity to make a “discrete” group change
• Positive impact on motivation

13. Results
The
crea=on
of
the
The
consolida=on
The
lollypop
effect
The
MiniOST
first
group
of
the
groups
disrup=on
• Severe group changes
• Awareness of that changes and emotional goodbye to old
groups
• Welcomed but not expected change

14. Conclusions
Groups tended to keep unchanged even if there were conscious signs of
problems inside the group and even if some participants would prefer to
change groups.
If no rule is imposed, the physical proximity and the social relations between
the individuals determine the constitution of the group. These criteria lead to
unchanged, yet sometimes conflicting groups.
A game, apparently played just for fun, has helped the participants feel
comfortable to make the group changes they were willing.
Both the lollypop game and the MiniOST provoked disruption and group
changes, without increasing conflicts or provoking a sense of imposed
change.
A succession of disruptions may not create conflicts or a succession of
stormy stages and can increase the students’ motivation.

15. Forcing
Disrup=on
in
b-­‐Learning
Workgroups
Slides available at www.slideshare.net/rosariocacao
Rosário
Cação
mrac@dei.uc.pt