Social Capital, collective efficacy and technology

Our discussion about social capital was really something that struck a chord with me. Social capital and individual difference are notions that can bring us together through a bridging of purposes that are imagined through varied lenses. I believe that this notion is something is rooted in the highly post-modern, cybernetic nature of the era that we have arrived at today. When we were discussing whether individual difference can impede the creation of true collective efficacy, I couldn't help but agree with how these differences giving each unit or system within a group a different outlook towards the same purpose, enriching their activities and allowing them to reach a resolution to their end in view.

Can collective efficacy help us become the detached academicians that we hope to become? Or, can it also lead to negative vicarious phenomena? When we look at lunch halls, dining rooms and the status quo situations within the high school and higher education spectra, it's clear that a collective efficacy dimension is definitely present through college-spirit/ school-spirit, and also within negative phenomena like bullying and hazing. But, is this because we don't give students a chance to have collective efficacy in the classroom that they then choose to associate it with these not so favorable things? The way education has steeped itself in instrumentalism has cast a shadow on practices that allow critical reflection to become like the staple food of the classroom. Personally I believe that critical thinking is developed through  a classroom context that allows a seamless exchange of thoughts and has lower stakes than a stressful all-nighter right before an exam. Since persistence is so important, isn't the idea of a continuous classroom discussion and the progressive complexity of narrative or expressive (for the arts) reflection one that leads to more transformative learning. To facilitate detached discussions, this notion of collective efficacy could act as a catalyst.

We were discussing last class how technology leads to an objective response rather than one that is based on personally crafted attributions about other people. I cant help but think how this unbiased response could lead to the development of unbiased ideologies within the minds of students. Linking this to bridging and linking social capital, I feel that this notion of detachment is focal. Developing the extremely elusive notion of 'equity' in a classroom can help us bond with each other, bridge our social capital and then literally link them together towards developing collective efficacy. In this process, technology becomes the driving force, or in Vygotsky's words, the mediating tool that guides an internalization of these social processes.

Collective efficacy and interdisciplinary work

I studied as an interdisciplinary studies major in my undergraduate program, and while our research was incredibly individualized we studied and discussed group interdisciplinary research at length. Group research in general requires significant collective efficacy to achieve a goal, even regarding domain-specific topics; therefore, when broadening research to interdisciplinary realms it’s even more difficult to encourage building collective efficacy amongst people who may not know how to mesh/communicate their research interests. Even when it is necessary to have multiple perspectives to solve a particular issue or achieve a certain goal, the group must understand each other well in order to do this effectively.
Last week we discussed that the reason people have known about problems like climate change for so long and haven’t done anything about it is because they have very little collective efficacy to make a difference. I see this issue as an interdisciplinary one because it not only requires climate scientists to publish research, but it also requires advocates in fields of business, education, politics/law, and service in order to enact true change. However, if each of these fields possibly have personal/disciplinary interests in acting a certain way regarding issues like climate change, it is entirely reasonable that they would have low collective efficacy to work together to resolve the problems. Not only that, but it also takes collective efficacy of the general population as a whole to make these sorts of changes, and in a time when such collective efficacy is…timid at best, there is little surprise that such issues have not been resolved even with the physical resources to do so.
Is there truly a way to raise collective efficacy?

Collective efficacy and teamwork, the sequel

A few years ago, I started a new job in Boston working in international educational travel. The company that I worked for had one of the best workplace cultures that I have ever been part of, and they provided lots of opportunities to get to know your colleagues outside of work. One of these opportunities was a Fun Run. I never put these two words in the same sentence, but I decided maybe I should participate to get to know more colleagues since I was new. The event was a competition for whose team could run the most laps in 24 hours, which I did not have any sense of self or collective efficacy for, but it included camping which I love, so I joined a team. When the weekend arrived, it was raining and chilly. We were on the Cape at a state park and, despite the rain, bugs, and mud, the atmosphere was generally positive. Now, since I derive no pleasure from running, normally I don’t run in anything but the most optimal of conditions… and these conditions were subpar, at best. I was not amused. When the race began, my team set off and at first it wasn’t so bad. But the running loop was four miles long, which was two more miles than I’d ever run consecutively before. Soon (also read, after half a mile) my doubt set in, and I began to wonder why I had committed to this event. The terrain was hilly and sandy, then hilly and full of tree roots to trip over, I was questioning why I had eaten a hamburger at dinner, people started trying to talk while running… hopefully I’m painting a picture of how miserable I felt. Something strange happened along the way though, amidst trying to talk to my new colleagues and run and not trip, I started to forget about the roots, the sand, the hills, and the hamburger. Everyone was having fun and staying together as a group, even though some had run marathons before and clearly could have run three laps in the time most of us could do one. Our shared purpose was not to be the fastest or the best, but just to enjoy the company and the friendly competition. We finished the lap, and then decided to do another one. I called it quits with 8 (consecutive!) miles behind me and spent the rest of the night by the bonfire. I woke up with a puddle in my tent in the morning, yet I felt a great sense of accomplishment and sense of connection to my colleagues. To me, this story illustrates some important facets of collective efficacy. While I lacked self-efficacy for running, I still believed I could (or maybe felt obligated to!) contribute to the group, and the group believed in the purpose of the Fun Run. I persevered with the support of my colleagues, and those with advanced skills who could have run faster did not because that would not have been best for the group’s goals or purpose. This makes me think about the classroom and how there are learners with so many different levels of ability. For teachers, it can be difficult to match instruction and activities with this varying ability, not to mention create a shared purpose that 20+ students believe in. How could we set a shared goal so that collective efficacy is fostered and so those with lesser abilities feel safe and supported to struggle on, while those with higher abilities provide encouragement? Additionally, how can we identify the strengths of all students and design goals so that each student has the chance at some point to feel competent, be the model of success, and provide encouragement to peers? 

Collective efficacy and teamwork

It is an integral part of the team experience that members’ desire for collective achievement. According to Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, both tasks self-efficacy and collective efficacy could influence performance and achievement related to outcomes. Contrary to task self-efficacy which represent a team member’s confidence in performing one’s own capacity to a certain level, collective beliefs depict the teams shared confidence in its ability to generate collective action and complete a task relative to a specific goal. It sometimes makes me confused to make a distinction between two terms since a team cannot run without individual’s effort while the form that several people work as a team could yield essentially different effort. They emphasize how to evaluate the function and mechanism of an entity through an individual or team level. Collective perceptions of confidence are rooted in individual perceptions of task self-efficacy. Individual perceptions of collective efficacy could represent an emergent effect on climate and the effectiveness on teamwork. Social support behavior and positive feedback act on individual could post positive effect on ego orientation and boost aspirational organic teamwork. However, autocratic behavior and forced collaboration might lead to individual-level despondence and strike. Even though teamwork is a notion of a collectivity, individual agency and characteristics still needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to division of work, responsibility to the group, goals set up for the task. A group consisting of outstanding talents does not guarantee an appreciable outcome, while how various members of the team interact and harmonize with each other could reflect the quality of teamwork. Considering the issue of group level consensus, the perceptions of climate might be a team level predictor of collective efficacy. Feltz and Lirgg (1998) acknowledged the importance of perceptual consensus among teams. Perceptual consensus represents a broader conception of climate dimensions (motivational climate, collective efficacy). 

To Save or To Destroy?

I appreciated themes from the posts of classmates in considering how to develop collective efficacy around a cause.  Quiannan offered the quote that suggested that if a group acknowledged that there is good work worth doing, “…it would make us save the world from now on."  This powerful and shared purpose would move us from standing beside each other with our individual self-efficacy in our own skill set toward embracing a role in a goal worth achieving together.  World changers, unite!

I can appreciate Robin’s perspective that we often hear of groups, passionate with collective efficacy, determined to do harm rather than “save the world.”  Her questions were thought-provoking: can we shift from destructive goals to redeeming ones?

Loretta and Robin both mentioned the online environment – Loretta referring to building our collective efficacy as a class through blogging, and Robin referring to damaging purposes of promoting hatred.  In the online setting, the connection between others is different from direct interaction.  How does this evoke collective efficacy in ways that face-to-face interaction may not?  Does a level of separation facilitate our ability to express ourselves more honestly, whether that be a Green New Deal advocate or a white supremacist?  Or, are we just drawn to collective efficacy in our human desire to connect with others?  I worry that we are forgetting how to genuinely connect with those sitting right in front of us, but we are built for connection.  So, when we lack genuine connection with the humans we can see, we are primed in our online settings to seek deep connection with those who would welcome us into the fold – whether for a world-saving mission that they are committed to but are doubtful will succeed or for a world-destroying mission that they are sacrificially zealous for and know they will accomplish no matter what.  Or maybe media is more interested in showcasing destructive collective work rather than progress toward causes to heal humanity, so our perception is that destructive collective efficacy holds more power?

How to develop goals in Collective Efficacy?

" When we recall what we are destined to do in this life, it would recover ourselves; when we recall what the human beings are destined to do in this world, it would make us save the world from now on." I came across this from a book several years ago, at Edinburgh. I did not fully understand it, but I began to question the meaning of the things which I was engaging with every day.

Before I went there, I worked at a company in Guangzhou, China. Every day's life was quite busy and my colleagues spent lots of time in doing the job that they had no love in it. Managers argued with each other about how to make more profit. The general manager tried so hard to let everyone understand the company's culture, mission as well as goals. Each of us could notice that information on bulletin boards clearly and we even need to take exams. (I made those boards and test questions..) I felt like it wouldn't work since everyone had their own life focus. Work is merely a way to earn money and to support the family. To motivate the morale, the manager also generated many reward mechanisms. But it still did not work for the whole development of the company. I would say that many of the colleagues are actually very intelligent when they engaged in their work individually. They hold different expertise in their fields, like marketing, finance, designing etc. But every time, when people from different departments came together, the efficiency of working is reduced largely. To achieve collective learning or working was really difficult even though each of them possesses distinguished skills and was notified about each goal of the company. 

But at Edinburgh, I once observed an educational round table meeting in the parliament of Scotland as a course requirement. To reach an agreement in policy, people discussed educational issues from different perspectives based on various researches. When I searched about educational department website, I was amazed by the details of each policy. Later on, through visiting history museums, I realized that there was a bloody history for Scotland people to fight for freedom and democracy. That might be the reason they cherish freedom and democracy so much no matter how British people would say they are so poor. 

Referring to collective efficacy, I'm thinking of what culture, value and goals could really bring people together and achieve collective learning. If we say successful experiences and high level of expertise could play their part very well in self-efficacy, then what factors could help a group of people achieve success and then develop collective efficacy? Especially, what kinds of goals would be efficient in collective efficacy and how to generate those goals?

Is this blog forum facilitating Collective Efficacy?

The two articles the Minimally Invasive Education research in India were very interesting. During the “hole in the wall” project, unsupervised and unguided children from low socioeconomic areas in India were presented with opportunities to acquire computer skills. Isn’t it interesting how children can learn independently, regardless of who or where they are, and without regard to socio-economic status? These children in India learned to operate a computer with the freedom to seek help from other children, lack of structured setting and with the absence of the aid of a school or teachers.  What a testament to children's ability to learn without structure or professional intervention. All children are naturally curious and (as we have been discussing this semester) will continue to pursue understanding if they feel they can succeed. I am curious how this research shows support for the increased implementation of technology into lower socioeconomic areas in the United States. Could technology (with lack of structured oversight) be an essential tool in increasing self-efficacy in these schools?  

After class, I was pondering the idea of teachers choosing to strike for better salaries. Many teachers may choose NOT to spend their time/resources participating in a strike because the risk of an improved salary does not outweigh the sacrifice of summer vacation. They simply do not have enough collective efficacy to strike, so they chose the vacation. What causes enough teachers to gather and sacrifice the vacation for the potential of a raise?  Is it relationships?  Is it professional pressure?  Is it being fed up with the status quo?  It seems to me that each teacher’s “breaking point” would vary, based on varying personal and professional experiences and motivations. 

Speaking of Collective Efficacy, how could this blog foster an increased Collective Efficacy of our class? In this online forum, students present their reflections, ideas, and questions to the group. How could we grow in our Collective Efficacy of Self-Efficacy in education through the online setting? What about our students… how should educators facilitate student engagement in the online setting to encourage collective efficacy?