The Dangers of Learned Helplessness: How Not to Teach Small Groups

Ineffective Small Group Instruction: Fostering Learned Helplessness and Codependency

Small group instruction can be an effective instructional approach to meet diverse student needs. However, poorly structured small groups may inadvertently promote learned helplessness and codependency amongst students. This article will analyze how dependence on the teacher, lack of accountability, no celebration of progress, and vague goals in small groups cultivate chronic helplessness. Subsequently, key principles of mastery learning and cooperative structures will be discussed to outline best practices for mitigating detrimental small group dynamics.

Teacher Dependence in Small Groups

When small groups are organized around teacher-centered support, students may develop dependence on the instructor. This phenomenon builds gradually as the teacher provides answers, offers frequent prompting, and completes tasks for passive students (Jackson, 2020). Gradually, students adopt a learned helplessness orientation in which they believe academic success lies primarily with teacher intervention rather than personal effort (Peterson & Barrett, 1987). Students relinquish autonomy and responsibility for learning to the teacher, waiting passively instead of developing solutions independently (Abramson et al., 1978).

Consequently, small groups structured around teacher dependence inadvertently promote learned helplessness and codependency. Students with learned helplessness have decreased motivation, lower academic self-concept, and reduced resilience in the face of challenge (Zhou, 2020). Codependency similarly manifests when students lack confidence, suppress questions, and rely completely on the teacher or other group members for guidance (Goodboy & Frisby, 2014). Therefore, dependence within small groups can cultivate disempowered, passive students.

Lack of Individual Accountability

When small group instruction occurs without accountability procedures, some students avoid meaningful participation. Social loafing tends to emerge in which certain group members reduce effort while relying on others to complete tasks (Latané, Williams, & Harking, 1979). Karau and Williams (1993) found that collective resources like collaboration reduced individual motivation levels. Similarly, free-riding occurs when a group member reaps the benefits of activity without contributing equitably (Hall & Buzwell, 2012).

Both social loafing and free-riding exemplify diminished personal responsibility, enabling some students to depend on the group while exerting minimal effort themselves. Consequently, a lack of accountability promotes the underlying learned helpless belief that outcomes stem from external factors rather than internal effort and strategy (Seligman, 1972). Students may relinquish autonomy when the group structure permits coasting without repercussions.

No Recognition of Progress

Mastery learning theory by Benjamin Bloom (1968) highlighted the importance of formative assessment and recognizing incremental progress towards broader learning goals. Frequent positive feedback fuels intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy essential for autonomous, self-regulated learning (Schunk, 2012). However, in small groups that lack acknowledgment of incremental gains, learned helplessness intensify. Students receive the implicit message that progress is irrelevant, an external force controls outcomes regardless of effort exerted, and ability rather than personal agency determines results (Dweck & Reppucci, 1973).

Consequently, small groups that focus solely on end products without celebrating progress can exacerbate beliefs of futility and codependency. Students become resigned to waiting for external assistance rather than harnessing their efforts strategically (Haeffel et al., 2003). Constructive feedback is critical for conveying progress and sustaining engagement.

Unclear Goals

Ambiguous goals constitute another small group challenge that enables learned helplessness. With no transparent objectives or pathway to monitor advancement, students flounder without mechanisms for self-correction (Saphier, Gower, & Haley-Speca, 2008). Frustration and uncertainty emerge when expectations lack clarity (Locke & Latham, 2013). Students resign themselves to reliance on the teacher or group members instead of regulating progress themselves.

Furthermore, fuzzy goals impede the possibility of celebrating smaller milestones essential for motivation and perceived control. Consequently, unclear endpoints promote perceptions of futility since desired outcomes remain undefined (Pintrich, 2000). Explicit goals, progress indicators, and benchmarks counteract ambiguity that feeds codependence.

Implementing Mastery Learning

The principles of mastery learning offer critical guidance to enhance small group instructional practices. Central to mastery learning is the belief that nearly all students can attain learning goals provided sufficient time and support (Guskey, 1997). Responsibility for learning shifts from an innate ability paradigm to one focused on effort, persistence, and using feedback productively (Dweck, 1986). Mastery goals also prioritize deep conceptual understanding rather than cursory performance (Ames, 1992).

Within small groups, mastery learning manifests through formative assessment, acknowledgment of incremental gains, and emphasis on self-improvement using concrete criteria for success (Anderson, 1975). Celebrating progress conveys the pivotal message that outcomes link directly to personal effort rather than external factors. Framing progress feedback against transparent learning objectives fuels intrinsic motivation and academic self-efficacy (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Mastery-oriented groups offer a scaffolded pathway where students tackle challenges through strategic collaborative effort. Accountability procedures like individual work products ensure both collective and personal responsibility. Ultimately, mastery frameworks counteract learned helplessness by positioning students as agents of learning.

Here are some Food for Thought discussion questions relating to the article's exploration of detrimental dependence versus autonomy-promoting practices in small group instruction:

Food for Thought

- In what ways might traditional ability-tracked small groups inadvertently promote learned helplessness orientations? How might reliance on the teacher or other students to provide answers diminish self-efficacy and motivation?

- What specific accountability procedures, like individual work products or participation rubrics, could enhance responsibility and mitigate social loafing or free rider effects in small groups?  

- How might lack of constructive feedback towards transparent learning goals contribute to a sense of futility and externalized control? In contrast, how can celebrating incremental progress fuel intrinsic motivation?

- How does the Montessori model encourage peer collaboration, student agency, leadership development, and autonomy? In what ways might multi-age classrooms cultivate positive interdependence rather than codependence?

- Beyond the ideas presented in this article, what other instructional strategies or frameworks could reduce problematic dependence while nurturing self-directed learning in small groups? What practices have you observed working well?

By reflecting on these issues, we can move towards small group models that empower students rather than inadvertently foster disheartening reliance on the teacher or peers. All students deserve autonomy-granting learning experiences building the very self-efficacy that propels meaningful educational engagement and progress.

Cooperative Learning Structures

Cooperative learning offers another research-based approach to foster positive interdependence and self-direction in small groups (Slavin, 1980). Five key components undergird cooperative models: positive interdependence, individual accountability, group processing, interpersonal dynamics, and face-to-face interaction (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). These elements mitigate the problematic group dynamics that breed learned helplessness.

Positive interdependence emerges through mutual goals, division of resources, complementary roles, and joint recognition driving collective responsibility (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Simultaneously, individual accountability ensures students complete their share by assigning specific tasks, observing participation, writing individual work products, and giving personal assessments (Kagan, 1985). Group processing includes reflecting on productivity and relationships to improve collaboration continuously. Hence, cooperative structures provide peer reliant rather than teacher dependent systems.

Ultimately, well-designed cooperative groups equip students with leadership, decision-making, communication, conflict management skills for self-directed learning (Gillies, 2003). Students offer peer models of success, scaffold understanding, provide constructive feedback to strengthen mastery orientation, and collectively celebrate incremental progress (Nelson Le-Gall, 1985). Cooperative frameworks foster precisely the autonomous, proactive dispositions that counter learned helplessness.

Montessori Classrooms: Peer Collaboration in Practice

The Montessori approach offers a compelling framework blending multi-age grouping and peer cooperation to minimize traditional teacher-centered dynamics that often manifest in small group instruction.  Mixed age classrooms contain a three-year age range so younger students can learn from older peers acting as role models and tutors (Lillard, 1996). Younger children gravitate to emulating older students demonstrating developmental milestones they are striving towards.   

Simultaneously, a core tenet of Montessori education is cultivating student independence and initiative early on rather than reliance on the teacher (Hiles, 2015). The instructor serves as an unobtrusive guide while children direct their own learning through choices provoking intrinsic motivation. Students cooperate to problem solve using critical thinking and exploration. This autonomy centered cooperative community fosters interdependence rather than codependence on the teacher (Edwards, 2003).

Hence, the Montessori model exemplifies peer cooperative learning in practice. Students of varying ages collaborate on lessons following their curiosity and developmental readiness levels. Natural differentiation emerges absent ability grouping. Students support each other’s self-construction of knowledge with the teacher circulating to provide individual or small group guidance as needed rather than whole class direction (Bhatia, 2009). 

By elevating peer interactions and student agency in the learning process, Montessori classrooms epitomize cooperation reducing dependence on teacher centered support often prevalent in small instructional groups. Peer models motivate students to expand self-reliance and mastery. Cooperative projects allow natural differentiation by interest and readiness, preventing the ability tracking that diminishes self-efficacy (Ansari & Winsler, 2014). This autonomy-focused approach with teachers as subtle guides provides a constructive framework to minimize destructive reliance and learned helplessness in small groups. The peer community spurs students towards meaningful collaboration, exploration, and incrementally achieving self-directed learning goals.

Conclusion

While small group instruction intends to provide differentiated support, poorly implemented groups may encourage learned helplessness and codependence instead. Dependence on the teacher, lack of individual accountability, no recognition of progress, and vague goals contribute to disempowering group dynamics. In contrast, mastery learning strategies and cooperative models reinforce students’ self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and belief in personal agency over outcomes. Celebrating progress, ensuring participation through individual work products, offering peer models of success, and collectively working towards transparent objectives breed empowerment. Well-structured small groups foster the very self-reliance that reverses learned helplessness while meeting diverse academic needs. With sound implementation, small group learning epitomizes differentiation done well rather than detrimentally.