Status in Hovercraft groups
As I planed the Humanities side of our next 8th grade project, I couldn’t help but think about the theme’s implications for our own classroom. We were studying American “freedom fighters” in order to design hovercraft floats for an Election Day parade. Under the context of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” groups of four chose various civil rights movements throughout history to study and use as inspiration for their float.
There we were, learning about the fight for equality, yet I had seen inequality play out at various times in class. No one had been overtly rude or exclusive but I noticed boys dominating conversations and group work. I also saw Latino students, who make up about half of our classroom population, often sitting in silence when in groups with students of other races. As we got ready to launch the group work portion of the project, I wondered how I could facilitate equal participation from all members of a group. |
In the book Designing Groupwork (1994), Elizabeth Cohen explains how status plays out in many collaborative groupings. She has found that perceived academic ability, sex, social status, and race all play into who has the highest power or, status, in the group. The status ranking within the group correlates with who participates the most, who manipulates the materials given to complete the task, and whose ideas are most influential in group decisions. I watched this happen when a pair of boys attempted to research a topic on one computer. One of the boys who is white and of a higher reading and math level than the other boy, dominated the computer and did most, if not all of the work. The other boy, who is Latino, sat apart from his partner and chatted with another group. I attempted to get the boys back on track by seating them together with the computer in the middle but a few minutes later they were apart again with one student doing the work. I wonder if the Latino boy attempted to help and was excluded or if no attempt was made. I think reading ability was a factor and I wonder what would have happened if I suggested that one search and one record. At least then they would have both been working and learning about the topic.
Status treatments
Cohen recommends “status treatments” to counteract these examples of inequity in the classroom. As the pairs came together into groups of four, I planned to implement a status treatment in an attempt to allow equal access to the learning. The particular treatment is “assign competence to low-status students” and involves catching moments where low-status students try to give correct and helpful input but are ignored. The teacher should publically recognize the student’s contribution to the group, therefore raising the student’s perceived academic competency and status. My hope in implementing this status treatment was that all students within a group would participate, influence group decisions, use the materials given, and have an equal opportunity to learn.
Status treatments in-action
Most groups were completely focused on the work of making hovercrafts as I walked around the 8th grade commons. Two boys, however, were off by themselves, not with the other members of their group. Both boys struggle academically and are often off task. At first, I jumped to the conclusion that they were just playing around but as I walked over to check in with them, I noticed one boy making a sketch of a hovercraft theme idea. I asked him to explain his idea to me and he did so very clearly. I was surprised by this because I had just read a list of facts that he had written about his topic, the civil rights marches. His facts were unconnected and basic and when asked to explain “why” these marches happened, he struggled to write an explanation. After reading his papers, I assumed he didn’t know much about the marches. As we discussed his hovercraft sketch, however, he explained one march in great detail. He showed me that he had, in fact, learned about this historical event.
After listening to his sketch idea, I praised him and asked him if he had presented it to the rest of his group. He told me that he hadn’t and gave off the very clear impression that he did not want to go show them. With much encouragement, he finally relented and together with his partner, he approached the other half of his group. The two girls that made up the rest of his group were busy working on the building of the hovercraft. They stapled and duct taped the plastic skirt as they listened. In my opinion, the girls seemed to be barely focused on what he was saying and I could tell that he was nervous to explain his idea. I prompted him a few times to explain something further, more like he did when he explained it to me. The girls started to debate his idea and then I asked what their original idea was. It was similar in some ways but not nearly as thoughtful. To practice what Cohen states as assign competence to low-status students, I let the group know that the new idea was thoughtful and would demonstrate their theme more clearly to the audience than their first idea.
I noticed that after my comments, the girls paid more attention to the boy and his idea. I wonder, though, was it just because I was still standing there? Would my comments really raise the boy’s status in the group? If so, for how long? Would he feel more inclined to help with the building if his ideas were now incorporated?
After listening to his sketch idea, I praised him and asked him if he had presented it to the rest of his group. He told me that he hadn’t and gave off the very clear impression that he did not want to go show them. With much encouragement, he finally relented and together with his partner, he approached the other half of his group. The two girls that made up the rest of his group were busy working on the building of the hovercraft. They stapled and duct taped the plastic skirt as they listened. In my opinion, the girls seemed to be barely focused on what he was saying and I could tell that he was nervous to explain his idea. I prompted him a few times to explain something further, more like he did when he explained it to me. The girls started to debate his idea and then I asked what their original idea was. It was similar in some ways but not nearly as thoughtful. To practice what Cohen states as assign competence to low-status students, I let the group know that the new idea was thoughtful and would demonstrate their theme more clearly to the audience than their first idea.
I noticed that after my comments, the girls paid more attention to the boy and his idea. I wonder, though, was it just because I was still standing there? Would my comments really raise the boy’s status in the group? If so, for how long? Would he feel more inclined to help with the building if his ideas were now incorporated?
COLLEGIAL CONVERSATIONS AND AUTONOMYAs our week went on, I continued to watch this group. They worked separately for most of day two. The boys continued to draw and redraw the theme idea while the girls tested and fixed the hovercraft. I sensed a lot of tension between the two partnerships. When I asked how things were going, the girls shared their frustration about the boys not being involved but also made it clear that they didn’t need the boys to help. When taking to the boys, I got the feeling that they didn’t feel needed. I could tell they didn’t know how to step in and participate, even if they wanted to. I tried to encourage more groupwork so that tasks would get done faster but nothing changed. I discussed this problem with my co-teachers and we debated why this was happening. We talked about how the two boys are often off task and the girls tend to be controlling and bossy- an interesting combination in a group! One of my fellow teachers shared a story about his discussion with a member of a different group that day. They had discussed how to be an effective leader by guiding versus controlling the other members of the group. We decided to have a similar talk with this group.
|
Day three started out with a conversation. My co-teacher and I took the group aside to discuss their theme. We really wanted to talk about the group’s lack of collaboration but instead, ended up helping them have a productive conversation together. Instead of being divided again, the group brainstormed together. They problem solved their theme based on our questions and ended up working together more today than any other day.
I can’t honestly say that after these experiences the group continued to collaborate together well. The boys and girls continued to work separately but did come together at various times to “regroup.” I think helping the group realize how important it was to meet together was the most important learning that came out of this. The whole project was purposely unstructured. My co-teachers and I did not give specific times or directions for working together. We simply had groups choose a topic and then we set a deadline for finishing. I saw many instances of inequality in groups and I believe this is due to the lack of structure. When I discussed this with my fellow teachers, they explained that this was purposeful. They wanted their students to become more autonomous over their own learning process. The challenge that comes with this is how do you take students from structure to autonomy? Is there a middle ground? I dealt with this by scaffolding the autonomy.
I can’t honestly say that after these experiences the group continued to collaborate together well. The boys and girls continued to work separately but did come together at various times to “regroup.” I think helping the group realize how important it was to meet together was the most important learning that came out of this. The whole project was purposely unstructured. My co-teachers and I did not give specific times or directions for working together. We simply had groups choose a topic and then we set a deadline for finishing. I saw many instances of inequality in groups and I believe this is due to the lack of structure. When I discussed this with my fellow teachers, they explained that this was purposeful. They wanted their students to become more autonomous over their own learning process. The challenge that comes with this is how do you take students from structure to autonomy? Is there a middle ground? I dealt with this by scaffolding the autonomy.
As I walked around each day, I would ask various members of the group how things are going and what their next steps were. If I received very different answers from group members or if I sensed a conflict brewing, I would ask the group to sit and meet. I noticed that many groups were working separately on different parts of their hovercraft. This in itself isn’t a problem, but the group members were rarely communicating and often had completely different ideas for their float design. Most groups did not initiate any “group meetings” on their own. By guiding them to sit down together and problem solve or brainstorm next steps, I was giving groups a strategy to collaborate effectively without completely structuring their time for them. When I asked students later about a moment when their group worked together effectively, they often pointed to a whole group discussion or the moments right after a meeting when everyone had a task to do. I also saw members calling group meetings on their own as the week went by.
|
Reflection
My take away from this experience is that “status treatments” don’t necessarily have to be as prescribed as Cohen suggests. I think many of her ideas would work well but also, just being in touch with your students and how they are interacting together is the most important. I noticed the biggest change in equal participation when I called groups together and had them talk out how things were going. Without being asked to, they often dealt out tasks to each other during these meetings and self selected roles that they felt confident in. With just a bit of guidance, the students were actually conducting “status treatments” on their own.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom, 2nd edition. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.