Working with Groups ● 89introduce students of sociology to the relationship between theoretical concepts
and their real-life applicability.
The extent to which this relationship is taught in university sociology
programs is sometimes ambiguous. As an example, only two universities
in New Zealand offer any undergraduate courses in applied sociology: a
first-year course in general applied sociology (University of Waikato) and a
second-year course on small groups (Massey University). A notable recent
development has been the introduction of a student internship in a research
methods course for sociology students at the University of Otago (Tolich
2012). This course is discussed in detail in chapter 9, as an illustration of an
innovative way to prepare students for meeting expectations of employment
either in the government sector or in nongovernmental organizations. Any
one course can, however, only make a small contribution to addressing the
challenge of the “gigantic chasm between what they [students] had learned in
class and what they actually experienced on the job” (Finkelstein 2009, 99).
The teaching of a practical approach to community mindedness, though
rare in sociology courses, is commonplace in social work, human service, and
community development courses. Here, the essence of student learning is
developed around working with groups, organizations, and communities. As
an example, in 2013, the author cotaught a fourth-year social work course
titled “Communities and Organizations: Advanced Analysis and Practice.”
Building on a third-year course that provided a theoretical introduction to
communities and organizations, it gave students the opportunity to develop
tools and skills for real-world practice in group, community, and organizational
development. Students were expected to complete two group projects. The
first required each group to identify and interview an individual change
maker—that is, a person who works to make change in society—within a
community or an organization. Each student then individually analyzed the
steps the change maker took to achieve change and the impacts of those inter-
ventions. In addition, they explained the tasks undertaken by their group in
completing the interview project. The second project required the group of
students to work with the community or organization of the first project’s
change maker and develop a lobby or advocacy campaign to create public
awareness of an issue identified by the community or organization. Students
then individually analyzed the group project.
Students’ analyses of both projects demonstrated a high degree of experi-
ential learning. The first project required them to develop an understanding
of the nature of their own group’s stages and the dynamics of group work.
Although group work can generally be quite unpopular with students, stu-
dents in the course appreciated this aspect of the assessment, recognizing that
working with colleagues is a workplace reality. The second project, in which