- Student diversity
To a greater or lesser extent, however, the majority of non-white cultures and ethnic groups believe in something
closer to an interdependent self, or a belief that it is your relationships and responsibilities, and not uniqueness
and autonomy, that defines a person (Greenfield, 1994; Greenfield, et al., 2003). In these cultures, the most worthy
person is not the one who is unusual or who stands out in a crowd. Such a person might actually be regarded as
lonely or isolated. The worthy person is instead the one who gets along well with family and friends, and who meets
obligations to them reliably and skillfully. At some level, of course, we all value interpersonal skill and to this extent
think of ourselves as interdependent. The difference between individual and interdependent self is one of emphasis,
with many non-white cultures emphasizing interdependence significantly more than white middle-class society in
general and more than schools in particular.
There can be consequences of the difference in how the students respond to school. Here are some of the
possibilities—though keep in mind that there are also differences among students as individuals, whatever their
cultural background. I am talking about tendencies, not straightforward predictions.
- Preference for activities that are cooperative rather than competitive: Many activities in school are
competitive, even when teachers try to de-emphasize the competition. Once past the first year or second
year of school, students often become attentive to who receives the highest marks on an assignment, for
example, or who is the best athlete at various sports or whose contributions to class discussion the most
verbal recognition from the teacher (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). Suppose, in addition, that a teacher
deliberately organizes important activities or assignments competitively (as in “Let’s see who finishes the
math sheet first.”). Classroom life can then become explicitly competitive, and the competitive atmosphere
can interfere with cultivating supportive relationships among students or between students and the teacher
(Cohen, 2004). For students who give priority to these relationships, competition can seem confusing at
best and threatening at worst. What sort of sharing or helping with answers, the student may ask, is truly
legitimate? If the teacher answers this question more narrowly than does the student, then what the
student views as cooperative sharing may be seen by the teacher as laziness, “freeloading”, or even cheating. - Avoidance of standing out publicly: Even when we, as teachers, avoid obvious forms of competition, we
may still interact frequently with students one at a time while allowing or inviting many others to observe
the conversation. An especially common pattern for such conversations is sometimes called the IRE cycle,
an abbreviation for the teacher initiating, a student responding, and the teacher then evaluating the
response (Mehan, 1979). What is sometimes taken for granted is how often IRE cycles are witnessed
publicly, and how much the publicity can be stressful or embarrassing for students who do not value
standing out in a group but who do value belonging to the group. The embarrassment can be especially
acute if they feel unsure about whether they have correct knowledge or skill to display. To keep such
students from “clamming up” completely, therefore, teachers should consider limiting IRE cycles to times
when they are truly productive. IRE conversations may often work best when talking with a student
privately, or when confirming knowledge that the student is likely to be able to display competently already,
or when “choral” speaking (responding together in unison) is appropriate. - Interpersonal time versus clock time: In order to function, all schools rely on fairly precise units of time as
measured on clocks. Teachers typically allot a fixed number of minutes to one lesson or class, another fixed