ABSTRACT
P Sychologists in many fields have during the last twenty years given increasing attention to interpersonal relationships. From factories, hospitals, schools and clinics researches have been reported which have not only shown the interconnections of these fields but have together provided a fund of information about the behaviour of human beings in groups. In these enquiries a social group is regarded as a unit and the investigator concerns himself with a total situation rather than with an isolated segment of human experience. 1 Groups in factories, homes, clinics, schools, clubs and residential institutions have therefore been studied in functional situations in order to interpret the behaviour both of those groups and of the individuals comprising them. Under Moreno and Lewin in the United States of America 2 two different but related techniques of studying the dynamics of human personality have been developed, which culminated in the foundation of the Sociometric Institute in New York in 1942 and in the setting up of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1945. In England evidence of the same spirit is to be seen in the work of the University of London Institute of Education and of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. 3 Hoggarth in 1938, for example, reported the results of comparative study of individual and group methods of teaching mathematics. 4 Four methods were used: in the first the boys worked individually without regard to the progress or difficulties of the others; in the second, one boy worked in front of the others at the blackboard; in the third the class co-operated in solving the problems; in the fourth the boys worked in co-operating groups of three, each at its own blackboard. Hoggarth found that the use of group methods led to improvement both in attainment and attitude, that the group-blackboard method was the most popular of the four and that certain individuals became less shy and made new friends after experiencing it. He himself found this method more effective since it enabled him to supervise the work efficiently and deal with mistakes promptly. Home in 1943 reported an experiment in a Free Topic method of teaching science. 5 The boys in his experimental group were allowed complete freedom to make what use they liked of the books and apparatus provided and were given the master's help only when they asked for it. Whereas in the control group, which continued to be taught by the traditional demonstration method, the usual distribution of interest, toleration and boredom was apparent, the experimental group developed real enthusiasm for the subject and learned to organise their own programmes of work. Although at first the boys worked individually, a desire to co-operate in groups of two or three was showing itself in the second year of the investigation. These attempts at group work were at first unsuccessful, owing to outbursts of quarrelling and jealousy, but by the end of the year all such difficulties had disappeared and the boys were working efficiently in groups. Simpson in 1947 measured the effect of group discussion on the understanding and appreciation of films 6 , and found that boys who had discussed films understood them better and were more capable of concentrating on those particular aspects which were relevant for the particular needs of their class. The importance of social incentives in education was also demonstrated experimentally by C. M. Lambert in 1944, when she studied the nature of the interests shown by secondary school children in the various subjects of the curriculum. 7 In comparing eight different trends of interest (utilitarian, humanistic, creative, activity, scientific, vocational, æsthetic and social) she found that, considering all subjects as one, the social interest (defined as ‘interest in working and co-operating with others’) ranked second for the whole group and either first, second or third for each year level.
