Chapter 15 page 387
Figure 15.17 Norms for constructive controversies
- I am critical of ideas, not people.
- I remember that we are all in this together.
- I encourage everyone to participate.
- I listen to everyone’s ideas, even if I do not agree with them.
- I restate what someone has said if it is not clear.
- I try to understand both sides of the issue.
- I first bring out all the ideas, then I put them together.
This is an example of norms for participating in constructive controversies (K. Smith et al., 1981).
These norms are posted in the classroom.
Reducing Status Differences
As noted at the beginning of the chapter, a potential problem with cooperative groups is that groups
may exacerbate status differences. Students in classes can often agree on who the high- and low-status
students in the class are. Those who are believed to be high status students participate more in collaborative
groups than those who are thought to be low-status (Webb & Kenderski, 1984). As we discussed in
Chapter 4 (Social Development), high-status students tend to be more popular (Rosenholtz & Wilson,
1980). In addition, gender and racial prejudices factor into students’ status among their peers (S. Sharan &
Shachar, 1988).
Because high-status students dominate collaborative interactions (Dembo & McAuliffe, 1987), it is
imperative for teachers to take actions to reduce status effects. Two options have been validated by
research.
The multiple-ability treatment (Cohen, 1994b). With this treatment, teachers persuade students that
there are many cognitive abilities that are needed to complete the task, such as hypothesizing,
considering different points of view, creativity, problem solving, planning, writing, public
speaking, and so on. Then, the key to this treatment is the teacher’s clear and strong statement that
“None of us has all of these abilities; Each one of us has some of these abilities;” the teacher
goes on to explain why this is likely to be true (Cohen, 1994a, p. 128, italics in original). This idea
can also be prominently posted on a bulletin board in the class. Teachers should avoid the
implication that some students have cognitive abilities whereas others have noncognitive abilities
(artistic ability, motor skills) because students typically view skill with hands as a lower-status
skill than being good with their “heads” (Cohen, 1994a). Research has showed that a multiple-
ability treatment reduces status differences within groups although it does not eliminate them
(Cohen, Lotan, & Catanzarite, 1988; Rosenholtz, 1985).Assigning competence to low-status students (Cohen, 1994b). Using this second method of assigning
competence to low-status students in order to reduce status differences, teachers observe groups,
and when they notice a lower-status student making a good contribution, they publicly
acknowledge the contribution, describing specifically what the student has done well. (see Chapter