1

The Lecturer Community or Cult Leader –

unpacking interpersonal socialisation in
the lecture room

The problem – students want more than talking heads

The Descartian ghost of the ‘cogito’ (I think therefore I am), despite the valiant efforts
of OBE, still haunts most lecture rooms, as it does the western psyche.

However, two salient features of the self have been systematically overlooked or
discredited in Western philosophy – the self as embodied, the self as relational –
need an account that is far more far-reaching than the cogito allows. (Coates,
2006:48)

There is no denying that every subject demands that students grasp the validity of the
architectonics that the subject demands, from its unique formative thinking components
to, in some cases, the empirical facts. However, whatever knowledge the student
acquires is always mediated through more than a solitary receptive consciousness. A
lecture room is a complex gestalt in itself and a progressive series of gestalts
experienced by the learner – a total human experience involving the whole person,
their relationships with the lecturer, their peers, the institution and society as a whole. It
is a grounding presupposition of ours that high performing lecturers consciously and/or
intuitively understand this and work from this platform as opposed to against it. We are
largely formed as people by the quality of the dialogue we have with others.

This is the sense in which one cannot be a self on one’s own. I am a self only in
relation to certain interlocutors; in one way in relation to those conversation
partners who were essential to my achieving self definition; in another in relation
to those who are now crucial to my continuing grasp of languages of self
understanding… (Taylor, 1989: 36)

In this paper we want to examine one of the neglected aspects of the lecture room
experience: the conscious socialization of the learners by the lecturer into a learning
community. At Varsity College (Durban North) we have experimented with various
techniques that permit the lecturer to consciously socialize the class. We have found
that this improves the relationship between the lecturer and class as well as the
relationships between class members. This has been seen to positively effect both the
quality of learning and the results lecturers obtain. At this stage we are presenting this
paper as an exploratory document. We have not formally researched this using any
well defined empirical methodology. This we recognize is the next step in the process.
We have done before and after training comparisons, scrutinizing student feedback
and tracking results.

We will examine the following

a) The need for interpersonal socialization in the lecture room

b) Interpersonal socialization – the points of the process
c) Techniques, procedures and processes for interpersonal socialisation
d) The challenges inherent in this approach
 2

a) The need for interpersonal socialisation for the lecture room

The process of socialisation may be ordinarily defined as:

…the process whereby individuals become members of society or members of

sectors of society. It is concerned with how individuals adopt or do not adopt the
values, customs and perspectives of the surrounding culture or subcultures.
(Husen & Postlewaite, 1994:5586)

Most institutions consciously do this in structured and unstructured ways, especially to

new members, via such mediums as induction processes, meetings and direct
instructions to perform certain tasks. One could also argue that this happens in most
lecture rooms as lectures go about the process of teaching/facilitating learning –
procedures are explained, tasks assigned, questions asked, instructions given. In short,
students learn how to behave in order to appear to be learning – outward compliance.
However, as every competent educator knows, one is competing for internal
psychological ‘head space’, a large percentage of which is taken up with the learners
consistently wondering who it is they are sitting with in a classroom, how they are
perceived by those people and what relationships they might potentially form with them.
This can range from wondering about potential intimate liaisons through to the selection
of class mates with whom to work in a syndicate group. Most socialization processes
used by educators do not take this into account; they tend to be instrumental and task
orientated. Consequently, this other process simmers unconsciously underneath all the
other interaction taking place; in many instances it overrides the learner’s receptivity to
primary learning processes the educator is trying to establish.

The often uncomfortable truth for many lecturers to accommodate is that the students,
particularly at undergraduate level are often more interested and invested in their peer
relationships than they are with the subject or lecturer. Implicitly acknowledging this and
working with it takes the fight out of the perceptual equation.

There is a further spin off when it does come to using a variety of group techniques.
The quicker trust is established between members of a group the more effective they
appear to be at getting down to a given task. In fact, in some cases it even improves
the group’s efficacy. Classes where educators have engaged in these processes of
conscious interpersonal socialization engage in group processes far more effectively, in
fact they promote active learning.

While the focus of this paper is the pragmatic utilization of this process in order to
expedite the teaching and learning in the lecturer room we must acknowledge that our
motivation as educators possibly runs at a deeper substratum than this. Ultimately we
are more than purveyors of factual information. Masterful educators assist learners to
mould their identity into integrity – consistently practicing the approach we are
advocating.

Identity and integrity are not the granite from which fictional heroes are hewn.
They are subtle dimensions of the complex, demanding a life long process of self
discovery. Identity lies in the intersection of the diverse forces that make up my
life, and integrity lies in relating those forces in ways that bring me wholeness and
life rather than fragmentation and death. (Palmer, 1998:13)

What we mean by interpersonal socialization and how an educator is able to do this is

to what we will now turn.
 3

b) Interpersonal socialization – the points of the process

For many people, the initial point of contact with the process of interpersonal
socialization occurs in them encountering it in the use of an “ice breaker,” more intense
forms might be the experience of attending a “team building” 1 activity or having
participated in a therapeutic group process such as those run by AA. The heart beat of
these activities involves a facilitator who designs a game or process that encourages
participants to consciously disclose more of themselves to other group members than
they would normally do in standard social interaction. These disclosures are carefully
processed and mediated by the facilitator with other members of the group.

If done sensitively and at the appropriate level, these processes appear to foster group
cohesion, as well as encourage members of a group to drop the defensive barriers that
prevent authentic interpersonal communication taking place. People move beyond
superficial social perceptions to finding meaningful points of similarity between each
other with which they can identify, as well as coming to see their differences in an
affirming and uncritical context. The aforesaid can also apply to various sub-groupings
that form within classroom settings that can at times lock down into forming rigid and
stultifying perceptions of other groups. The facilitator’s processing of the learners’
disclosures often also acts a powerful symbolic reference point for the learners in terms
of how to listen attentively, and non-judgmentally.

c) Techniques, procedures and processes for interpersonal socialization

These, we found, are best done initially at the start of a semester when a lecturer first
begins to work with a new class. However this does not imply that these processes only
apply to lecturers and students who are meeting each other for the first time. We have
found that these processes can be effectively used on groups that return as a group to
the same lecturer. As the group dynamics are extremely fluid the need seems to exist
for the group to continually come to understand itself at a higher level of integration.

The most engaging format for these processes appears to be the gaming format, where
there is an element of winning followed by the creative format where participants
engage in a creative activity. In both instances these mechanisms provide deflection
techniques that initially take the focus off the individual and on to the activity allowing
for a degree of self exposure that becomes ameliorated through the medium used 2. It is
very important though that students are presented with a variety of participatory options
at the start of such processes: full participation, observer status or they can choose not
to participate and do something else. If this is not done and made explicit these
processes can open themselves to psychologically abusive practices by forcing people
to engage in levels of self disclosure with which they feel uncomfortable. An added
precautionary measure is to caution participants against asking questions that are too
penetrating or feeling they have to disclose what makes them uncomfortable. Once the
game is played or the creative process completed, participants are encouraged to form
small groups, initially to discuss the primary process, in other words how they
experienced the game or activity and then in some instances reflect on the meta-
process – the activity’s purpose and construction. As well as providing useful feedback
for the lecturer it enables learners to develop their meta thinking skills.
1
It is still a very contested and open debate whether an increase in the interpersonal cohesion within a
group leads to great task focus and performance compare the articles by Offermann and Henry in the
list of references.
2
See Appendix for examples of various games and processes.
 4

d) The challenges inherent in this approach to learning

While we have been experimenting with these techniques we have come up against a
number of very real problems. Here are the most common ones and some of our
thinking on how to overcome them.

“Not enough time!”

Initially when educators are presented with these ideas the most common form of
protest runs along the lines of, “Where will I find the time to play games, I can hardly get
to finishing the syllabus?” This is quite understandable and in fact needs to be taken
seriously. Overcoming this resistance is crucial, if one believes that these techniques
do in fact enhance the quality of teaching and learning. The best way to do this is not to
engage in a rational dialogue initially but to invite the lecturer to experience one of
these socilaisation processes in a group context with their peers, alternatively to
observe the process in a lecture room context. After the lecturer has had exposure to
the process then by all means engage in the discussion with the accompanying
rationale. Part of this rationale is that the socialization process is going to happen
unconsciously and part of this unconscious process is often highly disruptive. The more
conscious it can be made the more control over the learning environment the lecturer
will have. In essence, a high performing lecturer creates a micro learning community in
the lecture room and is the leader of that learning community. This then implies some
degree of responsibility for mediating and managing the relationships between learners
in that room.

Inadequate understanding of group process techniques

Another challenge we have faced is lecturers who do not fully understand the purpose
of the games and activities and robotically deliver them. Students then don’t get the
point or become equally frustrated with what appears to be a waste of time. In order to
successfully utilizes these techniques lecturers do need to have understood and be
able to practice basic group facilitation skills. Many of our educators were socialized
and schooled under the instructional model of education and therefore find the more
democratic teaching practices difficult to embrace for fear of losing control. Once again,
we suggest that these educators are exposed to these practices in action and are then
initially encouraged to co-facilitate with an experienced lecturer.

“We have done this before.”

There is no escaping the powerful stimulus that novelty provides in these processes.
Initially when lectures learn these processes they tend to use one they have initially
experienced in training. If another lecture has used it, the activity falls flat. This problem
at a superficial level can be overcome by getting lecturers to hook up with and talk to
their colleagues so that they are able to check in with each other as to who is using
what. However far greater success can be attained if one is able to teach the principle
of group process and game design to lecturers. This then equips them to design their
own interventions, which become unique to them.

Going in too deep and issues of personal privacy

 5

In the hands of inexperienced well-meaning people things can go wrong. Self

disclosure in a group context comes with certain risks, part of which is outside the
control of even the most experienced facilitators. Therefore we have found that when
training educators to engage with these processes space has to be provided for
lecturers who firstly do not want to do this and secondly those who need to develop
some primary facilitation skills first. Our advice would be to ‘keep it light’ – bearing in
mind the aim of these processes utilized at this level is to gently facilitate the
socialization between class members so as to improve the quality of learning in a
communal setting and not to create a cult! In the event of a student over exposing
themselves or becoming visibly uncomfortable we suggest helping them disengage
from the activity and the lecturer facilitating a meeting between them and the SRM.

Further research

There is a host of fascinating work still to be done in this area. An initial literature survey
done for this paper appeared to reveal a research gap here. In educational literature
there has been a great deal of research done on small group learning. Psychology and
its applied application in social work and industrial psychology have a large battery of
research and articles dealing with group processes and team development. However
there seems to be relatively little done in the area we have briefly explored in this
paper.
 6

Appendix - A Sample of Games and Processes

What makes it difficult to get to know each other?

Equipment:

 Flip Chart And Pens

 A Fist Sized Ball Of Clay Or Play Dough For Each Delegate
 A Piece Of Paper To Rest This On Their Lap

How to use the Tool

1 Ask learners to sit in pairs facing each other. The paper is put on their laps and
the ball of clay on top of it.
2 Request that they now turn back to back.
3 Once back to back, they are now requested to model each other’s heads without
looking – each person can “thought tell” the other person what they look like but
nobody is permitted to turn around and look at their partner.
4 When the learners have finished they are then permitted to show their partner
what they have made. After which they take back their modelled face and come
back either to the conference style seating or walk around the room and show the
other learners.
5 Once the excitement has died down a bit put the learners in groups of 4-8 and
ask each group to list what made this exercise difficult.

Here is a list you should eventually come up with (something like this):

 Time
 Could not see the other person
 Lack of skill and training (not a sculptor)
 Lack of confidence
 Trying to understand what the words meant (e.g. what are “pointy ears
or thick lips?”)
 Feeling vulnerable describing myself
 Feeling vulnerable making a person’s face
 Not looking properly when we had a chance

Now ask the learners to look at their lists and see if they can see any parallels
between how they personally experienced the difficulties in the game and how they
face the same battle to communicate within their lecture room. (You might have to
help them get started by showing them an example or two.) Each issue in the game
might have several parallel issues in the lecture room.

Example:
The Game Our Lecture room
 Time Don’t make time for each other
 Could not see the other person communicate too much by “mxit”
 Lack of skill and training (not a sculptor)
 Lack of confidence
 7

 Trying to understand what the words meant (e.g. what are “pointy ears or thick
lips?”)
 Feeling vulnerable describing myself
 Feeling vulnerable making a person’s face
 Not looking properly when we had a chance

Once this list has been distilled one can then begin the problem solving processes
with the learners under three headings

1 I will take personal responsibility for…..

2 We as a lecture room need to change these structures…..
3 We need to work our way around this block by doing…..

The Energy and Codes Involved In Listening

This is a very sophisticated concept. At its simplest level people like being around
and listening to or communicating with people who not only speak our own language
culturally but who speak or make an effort to learn our emotional /intellectual /
cultural “language”. To these people we tend to be more giving in terms of time,
energy, resources and have far less conflict. Hidden communication codes are a
major source of lecture room and interpersonal conflict; learning to surface these and
understand one’s own is a big step forward. They can range from how we sit to the
tone of one’s voice.

Equipment needed

 A Bag Of Beans Or Marbles

How to use the Tool

1. Divide the group into pairs

2. Give each member of the group 20 beans.
3. Explain to the pair that one of them will be given a code – the other partner’s
job is to crack the code. If the person cracks the code they will be able to get
all the beans from their partner.
4. The rules are that every time the person listening to their stories asks for
beans they have to hand them over, or alternatively accept beans when they
are given them.
5. Send the one partner out of the room – as the code cracker.
6. And tell them to prepare to relate the 10 most significant stories from their
work history.
7. The partner inside the room is instructed to take away from the person
outside two beans for every story that has an emotionally negative feeling (i.e.
tragedy, difficulty) and “pay” them one bean for every story that has an
emotionally positive feeling (e.g. success, achievement, progress). They must
stop to ask for beans or pay out during the course of the stories told, and not
wait until the end.
8. Play the game for 5 minutes and then see who has cracked the code. Let the
game continue until about one third of the learners have cracked the code.
9. Let the learners tell their partners what the code was.
 8

10. If the group is fairly sophisticated emotionally ask them in sub groups of 4 to
then list the hidden codes that are present in the lecture room’s
communication processes which, when not adhered to, lead to conflict.

What Kind Of Animal Are You? (Based on the research done by Blake &
Mouton)

Equipment needed

 copy of diagram for each learner and pens

 sets coloured dots for each learner
 flip chart

How to use this tool

1. Place the following diagram in front of learners; it can be on either paper,

OHP or PowerPoint.

2. Briefly explain the characteristics of each animal

Shark People

 do it now!
 action orientation
 impatient
 driven
 aggressive
 task orientated
 few people skills
 high technical ability
 can deliver high volumes of paper work or product
 very organised
 useful in a crisis when a “dictator” is needed

Orang-utan People

 slow
 private
 introverted
 like working independently
 on their own mission
 hard to understand
 creative but not obviously so
 thinkers or day dreamers

Teddy Bear People

 9

 emotionally warm
 friendly
 easy to talk to
 make time for people
 don’t set tight deadlines
 hate paper work
 a bit disorganised
 can confide in them

Bee People

 very busy
 energetic
 get through lots of work
 know all the important people
 deliver high volumes of work
 full diaries
 can get others to work hard
 can appear too good to be true
 tendency to over work
 often leaders
 take work home

Fox People

 able to flex between all theses styles

 can hide their motives – “poker face”
 good strategic thinkers
 see simplest way to do things
 efficient
 calm
 self possessed
 good work-life balance
 not always sure what they are up to
 people feel the need to explain themselves to them
 appear to see through others
 mystery

1. Ask learners to look at all these characteristics and decide why they are most
like them and to plot themselves on the graph.

2. Then they are to plot the rest of their team on their graph without sharing their
scores with them.

3. Each learner is now going to come up to the flip chart and plot where they see
their team mates. This can also be done by assigning different team members
certain coloured stick-on dots. For example, John is red, Sandra blue etc.
 10

4. The facilitator then examines the spread of placements and invites the person
to place themselves – they are then invited to comment on where their team
mates have put them and enquire as to why?

5. This process quickly illustrates how much each team player is in the “arena”
(are seen as they see themselves). The greater the discrepancy between how
individuals perceive themselves to be and how their team sees them the
greater the potential for conflict.

6. By asking the question of either team or individual “what behaviours do you or

we as a group need to exhibit to help close this gap?” The facilitator should
attempt to close the gaps down.
7.

Shark Bee

Fox

Orang-utan Teddy Bear

 11

List of References

Books and Articles

Coates, K. 2006. ‘The Role of love in the Development of the Self: From Freud and
Lacan to Children’s’ stories, in Vitz, P. & Felch, M. (eds) The self: beyond the
postmodern crisis. Delaware: ISI Books, 45-61.

Husen, T and Postlethwaite, T.N. 1994. The International Encyclopaedia of

Education. (2nd edit.) New York: BPC, Wheatons Ltd.

Palmer, J. P. 1998b. The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Taylor, C. 1989a. Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Smith, H. 1989. Beyond the post-modern mind. New York: Quest Books.

Websites References

The Science and Practice of Team Development: Improving the Link

LR Offermann, RK Spiros - ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2001 -
aom.pace.edu
< http://www.aom.pace.edu/amj/April2001/offermann.pdf>

Team Development, The Appreciative Inquiry Way

M NORDBYE, T YAEGER - Training, 2003 - proven-strategies.com
< http://www.proven-strategies.com/pdf/article1.pdf>

THE EFFECT OF GROUP PROCESS TRAINING ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

LJ HENRY - 1997 - kittle.siu.edu
< http://www.kittle.siu.edu/iejhe/paid/1999/number4/pdf/henry.pdf>