lllllllllllllllllllllllll (DO 3 1293 01107943 1mm; - E- 3367 A T 1611‘ ‘ LIBRARY .> Michigan State This is to certify that the dissertation entitled - ' 5. . THE STUDY OF COMMUNITY IN AN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM presented by David A. Albert has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree m Admim‘ strain on and Curr1culum yfi/ Major professor Date September 1983 MSU 1': an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. ME DUE I DATE DUE MTE DUE ma W14 A STUDY OF COMMUNITY IN AN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM By David A. Albert A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 CDpyright by DAVID A. ALBERT 1983 ABSTRACT THE STUDY OF COMMUNITY IN AN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM By David A. Albert Emile Durkheim referred to elementary schools as the seedbed for germinating social morality and for transmitting society's culture. This study was designed to investigate the communal nature of the elementary, self-contained classroom. The research focused on (1) which activities, interactions, and sentiments supported community in the classroom; (2) what role the teacher played in the development and maintenance of classroom community; and (3) how the "community" altered or effected instruction. The methodology used was that of participant observation. The observer spent sixty-three days in a self-contained, first-grade classroom, which was located in a small, midwestern town. Data were gathered using direct observations, formal and informal interviews, key-informant interviews, tape recordings, surveys, and sociometric samplings. The central findings indicate that there existed a complex, cohesive classroom social structure based upon mutual exchange and mutual obligation. Through this interdependent social structure, David A. Albert the student community exerted a powerful influence on the management of instruction. The "community" could be highly supportive or devastatingly negative dependent upon how closely the teacher-leader approximated the external and internal task expectations of the classroom community. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the following persons for their important contributions to this study: Dr. Philip A. Cusick, chairman, for his expertise as a field researcher and for his advice and patience throughout all phases of this study. Dr. Sheila Fitzgerald for her biweekly reading and critiquing of the field research data. Drs. Winston Oberg and Frederick Ignatovich for their invalu- able ideas and suggestions during the initial phases of this study. Drs. Louise Sause and Alexander Kloster for their personal compassion and moral support. Finally, to my wife and son, who gave me the love, encourage- ment, and support necessary to successfully complete this field research project. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ......................... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ....................... vii Chapter l. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................ l Introduction ..................... 1 Purpose ........................ 4 Conceptual Framework ................. 5 Model of Community ................. 9 Significance of the Study ............... 2l Methodology ...................... 22 Setting ........................ 26 Definition of Terms .................. 28 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ 29 Introduction ..................... 29 The Literature on the Small, Moral Community ..... 30 Summary ....................... 35 Literature on the Classroom as a Small Society . . . . 36 Summary ....................... 45 Literature on Social Interaction in the Classroom . . . 46 Review of the Literature Summary ........... 54 Significance ..................... 55 3. METHODOLOGY ....................... 57 Introduction ..................... 57 Participant Observation ................ 58 Theoretical Sampling ................. 62 Entrance Into the Classroom .............. 63 Data Gathering .................... 68 Model of Community Interactional Coding System (MOCICS) ..................... 69 Key-Informant Interviews .............. 79 Structured Interviews ................ 79 Student Interview .................. 80 Staff Interview ................... 80 Teacher Interview .................. Historical Records ................. Summary of Methodology ................ 4. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ................ Introduction ..................... The City ...................... The School ..................... The Classroom .................... The Students .................... The Teacher ..................... The Student Teachers ................ The Substitute Teachers ............... The Mother Helpers ................. The Staff ...................... The School Routines ................. The First Guide Question ............... Classroom Communal Activities ............ Classroom Communal Interactions ........... Classroom Communal Sentiments ............ The Second Guide Question ............... Establishing a Structured Democracy ......... Focus on Group Success ............... Promoting Positive Group Social-Emotional Tone Summary of the Community Role of the Teacher . . The Third Guide Question ............... Cooperative Activities ............... Diverse Structure .................. Normative Boundary ................. Group Cohesiveness ................. The Fourth Guide Question ............... Student Pull .................... Success and Failure as Indicants .......... Model of the "Ideal" Community Member ........ Collapse to Normlessness .............. Support Community Leadership ............ 5. CONCLUSIONS ....................... Summary of the Results ................ The Existence of Classroom Community ........ The Teacher as the Critical Link .......... The Community Had a Dramatic Effect on Instruction Implications ..................... School Organization ................. Administrators ................... iv Page 81 82 82 114 114 118 122 127 128 128 135 143 155 164 166 167 168 172 183 APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY Instructional Programs ............... 200 Teacher ....................... 201 University Teacher-Preparation Programs ....... 203 Implications for Future Research .......... 204 ........................... 206 .......................... 236 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Model of Community .................... l9 2. Hennings' Model of Communication ............. 70 3. Daily Classroom Schedule ................. 90 4. New Seating Arrangement ................. 99 vi Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Page INTERACTIONAL CODING SYSTEM (MOCICS) SAMPLE HALF- DAY FIELD NOTES .................... 207 THE CLASSROOM ...................... 213 THE SCHOOL ....................... 215 THE OUTSIDE AREA .................... 217 TABLE OF PEER INTERACTION ................ 219 SOCIOGRAMS I AND II ................... 221 STUDENT COMPLIANCE INDEX ................ 223 STUDENT ABILITY INDEX .................. 225 SUBSTITUTE INTERACTION DIAGRAM ............. 227 STUDENT INTERVIEW .................... 229 vii CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction A theoretical distinction is often made between socialization and formal education. Socialization is the symbolic and interac- tional process involved in the transmission of general skills and abilities. Formal education is the transmission of specialized skills, logical operations, and abstract systems. According to Hugh Mehan, "This theoretical distinction collapses in modern American schools, for socialization as well as education occurs in the class- room."1 Classrooms are academic centers for giving and receiving of instruction, and they also supplement the work of other socializing agencies in preparing persons for roles in society. "The school is more than a place for the giving and receiving of instruction. It is also a sorting agency, aiding in the sorting, filtering and accrediting of social selves."2 Emile Durkheim presents a much stronger view of the school role in socialization: "Education is above all a social means to 1Hugh Mehan, Learning Lessons: Social Organizations in the Classroom (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979), p. 126. 2Norman K. Denzin, Childhood Socialization (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977), p. 197. a social end . . . the means by which society guarantees its own sur- vival. The teacher is society's agent, the critical link in cultural transmission. It is his task to create a social, a moral being."3 Moral instruction and socialization in the schools has been referred to as the hidden curriculum. Some writers (Jackson, 1968; Dreeban, 1968) argue that the schools perform hidden services in adapting the children to society.4 Parsons noted three similar socialization responsibilities of the teacher: emancipating children from their primary attachment to the family, motivating and training children for beneficial roles in society, and encouraging conformance to expectations of others as a technique of social control.5 According to Durkheim the elementary school is the seedbed for germinating social morality. The elementary school possesses everything necessary to awaken feelings of solidarity, group life, and group living. The habit of common life in the class, of identification with it, with the school, and with the nation, provides the elemen- tary basis for morality. The elementary classroom provides many favorable opportunities for the development of group commitment, for sensitizing the individual to the obligations of group membership.6 3Emile Durkheim, Moral Education, trans. Everette K. Wilson and Herman Schnurer (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1961), pp. xiii- xiv. 4Philip N. Jackson, Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968); Robert Dreeban, On What Is Learned jfl_§§h991_(Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968). 5Talcott Parsons, "The School as a Social System," Harvard Educational Review 29 (Fall 1959): 297—318. 6Durkheim, Moral Education, op. cit., p. xxiv. Vital to the purposes of this study is the premise that social learning and social interaction are the essence of education while traditional subject matter becomes an ingredient. Dewey argued that if children were to live democratically they would have to experi- ence the process of learning rather than merely the content. Life in the classroom would be society's democratic process in microcosm. Students would learn to make choices, carry out projects collabo- ratively, and relate to people around them.7 The elementary classroom is a work group. It is established to meet and achieve academic and social learning goals. The class- room group is different from other work groups in that "there is mandatory membership; it is organized to produce changes in the mem- bers; and the members themselves, not only create the product, they are the product."8 There is a closeness and intimacy in elementary classrooms that is seldom seen elsewhere in our society. The class- room group is more than a collection of individuals. To a greater or lesser extent it becomes a small, social community. Durkheim referred to the class as a small society. "It is therefore natural and necessary that it have its own morality corres- ponding to its size, the character of its elements and its function . the task of moral education devolves upon the school."9 7G. Dykhuizen, The Life and Work of John Dewey (Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois Press, 1973). 8Mary A. Bany and Lois V. Johnson, Classroom Group Behavior (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 46. 9Emile Durkheim, "Moral Education," excerpt from Sarane Spence Boocock, An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1972), p. 123. Teachers in self-contained elementary classrooms have a golden oppor- tunity to promote moral reasoning and academic learning. It is impor- tant that the teacher maintain adequate communication, compliance, and cooperation from the group for effective and efficient management of instruction. "In some cases, the development of such a group feeling must precede as well as accompany the usual school curriculum. With- out it, little or nothing can be accomplished."10 The classroom contains the ingredients of society. It is a system of interlocking and interdependent roles. The reality of the elementary self-contained classroom is that it is a small, social community. It is the aim of this research to use the concept of com- munity to look at and learn more about the operation and maintenance of the classroom community. Further, it is the aim of this research to use the concept of community to observe, analyze, and discuss how "community" alters or effects instruction and the management of instruction. Purpose The purpose of this study is (1) to use the Model of Commu- nity to describe the development and maintenance of community within an elementary classroom and (2) to explain the effect of that entity on instruction and the management of instruction. The research is guided by a number of exploratory questions: 1. Which classroom activities, sentiments, and interactions support the classroom community? 10Mary A. Bany and Lois V. Johnson, Educational Social Psychology_(New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1975), p. 3. 2. What role does the classroom teacher play in the development and maintenance of classroom community? 3. How do the individual components of community effect instruction and the management of instruction? 4. How does the "community" alter or effect instructional outcomes? Conceptual Framework Sociologists from the early 19th century to the present day have struggled with definitions and clarification of the term "com- munity." Hillery studied 16 community concepts which formulated 94 different definitions.H Each definition was different. Hillery determined that there were three major themes which dominate the study of community. First, community is viewed as a quality. This refers to a group of people having something in common, whether it be goods, rights, or character. Second, community may concern a body of people or social system. Third, community may be associated with either of the first two meanings in combination with people in a common land or territory. The concept of community used in this study is drawn from the theory of community as a primary group with the qualitative and territorial characteristics of a small, moral com- munity. For the purpose of this study the usage of the term "community" is based on the relational rather than territorial community concept. Relational, in that it points to the quality and character of human relationships as a central theme and the idea of place and boundary nGeorge Hillery, Jr., "Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement," Rural Sociology_20 (1955). as a secondary premise. Nisbet defined community as small in scale but solid in structure with the grass roots of the community encom- passing: living together, working together, experiencing together, being together.]2 Minar and Greer viewed the community as a moral phenomenon of identity with one's group and a feeling of wholeness 13 In short, the term "community," as a moral con- and involvement. ception, has been referred to as a condition in which human beings find themselves "enmeshed in a tight-knit web of meaningful relation— ships with their fellow human beings."14 The common thread running through most of the literature on "15 The moral concept the moral community is the sense of "we-ness. of community is derived from primary group theory first introduced to social science by Cooley in 1909.16 Cooley defined primary groups as characterized by intimate, face-to-face association and coopera- tion. In his view, the result of the intimate association is fusion into a "common whole." The term "we" became a natural expression to describe this feeling of wholeness. Although the term "primary group originated with Cooley, primary groups were given attention in 19th 12Robert A. Nisbet, The Sociological Tradition (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), pp. 47-55. 13David W. Minar and Scott Greer, eds., The Concept of Commu- nity (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969), p. 140. 14Dennis E. Poplin, Communities (New York: Macmillan Company, 1972), p. 7. 15Dexter C. Dunphy, The Primary Group (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1972), pp. 6-19. 16Charles H. Cooley, "Primary Groups," in Small Groups, ed. A. Paul Hare (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967)} pp. 6-19. century research and thinking. If there is a founding father of the theory of community, perhaps it is Ferdinand T6ennies. In his Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) he provides a core source of ideas concerning community and society. Of special interest is TDennies' prototype of the Gemeinschaft, or small community, char- acterized by basic, face-to-face relationships and a common life based on mutual understanding and emotional cohesion. "All intimate, private, and exclusive living together is understood as Gemeinschaft."17 Max Weber was influenced by the writings of T6ennies and used similar terms to differentiate communal, traditional society (Vergemein- schaftung) from the rationally motivated society (Vergesellschaftung). Weber's communal concept involved a “common feeling“ about a common situation and its consequences, a "feeling of belonging together,” and a mutual relationship within the group-~be it military unit, school class, workshop, or office.18 The following characteristics appear to surface throughout the studies of the small, moral community: face-to-face interactions, sympathy and identification with peers, differentiated status for members, and a sense of belonging. The sense of the small, moral community seems best characterized by the community attributes presented by Baker Brownell in his study of The 17Ferdinand TDennies, "Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft," in Theories of Society, ed. Talcott Parsons et al. (New York: Free Press, 1961), pp. 191-201. 18Max Weber, "Types of Social Organizations," in Theories of Societ , ed. Talcott Parsons et al. (New York: Free Press, 1961), pp. 218-29. Human Community.19 These attributes are interdependent and consist of the following: Intimacy...primary, face-to-face, neighboring relationships; Diversit ...different skills and functions of members in mutual service to one another; gooperation...inclusiveness in which many of the main activities of the group are carried on together; spligarjty,..a sense of belonging, cohesiveness, identity and fellowship of members; Smallness...a limited territory, a small group, such as the family, in which each person can know others as whole persons and not fragments. For the purposes of this study, Baker Brownell's small commu- nity attributes will be merged with the classroom social group char- acteristics as presented by Bany and Johnson.20 The classroom social group indicants are as follows: Goals...a condition or state that leads to the termination of motivated behavior; Structure...a network of varied roles, statuses, and recip- rocal expectations; Norms...a behavioral rule that is accepted, at least to some degree, by the members of the group; Cohesiveness...the tendency of the group members to stick together and be in accord. Interaction...relationship between two or more persons in which the actions of each person affect the action of other persons. 19Baker Brownell, The Human Community (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 195-210. 20Bany and Johnson, Educational Social Psychology, op. cit., pp. 60-100. The combining of Brownell's attributes of small community with Bany and Johnson's characteristics of a classroom social group formulates the research Model of Community major attributes. The combining of these two sets of attributes satisfies the concept of community as a primary social group with the qualitative and terri- torial characteristics of a small, moral community. The merger of these community and social group characteris- tics forms the following elements of classroom community: Cooperative Activity, Diverse Structure, Normative Boundary, and Cohesiveness. Model of Community The Model of Community serves two purposes. One, it is a visible construction of the investigator's concept of classroom commu- nity. Two, it provides a screening and filtering mechanism which enables coding and categorization of communal activities, interactions, and sentiments observed in the classroom setting. Each of the community characteristics (cooperative activity, diverse structure, normative boundary, and cohesiveness) serves as a mutually interdependentattribute. The process of interaction is the means through which the community characteristics became observable. The process of interaction will refer to the verbal and nonverbal communication among individuals. Sanders proposed that "community, 21 like a group, is essentially a system of social interaction." Similarly, Gusfield referred to community as an arena of situated 2IIrwin Sanders, Community (New York: Ronald Press, 1958), p. 120. 10 action. "The difficulty lies in thinking of communities as fixed social groups rather than processes; in conceiving of institutions as clusters of values and normative procedures rather than arenas in which people are interacting to achieve a purpose."22 It is through social interaction that member-to-member relationships emerge and take form. Goffman refers to interaction as: . the modification of behavior that occurs when two or more persons come in contact for a period of time. It is the influence of one another through the use of language, symbols, gestures and other forms of verbal and nonverbal communication. In the following pages, each of the major attributes of the Model of Community will be presented and discussed in fuller detail. Although face-to-face interaction is an essential property of any social group, for the purposes of this study it is an assumed "given." It is through the process of social interaction that the characteris- tics emerge and are observable. Model of Community: Characteristics. The first community characteristic discussed is Cooperative Activity. There are three types of interpersonal goal structures that can be implemented in a task situation such as the classroom and are listed as follows: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic.24 22Joseph R. Gusfield, Community: A Critical Response (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1975), p. 44. 23Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Chicago: Aldine Pub- lishing Company, 1967), p. 5. 24Morton A. Deutsch, "A Theory of Cooperation and Competition,” Human Relations 2 (1952): 129-52; David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1975). 11 Cooperative...refers to situations in which individuals' goal achievements are positively correlated: when one person achieves his/her goal all others with whom he or she is cooperatively linked achieve their goals. Deutsch referred to this as group-centeredness or a we-feeling. Competitive...refers to situations in which an individual's goal achievements are negatively correlated: when one person achieves his or her goal all others with whom he or she is competitively linked fail to achieve their goals. Individualistic...refers to a situation in which an indi- vidual's goal achievements are independent: the goal achieve- ment of one person is unrelated to the goal achievement of others. Deutsch referred to this as self-centeredness or an I-feeling. N939} These categories were used as extreme types from which the researcher was able to code and classify member activity as individualistic, cooperative, or competitive. To properly code the behavior of the individual students, the researcher first classified the activity according to Deutsch's broad function groupings. An action was related to a task function, group function, or individual function. Once the action was sorted into these major categories, then the researcher coded the behavior as individualistic, competitive, or cooperative. This format enabled the researcher to code the situation and the observed behavior. The next Community Model property to be discussed is Diverse Structure. Structure refers to the network of varied roles, statuses, and reciprocal expectations.25 The titular head of the classroom group is the task leader, the teacher. For the purposes of this study, the leader will be defined as the individual who performs actions that assist the group 25Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 234. 12 to achieve its goal.26 Because the class is defined as a work group, teacher authority is mainly ascribed, not achieved. Two structures, formal and informal, operate within the con- text of most organized groups. The formal structure develops from the need to satisfy organizational demands. The informal structure develops from the need to satisfy interpersonal friendship needs. The formal structure relies on the ability to satisfy task demands set by the teacher. Thelen viewed the classroom as a formal struc- ture because: 1. the member roles within the group are largely deter- mined by the teacher, whose authority and position of leadership are conferred by the community and school organization, and 2. the teacher as the norm-enforcing agent approves and disapproves behavioral conformity in the classroom. Homans referred to the formal and informal structures as external and internal systems which operate within a social group.28 The external system consists of behavior that helps the group survive in the work environment. The internal system consists of behavior that helps the group survive within the boundaries established by the group membership. Homans uses as his units of analysis for the study of systems: activity, sentiment, interaction, and norms. 26Bany and Johnson, Educational Social Psychology, op. cit., pp. 154-55. 27Jacob H. Getzels and Herbert A. Thelen, "The Classroom as a Unique Social System," in The Dynamics of Instructional Gropps, ed. Nelson 8. Henry (Chicago: University Press,’l960), p. 35. 28George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1950), pp.'82-130. 13 Sherif and Sherif note that a group develops a system of interpersonal expectations which help to define the status and role of the group members.29 Status implies certain rights, duties, privi- leges, and even power. Status refers to a member's position or rank in the informal group. Roles in the group refer to "patterns of reciprocal behavior and associated expectations between two or more individuals that are characteristic and recurrent in interaction of consequence to them."30 The formal structure depends on the support of the teacher and the highly able and compliant student leaders. The informal structure depends on the interpersonal liking and peer sanctioning of interpersonal behaviors. The student leadership in the formal struc- ture is directed toward task accomplishment. The informal student leadership is directed toward friendship and belonging. The next Model of Community property is Normative Boundany. Norms are evaluative scales designating acceptable and unacceptable attitudes and behaviors. Norms provide a means of social control within certain prescribed limits. The norms of a classroom group represent standard expectations related to the behavior that is nor- mally expected in matters important to the group. Bany and Johnson present four dimensions of norms. These four dimensions were incor- porated into the Model of Community as follows: 29Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, Social Psychology (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969), ppTTl39-42. 30Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, Human Interaction in the Small Group Settin (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1973), p. 5; Robert J. Havighurst, Society and Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975), pp. 115-22? 14 l. The ggalitative dimension specifies the amount or degree of behavior expected and the times and places where cer- tain behavior is appropriate. 2. The evaluative dimension refers to ideal behavior or desired conduct. 3. The intensityydimension refers to the relative importance of the behavior to the group. 4. The range of toleration dimension refers to the amount and range of approval and disapproval allowed for a specific behavior.3 The researcher codes the behavior according to these four dimensions. The behavior is classified according to (1) whether it was appropriate or inappropriate in time, place, and circumstance; (2) whether it was viewed by the participants as behavior that is valued by the group; (3) whether the behavior is serious and impor- tant to the group; and (4) whether the behavior stretched beyond the acceptable limits set by the group membership. The next attribute of the Model of Community to be discussed is Group Cohesiveness. Cohesiveness is a "we-ness" and is defined in terms of a feeling of belonging and membership among the students. Cohesiveness is the tendency to "stick together and be in accord."32 Bany and Johnson list four subfactors of cohesiveness: Solidarity refers to complete unity and agreement as to purpose, interest, and feeling. 3IBany and Johnson, Educational Social Psychology, op. cit., pp. 60-100; Mustafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, Reference Groups (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964). 32D. B. Guraknik, ed., Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (Cleveland, Ohio: William Collins World Publish- ing Company, 1974). 15 Satisfaction is a liking and support by the members for the group as a whole. It enables the members to work harmoniously and cooperate with one another. Attractiveness of the group is perpetuated feelings that the group is "good" and provides the members with security and satisfaction. Affiliation is the sense of belonging by the members of the group. The group must have attractiveness and must provide a level of satisfaction to spur the desire to belong.33 In order to function effectively, a group has to cohere, "hang together," and generate a we-feeling among its members. Group cohesion is determined in a number of ways: (1) whether the group members attend, (2) whether members arrive on time, (3) whether the group members like one another, and (4) whether the group members work effectively with each other. Bany and Johnson summarize, "Group cohesion is determined by the assessment of group members of the 34 desirable and undesirable consequences of group membership." "Localness". The major community attributes form the initial screening and sorting categories. This forms the vertical dimension of the Model of Community. This dimension codes events and actions which appear related to the four communal characteristics. Yet, the mere fact that an event takes place within a given locality might or might ppt_have direct bearing on community life.35 33 pp. 71-77. 34David W. Johnson and Frank P. Johnson, Joining Together, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), p. 372. 35Harold F. Kaufman, "Toward an Interactional Conception of Community," Social Forces 38 (1959): 9. Bany and Johnson, Educational Social Psychology, op. cit., 16 Kaufman furthers this point: . . . In search for a more precise definition of community there is not only the question of differentiating localities as to their size and complexity, but within any given locality there is the problem of distinguishing communigy phenomena from those which might be considered noncommunity.3 Sutton and Kolaja indicate that it is difficult to sharply distinguish between events and activities that are part of the universe of commu- nity actions and those that are not. They maintain that the observer should study communal activities and actions in terms of the degree of "localness" that they possess.37 The components to "localness" are: l. the degree to which the event or activity is locality related; 2. the degree to which the persons who are involved in or influenced by the event or activity are identified with the locality; 3. the extent to which local people participate in the activity. These "localness" variables satisfy the concept of community as a limited territory. Brownell termed it "smallness," in which each person can get to know others as whole persons and not frag- ments.39 Redfield described the concept of the "little community" 36Ibid., p. 10. 37Willis A. Sutton, Jr., and Jiri Kolaja, "The Concept of Community," Rural Sociology 25 (June 1960): 197-203. 38 Ibid., p. 200. 39Brownell, The Human Community, op. cit., p. 195. 17 as distinguished from those others that are "out there" through the measure of "distance and difference."40 The "localness" variables pose three questions concerning the gathering of field data for this study: (1) Is the activity derived from and relevant to the classroom group? (2) Are the participants involved in the event or activity mostly classroom members? and (3) What percentage of the classroom group is involved in the event or activity? The three components of "localness" form another dimension of Model of Community and are abbreviated as Activity and Event Locality, Actor Relatedness to Locality, and Member Participation. The observer used these three elements to determine the degree of community involve- ment an activity or event possessed. Typology of action. The third dimension of the Model of Community is used to designate the type of action an observed event or activity displays. Poplin enlists three types of community action. These are listed in a random—to-stable continuum: Spontaneous, Emergent, and Routinized.4] Spontaneous Community Action refers to unanticipated events or activities of an impulSTVe, unconstrained nature. Emergent Community Action refers to initiation of change through orderly group processes with specific problem solving as a pur- pose or temporary goal. It is characterized by voluntary par- ticipation and a democratic orientation. 40Robert Redfield, The Little Community (Chicago: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 113. 4lDennis E. PDplin, Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research (New York: Macmillan Company, 1972), pp. 184-93. 18 Routinized Community Action refers to any event or activity that is a normal, recurrent part of community life. The three typologies of action enable the researcher to classify an activity or event on a continuum from spontaneous, random action to routine, recurrent action. This dimension of the Model of Commu- nity is necessary to sort out those classroom actions that are one- time occurrences from those actions that are recurrent and significant indicators of community. Summary of the Model of Community. The Model of Community is a graphic display of the concept of the classroom community. The concept of community is drawn from the theory of the community as a primary social group with the qualitative and territorial charac- teristics of a small, moral community. The Model of Community (see Figure l, p. 19) is three dimensional. The major attributes of com- munity were drawn from a combination of Bany and Johnson's classroom social group properties and Baker Brownell's community characteris- tics. The combination of these two sources results in the following community attributes: (l) Cooperative Activities, (2) Diverse Struc- ture, (3) Normative Boundary, and (4) Group Cohesiveness. The Model of Community attributes represent the qualitative characteristics of community and are listed in the vertical dimension of the Model of Community, Figure l. The "localness" dimension repre- sents the territorial aspect of this model and is listed in the depth dimension. The typology of action dimension helps the observer record the action on a random-to-routine continuum. Each of the three dimensions of the model is designed to aid the researcher in 19 sorting and filtering actions and events which are related to commu- nity in the classroom. The Model of Community attributes (vertical dimension) include: Cooperative Activities, Diverse Structure, Nor- mative Boundary, and Group Cohesiveness.‘ The Model of Community "localness" (horizontal dimension) includes: Spontaneous Action, Emergent Action, and Routinized Action. The Model of Community typology of action (depth dimension) includes: Event Locality, Actor Relatedness, and Participation. ,/” ,//;;E::fi.//’ CHARACTERISTICS ,//’ \\\ \\\ \ Cooperative Activities ) LOCA LNESS Diverse Structure L/,/ "““"“ . Participation Normat1ve Boundar . y "‘ Y/Amtor Relatedness Group CoheSTveness Event Locality 5:55 Z7~J3 Vé’u ,r .53.? 03A; 5,55 3? 1s #3 o ‘“ .3 u? q? TYPOLOGY OF ACTION Figure l.--Model of Community. 20 The diagram of the Model of Community is an aid to the inves- tigator in the collection, categorization, sorting, and filtering of the observed classroom behavior, activities, sentiments, and interactions. The diagram is designed to indicate the degree of com- munity that an event or activity displays. The more an activity or event is routinized, is inclusive of the community attributes, and is limited to "localness," the more that activity or event becomes an indicator of community. The activities and events that display high degrees of community are charted to the far right of the Model of Community. Weak displays of community tend to locate to the far left of the Model of Community. The Model of Community is the matrix through which the researcher gathered, selected, and examined information to describe the classroom community. The model serves as a visible construction of the concept of community and serves as a screening and filtering diagram for interactional observations. The Model of Community is a necessary tool for the observer to use in dissecting information that is related to community from extraneous information that has no rela- tion to community. The Model of Community kept the researcher focused on community and kept the research centered within specific boundaries. The diagram of community (page 19) was copied and used during each session of direct observation to code and categorize the thousands of verbal and nonverbal behaviors. 21 Significance of the Study The Model of Community enabled the observer to enter into the unique world of the classroom society. The conception of the classroom as a moral community enables the researcher to investigate the complex of ideas and sentiments, of ways that children see and feel, and the moral framework that is distinctive of the entire group. Durkheim saw society as a consciousness of the whole and urged edu- cators to give careful attention to their role in nurturing this col- lective consciousness. Common ideas, common feeling, common responsibilities-~we have enough here to nurture the collective life of the class . to achieve this tonic effect on the child, the class must really share in the collective life . .phrases such as "the class," "the Spirit of the class," and the "honor of the class" must become someEhing more than abstract expressions in the student's mind. The teacher becomes the central figure in the moral and social development of the elementary school Child. Each individual does not come to school with fully developed social and moral pre- cepts on some schematic chart. Durkheim believed that morality was socially bound: "Such [moral] precepts do not emerge except through relationships of associated individuals, as they translate and reflect the life of the group or groups."43 This study takes the position that the school is the key transmitter of our culture. The teacher is society's agent and is 44 the "critical link" in the socialization process of the child. If 42Durkheim, Moral Education, 0p. cit., p. 241. 43111111., p. 86. 44Ibid., p. xii. 22 we view the primary functions of education as a duality of instruction and socialization, then it becomes a central concern for educators to have a way to look at and understand the classroom community and its effect on the total learning process. A number of potentially Significant outcomes may arise from this study: First, by presenting the Model of Community and the Interac- tional Coding System developed in conjunction with it, the researcher hopes to provide a structured mechanism by which educators and researchers might observe and analyze community in the classroom. Second, it is hoped that the data gathered might offer insight into the internal structure of classroom life and its effect on instruction and the management of instruction. Third, it is hoped that this study will be of aid to teacher educators in helping the beginning teacher become more aware of the complexities of classroom life. Fourth, it is hoped that the data gathered will be of use for teachers and administrators in design of inservice curriculum for the effective and efficient management of instruction. Methodology The Specific methodology employed in this study is that of participant observation. Participant observation is often associated with the school of symbolic interaction. In participant observation the researcher makes a commitment to adopt the perspective of those studied by sharing their day-to-day experiences. Participant 23 observation is a field research technique that necessitates long-term, continual observation of a given population or research site. A central assumption of this methodology is that the researcher shares in the life and activities of those under study. To catch the process, the student must take the role of the V acting unit whose behavior he is studying. Since the inter- pretation is being made by the acting unit . . . the process has to be seen from the standpoint of the acting unit.45 The participant observer watches the people he is studying to see what situations they meet and how they define, react, and behave. The primary concern of this study is on the process of social interaction as it relates to the maintenance and development of a sense of community in the classroom. Participant observation enables the researcher to (1) get close to the action; (2) see, hear, and record member actions and reactions; and (3) gather data otherwise unavailable from a distance. The investigator followed the format of observation as proposed by Geer: A participant observer is at once a reporter, interviewer and scientist. On the scene he gets the story about an event, questioning participants about what is happening and why. He fills out the story by asking people about their relation to an event, their reactions, their opinions and its significance. As an interviewer, he encourages the informant to tell his story. . . . As a scientist, he seeks answers to questions by settip up hypotheses and collecting data with which to answer them. 45Bernard N. Blumer, "Society as Symbolic Interaction," in Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psycholggx, ed. Jerome G. Manis and Bernard M. Meltzer (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1976). 46Blanche Geer, "First Days in the Field," in Sociologists at Work, ed. Phillip E. Hammond (Garden City, N.Y.: DDGbleday and Company, Inc., 1964), p. 383. 24 In order for the researcher to catch the process of inter- pretation, encountering of situations, and construction of classroom reality, it was necessary to place himself in the classroom environ- ment. The researcher took a limited role in class activities and observed the students from as many vantage points as possible. In order to accomplish this, the researcher took the role of observer- as-participant. The role of observer—as-participant stresses openness and makes the observer activity publicly known in detail at the onset of the research. Investigative goals and activities are stressed rather than played down, and the researcher spends a major part of his time in the role of social scientist. Thus, the participant aspects of the role become subordinated to the observer aspects. Research activities are consistently open. The status as social scien- tist is explicitly maintained throughout the study. For the most part, the role adopted in this classroom research was that of an unobtrusive, nonparticipating observer.47 At times the researcher took on this role in order to gain rapport and get closer to the situation, action, or activity under study. Moving into this role allowed the investigator the flexi- bility to verify and clarify data gathered through initial observa- tion. This secondary role of participant enabled the researcher to respond personally to class members and yet maintain the objectivity needed for effective analysis. 47George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons, eds., Issues in Par- ticipant Observation (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 30-39. 25 The researcher followed Sherif and Sherif's five basic sug- gestions for field researcher rapport and acceptance: 1. Insure by word and deed that the group members are aware of his lack of authority in situations together. 2. Appear in word and deed as . . . [one] who is interested in them, wishes them well, and may be helpful on occasion. 3. Avoid any signs of dislike or disapproval of any member, on the one hand, and favoritism on the other. 4. Avoid suggesting or initiating activities for the group unless such activities are deliberately planned as part of the research design. 5. Be helpful in activities initiated by group members without display of skills that put the observer in rivalry situa- tions with group members.4 The researcher conducted interviews with students, teachers, and key informants. This format of interview was used because the investigator could not observe everything that happened or always make sense out of what was observed. Key informants sometimes expanded the information and helped the researcher better interpret an event or activity. Respondent interview, in which the interviewer requests information directly concerning the interviewee, was another technique employed to derive fuller explanation of observed data. The researcher took written notes of student and teacher actions, verbal and nonverbal interaction, and teacher and student displays of sentiment and emotion. At certain times the researcher used a tape recorder and stopwatch to monitor group activity and interaction. Field notes were quickly jotted down on small note pads. These notes and remembrances were expanded that same evening and typed into a research log. 48Sherif and Sherif, Reference Groups, op. cit. 26 The investigator observed this first-grade classroom for 63 class days during the final third of the school year from March to June. The researcher was introduced to the classroom of first graders as "a person who wishes to observe you so that he can find out what a first grade does." Setting The Site selected for the study was a first-grade classroom, located in a small town near a midwestern university. The classroom was taught by one teacher, Mrs. W., throughout the school year. The researcher did a pilot study in ten classrooms, two each in grades one through five, for three months prior to site selection. From these initial observations certain classroom organizational pat- terns appeared to be weak examples of community in the classroom. These were: (1) classrooms that taught students in individual, performance-contract style; (2) classrooms that switched students on an ability or special-subject basis to other classrooms for a sig- nificant amount of the instructional day; and (3) classrooms that had a team-teaching, separately shared curriculum. From these pilot observations certain classroom organizational patterns appeared to foster group activity and group discussion. These were: (1) classrooms that were earlier elementary, first through third grade; (2) classrooms that were one-teacher, self- contained class units; and (3) classrooms that had a stable, experi- enced teacher. 27 Three district superintendents from the surrounding univer- sity area welcomed the proposed study. Of these three districts, Milsap, Middledale, and Lincoln, Lincoln was chosen as the study site. Lincoln appeared to be the best site because: (1) the researcher had already done the pilot study in Milsap and was a former university teacher supervisor there, (2) Middledale "tracked" students by ability between classrooms, (3) Lincoln had a long history of successful research within the district, and (4) Lincoln's superintendent noted that one of the elementary schools had two teachers who were very positive unity builders. The superintendent referred the investigator to Lincoln Ele- mentary. The researcher explained the study to the principal. The principal recommended two teachers: a first-grade teacher and a third-grade teacher. The principal noted that the first-grade teacher (1) was especially strong in building classroom unity, (2) was very stable and experienced, (3) was noted as the best teacher in the building by her peers, (4) had a number of research studies done in her class over the years, and (5) "Mrs. W. stimulates social as well as cognitive growth in her students." The researcher Spent one week observing the third-grade class- room to refine and practice the interactional coding system. For the following 63 class days the researcher observed, recorded, inter- viewed, and gathered data concerning the spirit and sense of community in this first-grade classroom. 28 Definition of Terms GROUP...A social unit consisting of individuals who stand in role and status relationships to one another, stabilized in some degree of time, and who possess a set of values or norms of their own regulating their behavior, at least in matters of consequence to the group. 9 PRIMARY GROUP...A small group which persists long enough to develop strong emotional attachments between members, a set of basic differentiated roles, and a subculture of its own which includes both an image of the group as an entity and an informal normative system which controls group-relevant action of its members.50 MORAL COMMUNITY...A sense of identity with one's group and a feeling of wholeness and involvement through living together, work- ing together, experiencing together, being together. It is a rela- tional conception of community stemming from a tight-knit web of meaningful fellow relationships.51 COMMUNITY...The concept of community used in this study is that commun1ty 1S a primary social group with the qualitative and territorial characteristics of a small, moral community. COMMUNITYNESS...The degree to which the classroom exhibits the characteristics of community. INSTRUCTION...The implementation of the teaching-learning activities which includes informing students as to goals, guiding learners with specific cues, communicating feedback of student progress, and providing needed supplemental practice of affective and cognitive objectives. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT...The process of organizing and coor- dinating the human and environmental factors in the classroom Situa- tion so that instruction can take place. It is a distinct pattern of activities and interactions which teachers establish to maintain an equilibrium in the classroom group in the face of disruptions, disturbances and numerous other changes in the classroom work environment.52 49Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, An Outline of Social Psychology (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955), p. 3. 50 Dunphy, The Primary Grogp, op. cit., p. 5. 51Poplin, Communities, op. cit. 52Lois V. Johnson and Mary A. Bany, Classroom Management (London: The Macmillan Company, 1970), pp. 3-17. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of this study is (l) to use the Model of Commu- nity to describe the development and maintenance of community within an elementary classroom and (2) to explain the effect of that entity on instruction and the management of instruction. The review of lit- erature is therefore drawn from and organized into three major sec- tions. The first section reviews the literature concerning the small, moral community. The literature serves as a background into the theoretical framework used in the formulation of the Model of Commu- nity. The second section reviews the literature concerning the classroom as a small society. These selected studies attempt to examine past research into the concept of the class as a system of social relationships. The third section examines the literature concerning observational studies of social interaction in the class- room setting. This final review of literature is intended to provide background into the patterns of interaction typically observed in the classroom setting. 29 3D The Literature on the Small, Moral Community The concept of community used in this study is drawn from the theory of community as a primary social group with the expressed char- acteristics of a small, moral community. In 1887 Ferdinand Tdennies wrote Gemeinschaft und Gesell- §ppgf§,53 T6ennies was concerned with describing differing social relationships in traditional and industrial societies. He referred to the real, organic life as Gemeinschaft (community) and the mechan- istic, industrial structure as Gesellschaft (society). Of importance to this study is Tbennies' conception of the small, communal Gemein- schaft. In Gemeinschaft the characteristics are as follows: a natural unforced association; a family mentality; a conscious collective; face-to-face interaction; unspecialized activities; importance of means in its own right relationship to ends; a small number of members; sympathy and identification with peers; a check and resistance to change; and differential status for community members. OkDCDNCDU‘l-bwmfl d Max Weber also wrote of the communal versus rational societal types. Weber used similar terms, Vergemeinschaftung and Vergesell- schaftung, to express the communal versus societal of Tiiennies.54 In Through Values and Social Interpretation, Becker developed eight 53Ferdinand Tbennies, Fundamental Concepts of Sociology, trans. Charles P. Loomis (New York: American Book Company, 1940). 54Max Weber, "Types of Social Organizations," in Theories of Societ , ed. Talcott Parsons et al. (New York: Free Press, 1961), pp. 218-29. 31 types of sacred, communal societies and 22 secular, modern society- types.55 Some of the most interesting analyses of the concept of communal-City, rural-urban societies have come from those anthro- pologists who have examined the lifeways of people who dwell in iso- lated regions of the world. Especially to be singled out in this respect is Robert Redfield. In a series of field explorations of the Yucatan Peninsula, Redfield studied four, progressively larger, communities.56 Redfield proposed that they expressed what he termed as a rural-to-urban continuum, or transition from isolated, homogeneous tribal villages to mobile, heterogeneous cities. Redfield believed that communities evolve through three basic changes from the small, folk community to the urban, city continuum. These changes are: cultural disorganization, secularization, and individualism. Similar to the folk-urban continuum presented by Redfield is the localistic-cosmopolitan typology of community presented by Carl C. Zimmerman.57 Zimmerman suggested that there existed a duality of functions in the local community. Localistic traits were expressed through strong, viable, communal, and familial ties. Priority of purpose was family and community. Individualistic interests were 55Howard Becker, Through Values to Social Interpretation (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1950), p. 107. 56Robert Redfield, The Folk Culture of the Yucatan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), pp. l-18. 57Carl C. Zimmerman, The Changing Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1938), pp. 80-84. 32 minimized. He suggested that in the localistic community that one thinks of others in terms of being in "my" group. In Communal Organizations, George Hillery, Jr. analyzed the anthropological field studies of ten folk communities and dissected these studies to arrive at 19 common communal characteristics.58 He then cross-compared these characteristics with city, hospital, and prison studies to determine the differential characteristics between the village community and the other studies. The results indicated that the village community possessed more intimacy, cooperative activity, and normative ties. In most of the sociological and anthro- pological literature on the small, communal, folk society emerged the following elements: smallness, interdependence, face-to-face interaction, common ties, and a mutual understanding. This view embraces the spirit, feeling, and sentiment embodied in the theory of the community as a quality--namely, the community as a moral phenomenon. Morgan, in The Small Community, hypothesizes that community exists through direct, personal acquaintances and relationships, and in a spirit of fellowship.59 Morgan defined commu- nity in terms of a feeling and responsibility for fellow community members working together, sharing problems, having mutual responsi- bility, and working toward common ends. Morgan presents as essen- tials for community survival these things: common needs, a common 58George A. Hillery, Jr., Communal Organizations: A Study of Local Societies (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 27-40. 59Arthur E. Morgan, The Small Community (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1942), pp. 3-30. 33 experience, community memory, and a unity of standards and pur- poses. Minar and Greer, in The Concept of Community, refer to com- munity as inclusive of a moral or spiritual phenomenon.60 In dis- cussing their theory of community as a moral phenomenon, Minar and Greer state, "It [community] expresses our vague yearnings for a community of desire, a communion with those around us, and an exten- sion of the bonds of kin and friend to all those who share a common 61 fate with us." Poplin's Communities lists the selected characteristics of community as a moral phenomenon as: l. identification, a deep sense of belonging to a signifi- cant, meaningful group; 2. moral unity, pursuit of common goals and a feeling of one— ness with other members; 3. involvement, submergence and participation in group activi- ties; 4. wholeness, member regard for gne another as whole persons with Significance and worth.6 These characteristics of a moral community are similar to Brownell's conception of The Human Community. Brownell takes the perspective of community as "a potentially or practically face-to-face group in which each member may easily be in another's presence" and "where in the day-to-day comings and goings in life they may and do 'run across' 60David W. Minar and Scott Greer, eds., The Concept of Com- munity (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969), p. 140. 61111111., p. ix. 62Dennis E. Poplin, Communities (New York: Macmillan Company, 1972), pp. 5-9. 34 63 Brownell each other with familiarity and without surprise." stressed the need for humans to relate to each other in "little places." He felt that only in intimate and repetitive circumstances, over a time, did human wholes, rather than fragments, emerge. Redfield's The Little Community summarized numerous studies on small communities and referred to them as communities within com- munities. The little community is viewed as small and self-contained. It is distinct from all other communities through the "idea of dif- ference and the idea of distance."64 Redfield presented four quali- ties reflective of the little community. They are: distinctiveness, smallness, homogeneity, and self-sufficiency. The little community members defined themselves by contrast with people who were not quite like themselves. Brownell's study, Life in Montana: As Seen in Lonepine, A Small Community, exemplifies the small, moral community view.65 From the study of Lonepine, Brownell developed five major character- istics of the small, moral community. They were: 1. a community is a group of neighbors that know one another face-to-face; 63Baker Brownell, The Human Community (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 195-210; Baker Brownell et al., "Study Group Guide,“ in Baker Brownell, Life in Montana: As Seen in Lonepine, A Small Community (Missoula: Montana Study Group, University of Mon- tana, 1945), p. 8. 64Robert Redfield, The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of the Human Whole (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 113. 65Baker Brownell, Life in Montana: As Seen in Lonepine, A Small Community (Missoula: Montana Study Group, University of Montana, 1945. 35 it is a diversified group as to age, sex, skill, function, and mutual service to one another; it is a cooperative group in which many of the main activi- ties of life are carried on together; it is a group having a sense of belonging, or group identity and solidarity; it is a rather small group, such as the family, village, or small town, in which each person can know a number of others as whole persons, not as functional fragments. 01-9-00“) Life in this small community was characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional depth, moral commitment, social cohe- sion, and continuity in time. Summary This first review is intended to provide the reader with a thumbnail sketch of the significant literature concerning the concept of the small, moral community. Community serves as the theoretical framework from which the Model of Community is drawn. TDennies' and Weber's Gemeinschaft society attributes are similar to the anthropological conceptions of the small, village community as described by Redfield, Zimmerman, and Brownell. Hillery summarized the various studies of village, city, and institutional communities and found the communal characteristics of the folk commu- nity to be intimacy, cooperation, and normative ties. These communal qualities are very similar to Morgan, Minar, Greer, and Poplin's attributes of the small, moral community: identification, moral unity, involvement, and wholeness. Finally, Brownell's major characteristics of the small commu- nity appear to satisfy both the territorial and relational require- ments of the Model of Community as presented in this study. These 36 characteristics of intimacy, mutual service, c00peration, belonging, and smallness serve as the major indicants of the small, moral com- munity. Gusfield sums up this "sense of community" as an appeal to a common identity and rules of solidarity in the statement: "You and I are not strangers but part of the same community and therefore should act differently toward each other than we would toward strangers."66 Literature on the Classroom as a Small Society_ This review of literature is designed to give the reader background into the past and present literature concerning the class as a system of social relationships. It is the intent of this review to investigate the class, not as an academic experimental group, but as a dynamic, interesting social and moral force--a small society. As early as 1932 Willard Waller wrote of the school situation as reflective of a social unity. In Waller's The Sociology of Teach- jpg_the school is noted as a "unity of interacting personalities."67 He noted that when schools are analyzed, they have the following characteristics that enable separation and study as social unities: 1. They have a definite population. 2. They have a clearly defined political structure, influenced by several minor processes of interaction. 3. They represent the nexus of a compact network of social relationships. 66Joseph R. Gusfield, Community: A Critical Response (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1975), p. 26. 67Willard Waller, The Sociology_of Teachipg_(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1932). 37 4. They are pervaded by a we-feeling. 68 5. They have a culture that is definitely their own. . . . Waller points to the existence of the school based upon the emergence of socially interacting teachers and students who meet for the purpose of giving and receiving instruction. Further, Waller believed that the life of the whole was in all its parts. This view is similar to the community-within-a-community concept of Redfield and Brownell as presented in the Model of Community. Almost 50 years after Waller, Susan Florio investigated community-mindedness in an elementary classroom. Within Mrs. Frank's second-grade class, Florio observed a smaller community: one the children dubbed Betterbug. The members of the Betterbug class com- munity made the laws and filled the civil offices of Betterbug. Florio relates: Classrooms contain the stuff of community, too, and therein lies the potential that writing in them will be meaningful. Classrooms are located in organized social worlds where mean- ings are shared and values held, and at the same time class- rooms constitute small communities with cumulative histories, 69 shared beliefs, and rights and responsibilities of membership. Both Waller and Florio conceived of the social unity within the schools as pervasive of, and natural to, the organization of the school community. The elements of the classroom as a social system are remarkably similar to the major characteristics found in the Model of Community. 68Willard Waller, 0n the Family, Education, and War, ed. William J. Good et a1. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 246-47. 69Susan Florio, "The Problem of Dead Letters: Social Perspec- tives on the Teaching of Writing," Elementary School Journal 80 (September 1979): 1-7. 38 Life in Classrooms by Philip Jackson provides a taste of the social world that students face inside the school classroom. "Learn- ing to live in a classroom involves, among other things, learning to 70 Jackson found after two years of study in four live in a crowd." elementary classrooms that the everyday, ritualistic, and cyclic occurrences of the classroom were the keys to unlocking and under- standing the social reality of the elementary classroom. Jackson found that the elementary Classroom was literally a "beehive" of social activity. Dreeban's On What Is Learned in Schools argues the point that only as a child moves out of the family and into the larger, bureau- cratic settings, such as the school, does the child acquire inde- pendence, Specificity, universalism, and achievement outcomes.7] Dreeban viewed the classroom, with its public, collective nature, high member visibility, and peer parity as an ideal opportunity for each student to judge the action of others. Similarly, Smith and Geoffrey's The Complexities of an Urban Classroom describes how children live and work together as a norma- tive classroom group.72 In a year-long participant observation study, Smith, a researcher, and Geoffrey, the classroom teacher, studied the 70Philip W. Jackson, Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968). 7lRobert Dreeban, On What Is Learned in School (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley PubliShing Company, 1968). 72Louis M. Smith and William Geoffrey, The Complexities of an Urban Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968). 39 social positions and roles in Geoffrey's elementary classroom. They found that the students constructed a definite status of roles and expectations for each classroom member. Several studies have been recently published that concern the student's construction of social reality within the schools. Mehan's Learning Lessons was a year-long observation of a combined first- second-third grade classroom. Mehan attempted to quantify what is needed for a student to become a competent member of the classroom community.73 Mehan referred to the classroom community as a "culture," or “whatever one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and to do so in any role they may accept for themselves."74 0f import to this dissertation is Mehan's investigation into the interactional competence needed by members of a classroom group to be accepted by other members of the room "society." Mehan's concentration on the patterns of interaction and "folkways" of the classroom group are similar to the investigative aims of this study, which concern the impact of the classroom community on the management of instruction. While Mehan was concerned with the student competence during lessons, Erickson and Shultz, 1977; Florio, 1978; McDermott, 1976; and Shultz, 1976, were concerned with the "set up" and sequence of 73Hugh Mehan, Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979). 74Ibid., p. 128. 4O 75 The key concern of these researchers events in lesson formats. involved the organizing, conducting, and closing of instructional lessons and the effect on the social organization of the class. An important aspect of the social organization within the school is research concerning the informal student society. Everhart's "The Fabric of Meaning in a Junior High School" is an ethnographic research into the differences between student and teacher perspectives.76 Teachers judged students by instructional performance while students judged other students by social criteria. Everhart concluded that primary social relationships with one's peers were the most important aspect of the daily routine for students. The key ingredient in the students' daily school lives was intimate interaction with friends. The "fabric of meaning" for the students revolved around the inner world of friendship networks. There have been several descriptions published on the nature of social systems involving students in elementary schools, high schools, and colleges.77 In fact, an entire NSSE 75Frederick Erickson and Jeffrey Shultz, "When Is a Context," ICHD Newsletter 1,2 (1977): 5-10; Susan Florio, "Learning How to Go to School" (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1978); R. P. McDermott, "Kids Make Sense" (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1976); Jeff Shultz, "It's Not Whether You Win or Lose, But How You Play the Game," Working Paper No. 1, Newton Classroom Interaction Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education. 76Robert B. Everhart, "The Fabric of Meaning in a Junior High School," Theory Into Practice 18 (June 1979): 152-57. 77James S. Coleman, "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement," American Journal of Sociology 55 (January 1960): 340; Wayne C. Gordo, The Social System of the High School (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957); JOhn I. Goodlad, "The Elementary School as a Socializer," The Elementary School in the United States: The 41 yearbook was devoted to the social psychology of instructional 78 groups. Rosenshine and Furst reviewed a number of direct observation studies into the social relationship between teachers and students in the instructional setting and concluded that students learned best when the teacher was enthusiastic, allowed for student response to questioning, fostered pupil-to-pupil interaction, and praised, rather 79 The research of the literature than criticized, the class members. on the classroom as a social system leads to many studies concerned with classroom sociometry, climatology, and management. Kounin's research in Group Management in Classrooms, since replicated by Brophy and Evertson in Learniug From Teachipg, suggests that teachers who are most successful in managing their classrooms are able to keep the students actively engaged in productive activities and are able to avoid inactivity and confusion in the student group that may lead to restlessness and misbehavior. Kounin termed these teacher Seventy-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ed. John I. Goodlad and Harold G. Shane (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973); Talcott Parsons, "The School Class as a Social System," Harvard Educational Review 29 (Fall 1959): 297-318. 78Nelson 8. Henry, ed., The Dynamics of Instructional Groups: Sociopsychological Aspects of Teaching and Learning, The Fifty-Ninth Yearbook for the Study of Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960). 798. Rosenshine and N. Furst, "The Use of Direct Observa- tion to Study Teaching," in Second Handbook on Research on Teachipg, ed. R. Travers (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973). 42 abilities as ”withitness," "overlappingness,“ and "smooth- ness."80 Important to the understanding of social relationships in the classroom is the influence that students, as well as teachers, have on the classroom social organization. Brophy and Good in Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences call attention to the importance of considering the relation of student behavior and its influence on the teacher.81 Similarly, Hunt in "Teacher's Adap- tation: Reading and Flexing to Students," summarizes the results of five studies involving teacher adaptation to student behaviors. Hunt uses the term "student pull" as the subtle, sometimes direct, influ- ence that students exert on the instructional environment.82 Hunt suggests that the teacher's adaptation to the student society is the heart of the teaching-learning process. Hunt's study in effect reverses the teacher-student relation- ship concerning instructional cause-effect. A study on student pull effects reverses the position of vari- ables in the experimental design: student behavior becomes the independent variable and teacher behavior becomes the dependent variable.83 80J. S. Kounin, Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms (Huntington, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974); Jere E. Brophy and Carolyn M. Evertson, Learning From Teaching: A Developmen- tal Perspective (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,51976). 8lJere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, Teacher-Student Rela- tionships (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974. 82David E. Hunt, "Teachers' Adaptation: 'Reading' and 'Flexing to Students," Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Fall 1976): 269. 83Ibid., p. 70. 43 The direct influence of the student society on the manage- ment of instruction is revealed in Fiedler's study of "Bi-directionality 84 Fiedler observed 35 seventh- of Influence in Classroom Interaction." grade classrooms using the Hit-Steer Observation System. The system is designed to categorize teacher efforts to influence students and students' efforts to influence teacher behaviors. Results indicated that the students do exert influence over the Classroom events and that, through follow-up interview, they accurately perceive how much control they have. In Frame Factors and the Teaching Process, Lundgren studied nine teachers and their classrooms.85 Lundgren found a simi- lar bi-direction control between student and teacher relations. Teachers were likely to conduct their teaching to reach the ability of the lower groups. Further evidence of the student group's ability to exert social leverage in the classroom is found in a study of two student teachers and two different classrooms by Willis Copeland.86 One fourth-grade classroom was an underachieving group, and the other was an above—average group. Each self-contained classroom was observed for two months to arrive at a typical teaching-learning pattern. In 84Martha L. Fiedler, "Bi-directionality of Influence in Classroom Interaction," Journal of Educational Psychology 67 (December 1975): 735-44. 85U. P. Lundgren, Frame Factors and the Teaching Process (Stockholm, Sweden: Almgrist and Wikséll, 1972). 86Willis 0. Copeland, "Process Mediating the Relationship Between Cooperating Teacher Behavior and Student Teacher Classroom Performance," Journal of Educational Psychology_67 (February 1978): 95-100. 44 classroom A, the pupils regularly spoke out whenever so inclined and interrupted the teacher and other pupils often. In classroom 8, pupils tended to raise their hands and ask for permission to speak and seldom interrupted the teacher. Each fourth-grade classroom had a student teacher for the first two months of school. At the midpoint of the year, the student teachers exchanged assignments and for two months were observed in their new situations. What Copeland observed was that as the student teachers undertook active involvement in their new practice-teaching assignments, a period of negotiation took place in which inconsistencies between classroom behaviors and teacher expectations were identified. The student teachers adapted to the pupils' behaviors, and less often, pupils adapted to the new student teacher's expectations. The established social order of the classroom had a powerful influence on the teacher-leader. Similar results were found by Martin in Negotiated Order of 87 the School. Martin's year-long study concerned the negotiation and interaction through roles and agendas in teacher-pupil communication in elementary classrooms. The research was a combination of explora- tory, interview, and intense observation. Despite the legal power of teachers, Martin found the pupils were often able to influence the teachers and have them comply to some of their demands. Martin found that the students were overpowered in 65 percent of all negotiations between students and teacher concerning discipline and academics. However, the teachers believed they had successfully overpowered in 87Wi1fred B. R. Martin, The Negotiated Order of the School (Canada: Macmillan of Canada: Maclean-Hunter Pressj5l976). 45 only 42 percent of the negotiations. This study revealed that the influence of the student group was "felt" by the teachers as a real and direct force. Barbara Calvert in The Role of the Pupil sums up the internal drive associated with the classroom group: "It might be wise to accept the need the young have for each other, and to see that it is stronger than any need they have for us.”88 Prescott in The Child and the Educative Process epitomizes the classroom society in his analysis of classroom group dynamics. When children go to school they are placed together in groups or “classes" to do their learning. . . . These classes become miniature societies with the customary characteristics of societies, namely, goals, roles, statuses, and individual strivings. Summary This second review concerned the class as a small society. Waller, Florio, Dreeban, and Jackson were concerned with the collec- tive, norm-producing nature of the classroom setting. Smith and Geoffrey, Mehan, Everhart, and others were concerned with the stu— dent's construction of reality in the social web of the classroom. Finally, a number of studies by Rosenshine and Furst, Henry, Kounin, Brophy and Good, Lundgren, Copeland, and Hunt concerned the influence of teacher-student, student-student role relations and expectations. The review represents some of the salient literature on the classroom 88Barbara Calvert, The Role of the Pupil (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 68. 89Daniel A. Prescott, The Child and the Educative Process (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1957), p. 256. 46 as a system of social relationships in which the students are more than passive receptors in the construction of the social world of the classroom. Literature on Social Interaction in the Classroom The final review of literature concerns studies of social interaction in the classroom setting. The review is intended to provide background into patterns of interaction observed in classroom task situations. The arena of social interaction is crucial to the study of community. It is through verbal and nonverbal interaction that the major characteristics of community emerge. Amidon and Hough in Interaction Analysis point out, "Inter- actional analysis views the dynamics of the classroom through a par- ticular lens. What interactional analysis captures is the behavior of teachers and pupils that is directly related to the socio-Emotional climate of the classroom."90 For the purposes of this dissertation, interaction is con- sidered more than an element of community; rather, interaction is the essential, dependent ingredient in the study of community. Yee in Social Interaction in Education furthers the vital role interaction plays in educational settings: . . . One way to view the significant priority of social interaction is to regard it as being the major common 90Edmund J. Amidon and John B. Hough, eds., Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application (Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, 1967), p. 2. 47 aspect of all educational elements, binding them together and giving them relative purpose and meaning.91 H. H. Anderson in Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personali- tje§_greatly influenced the observational study of teacher behavior and student reaction in the early elementary classroom.92 Anderson introduced category systems to aid in the measurement of classroom interaction and affective climate. He was interested in the student reaction to teacher behavior. In his study of kindergarten Class- rooms, Anderson found that "integrative" behavior on the part of the teacher expanded the children's opportunities for self-directive and cooperative activities while "dominative" teacher behaviors led to aggressive, distracted, and noncooperative student conduct. Similar to Anderson's integrative-dominative observational system, Withall developed a verbal-behavior category system to meas- ure the teacher's influence on the socio-emotional climate of the classroom. Withall determined that a valid measure of the socio- emotional climate of groups is obtained through a categorization of teacher statements. Using the Climate Index, Withall concluded that positive verbal statements were "learner-supportive" and negative statements by the teacher were reacted to negatively by the students and tended to be "teacher-centered."93 91A1bert H. Yee, ed., Social Interaction in Educational Settings (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971), p. 2. 92H. H. Anderson and Helen M. Brewer, Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1945). 93John Withall, "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Socio-Emotional Climate in Classrooms," Journal of Experimental Education 17 (March 1949): 347-61. 48 Ned Flanders in Analyzing Teacher Behavior developed an observation instrument for quantifying verbal communication in the classroom. Flanders's sampling of students in Minnesota and New Zealand in grades five through eight found that students taught by indirect, learner-centered teachers learned more and exhibited more independent and constructive attitudes than students taught by direct, teacher-centered teachers. Flanders also found that 80 per- cent of the verbal activity in the classroom can be attributed to the teacher and only 20 percent to all the students combined.94 Dunkin and Biddle in The Study of Teachipg summarize a number of interactional-analysis studies and conclude that Flanders's esti- mates of teacher-student talk were very accurate. They found that the average teacher-student ratio of interaction was roughly 70 per- cent for the teachers and 20 percent for the students. Approximately 10 percent of the time was silence and confusion. Both of these major studies point to the dominating role the teacher plays in classroom interaction.95 Goodlad and Klein in Behind the Classroom Door observed 150 classrooms in 67 schools from kindergarten to third grade.96 The findings indicated that first-grade classrooms were high on student 94Ned A. Flanders, Analyzing Teacher Behavior (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970). 95Michael J. Dunkin and Bruce J. Biddle, The Study of Teaching (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974), pp. 101-26. 96John I. Goodlad and Francis Klein, Looking Behind the Classroom Door (Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1974)} 49 interactional involvement. The first-grade classrooms were also high on positive versus negative comments. High levels of interaction and high levels of positive interchanges dominated 95 percent of the classrooms studied. A number of studies point to the massive amount of verbal and nonverbal interaction in the typical elementary classroom. Jackson and Lahaderne found in their study of four fourth-grade Classrooms an average of 80 interchanges per hour between students and teachers and almost 1,000 student-to-student interchanges per day.97 Similarly, Hoetker and Ahlbrand found two to three interactions per minute between students. Adams and Biddle found some verbal or nonverbal transaction occurred once every 5 to 18 seconds.98 A few studies were concerned with the reaction by the students to different teacher interaction styles. Brophy and Evertson in Learning From Teaching report the results of a study of 165 primary- grade teachers. The findings indicate that effective teachers were proactive rather than reactive in their interactions with students. These effective teachers also were more Spontaneously prepared for sudden social and academic disruption.99 97Philip W. Jackson and Henrietta M. Lahaderne, "Inequalities in Teacher-Pupil Contacts," in Classroom Psychology, ed. William C. Morse and G. Max Wingo (Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman and Company, 1971), pp. 210—16. 98d. Hoetker and W. P. Ahlbrand, "The Persistence of Recita- tion," American Educational Research Journal 6 (1969): 145-67; Raymond S. Adams and B. J. Biddle, Realities of Teaching (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970). 99Brophy and Evertson, Learning From Teaching, op. cit., pp. 173-91. 50 Another study of student reaction to teacher interactional style is found in a study by Buckley and Cooper.100 They studied a first-grade classroom for the first seven weeks and found that the teacher verbally established the rules and routines with the children through "accepting" and "rejecting" interchanges between the teacher and students. A major finding was that as the students' resistance to a rule increased, the teacher became less consistent in maintain- ing the rule. An interesting study by DeVoss found that first graders are basically indifferent to the academic ability of fellow students.101 He found that friendships changed with year to year (dependent upon class membership) and interpersonal behavior was the major determiner of liking patterns. Certain "untouchable" students were picked on, beat up, and framed by other students, who were gentle and civilized except for their interaction with the "untouchables." The teacher was unable to control the internal friendship liking patterns and obvious disdain the group had for the isolated few. Another study of the effect of teacher-student interaction is Bossert's Tasks and Social Relationships.102 Bossert and three other trained observers investigated the same third-grade classes as they passed from third to fourth grade. This two-year study was 100Pamela K. Buckley and James M. Cooper, "First Weeks in the Classroom," Toronto: AERA, Session 33.03, March 1978. 101Gary G. DeVoss, "Student Labeling Practices," Theory Into Practice 28 (June 1979): 158-62. 102Steven T. Bossert, Tasks and Social Relationships in the Classrooms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 51 intended to observe the student-teacher interaction under varying teacher interactive styles. One third grade and one fourth grade had strict teacher control. Another set of third- and fourth-grade classes were more permissive and allowed student choice over class- room events. Under strict control, the students were competitive and chose friends from within their own achievement groups. By contrast, the more integrative teachers' classrooms recorded diffuseness in friendship patterns and more cooperative interaction between students. The study pointed to the impact distinctive task organization has on the structure and communication within classroom groups. These findings are similar to those of Schmuck and Schmuck in Group Processes in the Classroom.103 In presenting the essential ingredients of classroom cohesiveness, Schmuck and Schmuck stress the need for "we" and "us" communication instead of "I" and "me" inter- changes between students and teacher. They summarize this thought in the following: "Cohesive classes can be created by open discussion of expectations, by dispersion of leadership, by diffuse friendship clus- ters, and by frequent use of two-way communication."104 The reality of typical classroom interchange between teacher and students is presented in a study by Rowe.105 Rowe found that the pace of interaction in a typical elementary classroom is rapid, 103Richard A. Schmuck and Patricia A. Schmuck, Group Processes in the Classroom (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1975). 104 Ibid., p. 216. 105M. B. Rowe, "Wait-Time and Rewards as Instructional Vari- ables, Their Influence on Language, Logic, and Fate Control," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11 (1974): 81-94. 52 resembling an inquisition rather than a normal conversation. Teachers asked questions at a rate of two or three per minute and seldom paused for more than one second to wait for student answers. Student responses were often short and in the form of incomplete sentences. However, classrooms that averaged a wait-time of at least three seconds received longer and more complex, conversational-type answers. An observational study by DeVoss, "The Structure of Major Lessons and Collective Student Activity," studied a self-contained first-grade classroom during the last third of the school year.106 The purpose of the study was to know the school as the first graders viewed it. DeVoss produced a microscopic account of the patterns of daily classroom events. DeVoss found that during "Major Lessons" the teacher controlled the interactional sequences. However, as the students became involved in seatwork activities, the focus on the teacher-led activity dissolved. During this "Comfortable Time" there is more movement in the room and there are more trips to the bathroom, library, office, or drinking fountain. DeVoss found that during this Class time the student collective gradually turned their attention from assigned "busy work," the noise and activity levels gradually increased, and the teacher was forced to intervene with a verbal or nonverbal caution to the collective. Students would immediately return to assignments and the cycle would begin anew. DeVoss also noted that the students developed a c0ping strategy he referred to 106Gary G. DeVoss, "The Structure of Major Lessons and Collective Student Activity," Elementary School Journal 80 (September 1979): 9-18. 53 as "passing time." These were verbal and nonverbal behaviors which the collective student group developed to pass the time difference between time allowed to time actually needed to finish the relatively easy seatwork assignments. In his year-long study of a combined first-through-third-grade classroom, Hugh Mehan concluded that in order for a student to be a competent member of the classroom community the student must: produce academically and interactionally appropriate behavior, be able to initiate discussion on new topics, and be able to interpret the teacher's instructional and behavioral cues. Competent membership in the classroom community, then, involves weaving academic knowledge and interactional skills like strands of a rope, providing factuall correct academic content in interactionally appropriate form.]%7 In a three-year comprehensive study of language in the ele- mentary classroom, Griffin and Shuy found that classroom teachers were virtually unaware of many of the student verbal and nonverbal classroom behaviors.108 In reviewing their own video-taped lessons, many teachers were surprised that they didn't see many of the positive and negative interactional episodes of their students, even though it occurred within a few feet, and sometimes inches, of the teacher. The interactional reality of the elementary classroom is best summed up by Philip Jackson in Life in Classrooms: 107Mehan, Learning Lessons, op. cit., p. 170. 108P. Griffin and R. Shuy, Children's Functional Language and Education in the Early Years (Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1978). 54 Anyone who has ever taught knows that the classroom is a busy place, even though it may not always appear so to the casual visitor. Indeed, recent data have proved surprising even to experienced teachers. We have found as many as 1000 inter- personal interchanges each day . . . like the proverbial bee- hive of activity.‘ 9 Review of the Literature Summary Each of the reviews directly leads into the purposes of this study. The first review concerned the small, moral community. It provided a thumbnail sketch of the anthropological and sociological studies into small, human communities. This review served as a theoretical background from which the Model of Community was gen- erated. The second review concerned the classroom as a system of social relationships. This review of literature provided the investi- gator with a background into the collective, norm-producing nature of the classroom setting. This review helped the researcher focus his exploratory questions and initial observations more directly on the students' relationships to each other and to the teacher. The third review concerned social interaction in the classroom setting. This review provided a survey of research on the effects of various teacher-student interaction patterns during task situations. This review provided the observer with background into interactional intensity, direction, frequency, and duration during instruction. These studies helped the observer to refine the MOCICS observation system to account for these variables. This review also aided the 109Jackson, Life in Classrooms, op. cit., p. 11. 55 researcher in knowing what to look for and what to avoid in observa- tion of student-teacher communication patterns. The three reviews served to (1) help generate a conceptual framework for the study of community, (2) provide background and understanding of the relevant social relationships which form a classroom society, and (3) refine an observational system, designed to unearth "community" in the classroom. Significance This study could add to the present body of literature in three ways. One, the research might expand the existing knowledge concern- ing the structure of the classroom group. The Model of Community could add a research framework to investigate the internal social nature of elementary classrooms. Two, the study could add to the present literature on inter- actional analysis in the classroom setting. The MOCICS coding system, specifically developed for this study, might add one more avenue for interactional research and analysis in the classroom. Three, the study of community in the classroom could add to the present understandings in the field of classroom management. The findings concerning the effect "community" has on instruction and the management of instruction could add to the present literature on student bi-directional influence in the classroom. In summary, this research on community in the classroom might add to the body of educational literature a theoretical Model 56 of Community, a new interactional coding system (MOCICS), and new data concerning the development, maintenance, and effect of "commu- nity" in the classroom. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The specific methodology employed for this research is that of participant observation. Participant observation is a field strategy that combines participation, observation, respondent and informant interviewing, document analysis, and data analysis. The purpose of this study is (l) to use the Model of Commu- nity to describe the development and maintenance of community within an elementary classroom and (2) to explain the effect of that entity on instruction and the management of instruction. Participant obser- vation is a field research technique well adapted to a study that necessitates long-term, continual observation of a given population. This methodology is especially useful for the purposes of this study. Participant observation enables the researcher to get Close to the action to see, hear, and record class members' actions and reactions to daily events. The researcher needed an investigative methodology that permitted him to take a limited role in the organization being studied. Since one of the major assumptions of participant observa- tion is that the observer Share in the life and activities of those being studied, this appeared to be an ideal methodology for this three-month study into the internal life of an elementary classroom. 57 58 Participent Observation In participant observation the observer actually becomes part of, a limited participant in, the situation to be observed. The rationale for participant observation is that people construct or build up social action. People make indications to themselves and others through a process of meaningful interaction. Each indi- vidual daily performs countless acts, gives them meaning, judges their suitability to his actions, and makes decisions on the basis of the judgments. Blumer clarifies how people build social reality from the inside: . Behavior, accordingly, is not a result of such things as environmental pressures, stimuli, motives, attitudes, and $3222 EIEnZE'i’iSEEZSEEiioEWE lfilcflehl“i§'£’3§§irfiflii2311135 Participant observation enables the observer to get close to the action and the people. To understand what is important to the people under study, it is necessary to understand what is meaningful to them and how they interpret what they encounter. Participant observation is a field strategy that satisfies this need to look inside the situation under study. Florio suggests a few techniques used in field observation: . . . intensive and (ideally) long-term participation in a field setting. 2. careful recording of what happens in the setting by writing field notes and collecting other documentary evidence. noHerbert Blumer, "Society as Symbolic Interaction," in Human Behavior and Social Processes, ed. Arnold M. Rose (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1962), p. 182. 59 3. subsequent analytical reflection on the documentary record obtained in the iie1d.lll Field work involves being unusually thorough and reflective in notic- ing, describing, and interpreting the significance of everyday events in the field setting. The methodology of participant observation enabled the researcher to gather an abundance of field data. In this study the field notes were taken for 63 teaching days, and each night these notes were typed and analyzed according to the Model of Community, as presented in Chapter 1. These hundreds of pages of typed notes were submitted every two weeks for the perusal of two faculty members from Michigan State University. Basically, the methodology operates on two levels: (1) a description of the patterns of behavior and the settings in which they occur, and (2) an explanation of the behavior in light of the accommodations and interpretations that people make toward situations which confront them. From the varying participant observer roles discussed by Gold, Lutz, and Iannaccone, the researcher chose the observer-as- 112 participant role. In this situation, the observer makes his presence as an investigator known and attempts to form a series of H1Susan Florio, "Very Special Natives," Publication O.P. 42 (East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1981). 112Raymond L. Gold, "Roles in Sociological Field Observation, Social Forces 36 (March 1958): 217-23; Frank W. Lutz and Lawrence Iannaccone, Understanding Educational Organizations: A Field Studyy Approach (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company,51969), p. 108. 6O relationships with the subjects such that they serve both as respond- ents and informants. In this role the participant role becomes sub- ordinated to the observer role. If the researcher is able to develop a relationship of trust, confidential information is quite frequently divulged. Once the parameters of the observer-observed relationship have been established, the investigator moves into a phase where he is accorded the status of a provisional member. As Denzin points out, it is at this stage in the field study that: Respondents will begin to recognize him [observer-as-participant] as a sociologist and may ask him why they were selected for study. In this stage there will be a deliberate attempt on the part of the observer to teach his respondents how to act toward him. This will include convincing them of the confidentiality of their conversations, as well as teaching them to accept the presence of an observer during their daily rounds of activity. As this process unfolds, respondents will be teaching the observer how he may behave toward them. Backstage regions of behavior will be pointed out and acceptable topics for conversation will be con- veyed.ll3 In order for the observer-as-participant to maintain a level of subjective adequacy, the following six indices, posited by Homans, were periodically consulted: 1. Time: the more time the individual spends with the group the more likely it is that he will obtain an accurate per- ception of the social meaning its members live by. 2. Place: the closer the worker works geographically to the people he studies, the more accurate should be his interpre- tations. 3. Social circumstances: the number and variety of social cir- cumstances whiCh the observer encounters within the social structure of the community increases his accuracy. 4. Lan ua e: the researcher and his subjects should share a common language. H3Norman K. Denzin, The Research Act: A Theoretical Intro- duction to Sociological Methods (New York: McGraw-HilT'Book Company, 1978). 61 5. Intimacy: the greater degree of intimacy the researcher achieves, the greater his accuracy. 6. Consensus: confirmation that the meanings interpreted by the observer are correct.“4 If one assumes that the six Homans' indices of subjective adequacy are followed and the observation, interview, and historical data are complete, then the researcher is faced with presenting a valid picture of the social world under study. The observer lives close to the situation. He learns to describe the activities and events with first-hand knowledge of how the people in the situation have interpreted the action, activity, or event. As the observer begins to immerse himself into the situation, he begins to perceive what the population under study perceives. In this way participant observation might more accurately report what really occurred in a given social situation. In this way intensive, long-term observation is far more valid than many standardized meas- ures. AS the observer becomes more valid in reporting what has hap- pened, so, too, does he become more reliable. Over a time the observer expands his awareness and understandings of the population under study. In this way he becomes a more reliable reporter of information. The instruments used to gather field data are adjusted and modified to adapt to the on-going changes in the situation. Since the researcher is the investigative instrument, as the researcher becomes more aware, more valid, so he must of necessity become more reliable.“5 114Bruyn T. Severyn, The Human Perspective in Sociology: The Methodology of Participant Observation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 255. 115Philip A. Cusick, Inside High School: The Student's World (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p. 232. 62 Theoretical Sampling In participant observation, data analysis is an on—going process. The researchers pursue broad questions of interest that they had on their minds as they entered the field. The observer also forms "working hypotheses" that can be tested and rechecked on a continual basis. Becker clarifies this concept: After constructing a model . . . [he refines] the model to take account of evidence which does not fit his previous formula- tion; by searching for negative cases which might force such revision; and by searching for the interconnections in vivo of the various elements from his data.116 Negative examples to the hypotheses are deliberately included which might contradict the original hypotheses. If this is the case, then alternative working hypotheses are formed. The absence of a plausible rival hypothesis increases the likelihood that the phenome- non is what the researcher says it is. If the hypothesis has enough indicants and supporting data, the researcher might form a rough model which in turn would be subjected to test, retest, and refinement. Glaser and Strauss suggest that "core theoretical categories, those with the most explanatory power, should be saturated [with data] as completely as possible."”7 To expand field data and at the same time be able to saturate specific "core" categories, the researcher must adjust the sampling methods and focus to meet the needs of the developing model. Theoretical sampling is a process of data H6Howard S. Becker, "Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation," American Sociological Review 23 (1958): 652-60. H7Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery_of Grounded Theory_(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967), p. 70. 63 collection for generating theory through joint theoretical collection, coding, and analysis of data. According to Glaser and Strauss, the researcher using theoretical sampling: . . jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them in order to develop his theory as it emerges. The process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory.H8 Participant observation studies vary in the degree of struc- ture involved in the inquiry. Participant observation studies can be designed to test hypotheses, to derive hypotheses, or both. Since this study focused on a Specific construct, community, it is also more focused in terms of the behaviors to be observed and recorded. The observer entered the classroom following three months of pilot observation in ten elementary classrooms, grades one through five. From these initial observations the researcher developed a model of community that would be applicable to the classroom setting. The observer experimented with various observational coding systems. The researcher entered the classroom with a theoretical Model of Community and a newly developed interactional coding system. Entrance Into the Classroom The role selected for this first-grade study was that of observer-as-participant. In this role the observer openly reveals his role to the subjects under study. This is done at the onset of the research. The observer-as-participant role is explained in full detail and communication with all concerned subjects is open and ”81mm, p. 62. 64 honest. In this role the participant aspects become subordinated to the observer aspects. The role was one of being an unobtrusive, mostly nonparticipating observer. However, at times it was neces- sary to take a greater participation role in order to gain rapport and get even closer to a situation, activity, or action under study. Entrance into the field-site location must be carefully pre- planned. Geer warns, "The first days of field work may transform a study, rightly or wrongly, almost out of recognition."n9 The entrance into the field situation is of vital concern for the participant observer since the relationship between the field worker and the persons in the field is the key to effective observa- tion and interviewing. Entrance often determines whether the door will remain open, or be shut. Every field setting has its own particular characteristics; however, there are a few principles guiding entry into the field. Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean present these:120 1. Generally field contacts should be made from persons in highest status and authoriry positions down to the actual participants in the field situation one wants. 2. The field worker needs to have a plausible explanation of the research, that makes sense to the people whose coop- eration he seeks. 3. The field worker should try to represent himself, his sponsors and his study, as honestly as possible. llgBlanche Geer, "First Days in the Field," in Sociologists at Work, ed. Philip E. Hammond (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1964), p. 162. 120John F. Dean, Robert L. Eichhorn, and Lois R. Dean, "Establishing Field Relations," in Issues in Partiquant Observation, ed. George C. McCall and J. L. Simmons (Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 1969), pp. 68-69. 65 4. As a first research step the field worker should have in mind some rather routine fact-gathering that makes sense to those in the field. 5. The researcher should indicate interest in the subjects under study and should sacrifice initial data in order to Speed acceptance. The Setting, pages 26-27, discussed the initial contact with the school superintendent, the subsequent referral to Lincoln Ele- mentary School, the week-long pilot in a third-grade classroom, and a rationale for this research site. Entrance into the research setting was made on Friday, March 13, 1981, late in the afternoon. The principal had just directed the investigator to the first-grade classroom of a teacher, Mrs. W. A woman was sitting just outside the room. The researcher asked the woman, "Is this Mrs. W.'s room?" She responded, "Yes. I am Mrs. W." She further explained that she was out in the hall because she had a student teacher in the room and was letting her "try out her wings a little." The researcher sat and spoke with Mrs. W. and explained the nature, duration, and methodology of the proposed study. The role of observer, with limited participa- tion, was explained, as well as the anonymity that would be employed with respect to herself, the school, and the students. Mrs. W. interrupted and said that she had been observed numerous times before by "university people." The researcher was surprised by the openness with which the teacher welcomed him. As the researcher began to explain the con— fidentiality with which the data would be treated, Mrs. W. interrupted 66 with, "I have been teaching too long to be worried about who is observing me and what they think. I tend to trust people." Arrangements were made for the researcher to be present starting the next class day, Monday. As we concluded the agreement, Mrs. W. promised to explain to the students who the researcher was and what he was doing there. Mrs. W. did express concern that parent per- mission was needed if any pictures or video-recording was used. Mrs. W. was not openly concerned with what the researcher recorded as long as "it doesn't get in the way of the class." Mrs. W. received no remuneration for allowing the observer into the class for three months, yet she kindly and warmly welcomed him "for as long as you would like to stay!" The first full day into the first grade was on Monday, March 16, 1981. Following the initial class greeting, Mrs. W. mentioned, almost casually, that "We have a visitor. He is Mr. Albert from the univer- sity. He would like to be with us for the rest of the year. He wants to see what 'Super Stars' you are! He wants to see what workers we have in this room. He is going to be seeing how BIG [teacher says each letter slowly] first graders can work. I hOpe you will be nice to him." Since the students were openly aware of the observer's role, the researcher took notes from the beginning of the first day. Sev- eral problems developed during the initial days of the study. At first the researcher attempted to get closer to the students in the role of room helper. The observer aided students who requested help. This plan not only risked attachment to the role of teacher, but the 67 teacher, Mrs. W., frowned on anyone helping the students during their seatwork. (This is explained more fully in Chapter 4.) Another problem encountered concerned the researcher's rela- tionship to the classroom teacher, Mrs. W. Quickly, within the first few hours, the students began testing to see if this "stranger" would "squeal” on acts of obvious misbehavior (done just beyond the teacher's view). The investigator sensed, for the first time, the subtle but powerful student influence on members of the classroom. The researcher, of course, did nothing to change his role of unobtrusive observer. To be more, might have been disastrous to the purposes of the study. If an apparent misbehavior (i.e., throwing spitballs, making unusual sounds, etc.) occurred, student eyes would, at first, glance in the direction of the observer. The researcher had to remain oblivious to these "testing” attempts. The researcher was literally "forced” by this silent student pressure to talk guardedly, and infrequently, with the teacher. AS the days passed into weeks, the students came to realize that the observer would not "squeal" and that he was a nonthreatening element in the classroom environment. The students began to ask the researcher questions like, "Are you replly_going to write a book about us?" When a fight broke out between two girls in the room and the clatter and Chatter attracted Mrs. W. back into the room, Mrs. W. asked what was the noise all about? Not one student turned in the researcher's direction. They had become comfortable and secure in the presence of this classroom visitor. 68 Fieldwork in Mrs. W.'s classroom was fruitful. The researcher collected a variety of information which became field data for this study: direct observation of behavior; verbatim transcripts of conversation and actions; informal interviews with students, teachers, staff, etc.; formal interviews with prepared questions; sociograms and climate indexes (informal); tape recordings of classroom reading groups, interaction; historical data from records and files; informal conversation with students, teachers, parents; Loooumm-wa—a ooooooooo seatwork dittos, notes home, practice pages, artwork samples, letters from students, etc. Data Gathering The researcher entered the classroom with a Model of Community as a theoretical guide. The model was that of a small, moral commu- nity, which, the investigator believed, might not be that dissimilar to the social world of the self-contained, elementary classroom. As noted in the first chapter, the Model of Community is the matrix through which the researcher gathered, selected, examined, and analyzed data to describe community in the classroom. The Model of Community served as a visible construction of the concept of community. It was also a screening and filtering diagram which facilitated the Classi- fication and analysis of communal activities, interactions, and sen- timents observed within the classroom setting. The diagram of the Model of Community, page 19, is more fully discussed on pages 9-20. The nine categories of data collection on the previous page may be 69 categorized under four major data-gathering instruments: participant observation, key-informant interviewing, structured interviews, and historical records. Participant observation and key-informant inter- viewing were both included in the observational coding system which was specifically designed for this study. Model of Community Interactional Coding SystemTMOCICS) The Model of Community was used as both a conceptual framework for community and as a sorting and filtering device for the thousands of interactional data gathered through observation. It is through the process of social interaction that the communal characteristics emerge, take form, and become observable entities. The following pages will introduce MOCICS as the specific instrumentation used to gather the interactional data in the classroom setting. For the purposes of this study, interaction refers to, as Goffman presents,121 . modification of behavior that occurs when two or more persons come in contact for a period of time. It is the influence of one another through the use of language, symbols, gestures and other forms of verbal and nonverbal communica- tion. The process of social interaction will refer to recurrent patterns of interstimulations and response among individuals and groups within the context of the school day and the setting of the first-grade classroom. The interactional data were initially 12lErving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to- Face Behavior (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967), p. 5. 7O categorized according to Hennings' model of the communication process.122 The model is presented as follows: Verbal Stimuli l,//,//”/////;7 Physical Stimuli 555555555; ._________ Sender ,,-””T”’55? 5555555‘5’ Receiver ———————J::::::::::::j; Vocal Stimuli ,e-rr””9 Situational Stimuli -/’/////;? Figure 2.--Hennings' model of communication. Hennings' model of communication served as a broad interactional category system and is briefly discussed according to the component elements. Sender is designated as person(s) that is the instigator of interaction on any one of the four stimuli levels. The sender in this Classroom research was either student, teacher, student teacher, parent, room mother, visitors, and other staff. Receiver is designated as the person(s) that is the message receiver-decoder of any of the four levels of stimuli. The receivers are all those persons coming in contact member verbal and nonverbal actions (thrusts). The following are the four main stimuli of communication in Hennings' model: Verbal Stimuli refers to the actual words or sounds spoken. These are direct or indirect spoken comments or sounds that origi- nate from any of the classroom senders. In this study the verbal stimuli were verbal responses or questions. Whispers and unusual sounds, such as a yawn, were coded in this category. 122Dorothy Grant Hennings, Mastering Classroom Communication: What Interaction Analysis Tells the Teacher (Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1975). 71 Vocal Stimuli refers to the manner in which the words are spoken. This includes such things as volume, rate, tone, pitch, and inflections; i.e., anger is communicated through a blaring voice, fast rate, high pitch, and fast delivery. This category aided the researcher in specific emotional tones for some of the student- teacher responses. Physical Stimuli refers to nonverbal gestures, movements, facial expression, and body language. The nonverbal cueing systems that are used in the classroom account for substantial amounts of field note recordings. Touching, smiling, body movements, and ani- mated facial expressions are all coded under this category. Situational Stimuli refer to the kind of relationship that exists between participants in an interaction or about the kind of relationship that a participant hopes to achieve. According to Hennings, the situational stimuli (appearance) tells the observer of the performer's status and whether he/she is engaging in formal social activity, work, play, etc. Setting refers to the physical layout, i.e., the furnishings. When these are under the control of the participant it tells something about how that person views the situation and the actor's role in that situation, i.e., a student teacher overdressed and uncomfortable doing a messy plaster project. The interactional frames of the school day were coded accord- ing to these four broad communication-stimuli categories. The coding system was designed to meet both the Model of Community interactional requirements and the practical restraints of a single observer in a classroom of 20 highly active first graders and one very communicative teacher. Another set of specific verbal and nonverbal coding sugges- tions is drawn from Simon's four interaction analysis variables.123 The observer must be aware of: (l) the intensity of the interaction, (2) the level of friendliness, (3) the amount of activity present, and (4) the amount of external-activity contamination. 123H. A. Simon, "A Formal Theory of Interaction in Social Groups," American Sociologjcal Review 17 (1952): 202-11. 72 The Model of Community Interactional Coding System, or MOCICS, is a result of experimental piloting of ten elementary class- rooms. The coding system first attempted was an adaptation of the Flanders' Interaction Analysis System.124 Due to the lack of suffi- cient student behavior categories, this model was discarded in favor of the Brophy-Good Dyadic Interaction Observation System.125 Advan- tages to this system included: (1) separation of student-teacher initiated interactions; (2) accounting of contextual differences such as time of day, group size, and activity involved; (3) expansion of interactional accounts into narrative form; and (4) recording of field notes rather than a simple frequency check. Since the researcher was interested in not only the occur- rence of an interaction, but also Simon's intensity, friendliness, and relatedness variables, the investigator devised a new coding system, the MOCICS, specifically designed for this classroom study. Most of the interactional analysis systems only captured what was done and missed the spirit and fuller meaning so vital to the description of communityness in the first-grade classroom. There are two basic kinds of observation systems: sign and category. A Sign system is composed of a list of specific behaviors. During a given time frame, the observer simply checks or marks in some manner 124Ned A. Flanders, Analyzing Teacher Behavior (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970). 125Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, "Brophy-Good System (Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction," in Mirrors for Behavior: An Anthology of Observation Instruments, Vol. A, ed. A. Simon and E. Boyer TPhiladelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1970). 73 the behavior that occurs. The category system provides classifica- tion of behaviors that the observer memorizes. At regular intervals, the observer determines which category a certain behavior is classi- fied under and records it in the proper category. The MOCICS uses both Sign and category systems. Also, the researcher added short narrative notes to Sign and category codings to express particular tone, intensity, or situational variables. As the study progressed, certain categories were modified, some were eliminated, and some added. The full MOCICS is presented in the next pages 74-76 with samples in Appendix A. The observer took daily field notes from many vantage points in the classroom. These notes were recorded in MOCICS abbreviated form through direct observation during the school day. The notes were then expanded and typed that same evening to insure vivid memory and reflection of the day's events. Biweekly the field notes were submitted to the two field researchers for comments on field note clarity, direction, and adequacy. Three months in the classroom, from March 16 to June 12, 1981, accounted for over 300 single-spaced field notes, dozens of taped interviews, and scores of classroom work artifacts. (See Appendix A for half-day sample of field notes.) The next few pages will intro- duce the reader to the MOCICS. To make the MOCICS functional, each of the 20 students was given a coded number. These numbers were drawn from the seating arrangement in the room (Appendix B). From the teacher's standing position in the front of the class, the researcher coded in a 74 counterclockwise rotation the numbers 1 through 29, The investi- gator quickly was able to memorize the codes of these numbers using this seating-number arrangement. The room diagram, Appendix B, might be of aid to better visualize this numbering system. Note: The first student numbers were superseded with a §_or §_to indicate sex. The numbering code for the students did not change during the entire 63 days, regardless of seating changes. This aided in the observer consistency in coding and provided a record of seating arrangements. The following is a coded list of student participants: l...boy ll...girl Me...girl 2...girl 12...girl Se...boy 3...boy 13...boy Ae...girl 4...boy 14...girl 5...gir1 15...girl *These three students are 6...boy l6...boy from the next-door first- 7...girl 17...girl grade class and enter 8...boy 18...girl only for reading period. 9...boy 19...girl 10.. boy 20...boy The following is a coded list of "Significant others": MW...Mrs. W. The official first-grade classroom teacher. T...Teacher, used for coding of MW as shorthand notation. STl...Miss B. Morning student teacher on Mon., Wed., and Fri. $12...Miss M. Afternoon student teacher on Mon., Wed., Fri. LD...Mrs. K. Learning Disabilities teacher. MS...Mrs. S. Neighboring first-grade teacher. RM...Room mother. H...Custodian. S...Secretary. MC...MrS. C. Library lady who runs IMC (enrichment center). PE...Physical education teacher. SUB...Substitute teacher. V...Visitors. MM...Mrs. M. Reading consultant 75 The following is the code used for verbal and nonverbal actions: (-)...A slash between any two codes indicates verbal interaction, with the first coded letter or number indicating sender and the second coded letter or number the receiver. This is simply an indica- tion that there was conversation between two participants. If the conversation continued beyond a simple one-response exchange... it was recorded again; i.e., l9-ST1...This would indicate that 19 verbally talked to student teacher 1. (q)...A g_indicates that a question is asked; i.e., l9qSTl...This would indicate that student 19 asked a question of S11. (nr).. .A nr refers to no response. This coding is used when a student or teacher does not reSpond to a direct question, statement, or imperative; i. e. , qul9.. .l9nr. (r ).. .Anr indicates that a response has been made. It follows the same pattern as a question except that a response is in the receiver category. (5 ).. .An S means that a question or response was a sentence. Multiple sentences are recorded as such; 1. e. , 19rsssT. This indicates that 19 responded to the teacher with a series of three sentences. (w ).. .A w indicates that a question or response was a word. Multiple words are recorded as such; i. e. , STlrwwwl9. This means that student teacher 1 responded with a series of three words to 19. (v)...A y_means that a student volunteered information. It may be in a response or return question form; i.e., 7vsssT. This indi- cates that student 7 volunteered a series of three sentences to teacher (usually done in response to 9). (na).. .This means not attending, If a student is not attending to the task at hand and not doing anything beyond staring the coding is used. The student must be unattentive for a prolonged and obvious period (more than a minute). Following the initial na of 1 minute, a series of na's will follow every other minute. In the case of some individuals a clock was simply used as some exceeded 20+ minutes in this mode. (pwt.. A pyp_or pwtd signals that a student is playing with toy§_or or playing with toys in desk. This was such a prevalent activity pwtd) with some students that this coding necessarily was introduced. Typically this meant that the student had a toy car, doll, etc. that he/she played with while instruction was in progress. 76 (ofb).. .The coding ofb signified out of field behavior. This coding was used when students interruptedior distracted an instructional frame in either a verbal or nonverbal manner. Nonverbal would be coded 16nvofb...Waving...This indicates to the researcher that 16 was waving his arms in a distracting manner (dependent, of course, on the preceding instructional frame) to decide who/what was distracted or interrupted. (bcy)...This coding ppy_signified borrowing crayons. It was included due to the high frequency of sharing between students of school writing tools. p_signified borrowing whether it be crayons, pencils, toys, etc. (c ).. .The c in coding refers to references to the class. When the teacher, substitute, student teachers, visitors, or fellow stu- dents directed an interaction to the entire classroom community ..p_coding is used. (PLA)...Project Language Arts reading group...This refers to the "lowest” reading group consisting of 10/20/15/8/12 who are par- ticipating in the experimental learning disabilities approach to learning beginning reading. (Lions)...The Lions are the next higher level reading group which includes two students from the research community of students and two from Mrs. S.'s neighboring first grade. Membership con- sists of 13/19/Me/Se/Ae... (Tigers)...Second "highest" reading group consisting of 5/11/3/18/1/6. This is the largest reading group. (Teddys)...Top reading group. Ability range 2+ years beyond all other groups. Consists of 9/2/7/17. Group on "auto-pilot." (Gq).. ._g_is coded as group question posed by sender (usually the teacher or student teacher). Directed at whole class. (Gs) Gs is coded as group statement. Directed at whole class. (Iq).. ._g_is coded as individual question posed by student to teacher. Note: Student responses to questions were coded previously as r or 5. lg is used when the student poses a question to the teacher in whole group setting. (ts).. .ts coding implies statement made by teacher to partial groupings or individuals. (tr)...pr_is coded as teacher response to partial group/individuals. (LCC)...Student aide from local community college. 71 The researcher used the Model of Community as a guide while coding the student and teacher classroom behaviors. The observation positions that the researcher typically took were six classroom permieter positions located in Appendix [3, The Classroom, with the locational markings of xxx, The observer sat in extra first-grade chairs, stood in the corners, sat, or knelt near the students. The key was to get close but not be conspicuous. The observer almost always had a pencil and small notebook in hand. At times, the researcher needed to abandon the role of scientist-reporter so that he might get closer to the students while they worked on a project or discussed something important. Since the role of the researcher was made public to the students and the staff, it was not unusual for the first grade to be seen with another, trailing adult. Part of the MOCICS data was gathered through tape recordings. While the researcher positioned himself at one end of the room to observe an interactive dyad or some other interaction, activity, or event, a tape recorder sometimes was placed near, for example, the reading group. The researcher was careful not to disturb the classroom activities with the tape recorder. The observer placed the recorder at least l0 feet away and out of view of the group. The recordings aided the researcher in exact statements, expansion of field notes, and help with memories. Only a few of the students asked to see the tape recorder. After Brenda, Kris, and Trina saw how it worked and were told its purpose, they were content. The recorder was used to gather over 40 hours of field note data and greatly aided and supported field note coding. 78 One other mechanical device that was occasionally used was a stopwatch to record student-to-teacher ratio of interaction. After each field research day, the observer would expand the notes from written field notes, tape recordings, and memories. These were then typed each night and submitted to a senior researcher for biweekly review. The observation data were checked and rechecked for inaccu- racies and misinterpretations of a situation. All the observations were daily sorted, filtered, and analyzed using the Model of Commu- nity three-dimensional model. As the researcher took notes, he would have, close by, the Model of Community diagram (see page l9) so that the observations did not stray too far from examples of community. As the research progressed, certain categories were added to the MOCICS, some were deleted. For example, the observer added a coding for playing with toys in the desks (pwtd) simply because that category was so prevalent with certain students who lacked atten- tion to task. On pages 74-76 are the final MOCICS categories and codings that accounted for hundreds of field note pages, thousands of coded interactions, and countless hours of analysis. The MOCICS can be adapted to the particular setting needed. The research methodology may also be adjusted to particular purpose and setting. However, the MOCICS categories were designed to be used in combination with the Model of Community sorting and filtering diagram for the specific purposes of this community study. Part of the data gathered through the MOCICS is done by asking for key inform- ants to clarify or explain a specific activity, interaction, or sen- timent. 79 Key-Informant Interviews Some of the observations done with the MOCICS left gaps in the field notes as to further information, tone, intensity, sentiment, or validity. 'R1further check on the observation to verify that what was recorded was an accurate portrayal of the "real story," the observer relied on certain key-informants. After two weeks into the setting, the observer was quite familiar with most of the students. Certain students became key persons that the researcher found could honestly and accurately reflect on situations, activities, and inter— actions. The key-informants for this class became Henry, Trina, Kris, Joff, Gary, and Elsa. These students were very verbal and enjoyed being asked to explain things to the observer. At times, this key-informant interviewing provided invaluable insights into a particular incident, situation, or interaction. Structured Interviews Another way in which the observer gathered data was through more formalized, structured interviews. These interviews were arranged ahead of time and the questions were carefully analyzed before being presented. The researcher conducted formal interviews with (l) the students, Appendix J, (2) the staff, Appendix K, and (3) the classroom teacher, Mrs. W., Appendix L. Each of these formal interviews followed weeks of preparation by the researcher. The student interview occurred six weeks after entrance to the classroom, while the interviews with the staff and teacher occurred in the final few days of school. Mrs. N. was thg_key informant throughout the research; however, the observer "saved" a number of questions for the 80 very end so that the teacher would not change her approach, inter- action, or style to suit the question. Student Interview The students were interviewed individually over a two-day period. All class members were included, and each responded to all nine survey questions. The survey items were administered and student response was verbal. The same questions were given to all students and were designed to gather the following information: Question (l) best leader, (2) most preferred seatwork helper, (3) least pre- ferred seatwork helper, (4) best reader, (5) worst reader, (6) best math, (7) worst math, (8) best friend, (9) next best friend. (See Appendix J for exact questions.) The results of these interviews with the students are tabu- lated in Appendix F, Sociograms I and II, and in Appendix H, Student Ability Index. Each of the Appendices includes an explanation of survey questions included, how each Appendix is tabulated, and a full explanation of the scoring, ranking, or charting. This interview was designed following six weeks of classroom observation. The major community categories that these questions were addressed to were cohesiveness and structure. Staff Interview On June 9th, seven staff members were interviewed individually. Each responded to the same seven survey questions. The survey items were administered and responded to verbally. The questions were designed to gather the following data: Question (1) relationship to 81 group, (2) perceived clustering of Mrs. w.'s students, (3) Mrs. w.'s structuredness, (4) isolate class members, (5) level of cooperative- ness, (6) distinctive attributes of Mrs. w.'s class (present), and (7) pattern of student behavior in Mrs. w.'s class over the years. (See Appendix K.) The staff interview questions were designed to sample the perceived class cohesiveness, cooperativeness, and structure. Teacher Interview Mrs. w. was interviewed on the last day of school. The stu- dents were not present in the afternoon session. Mrs. H. was asked the same first seven survey questions asked of the staff. The inter- view took more than two hours and was tape recorded (as were the student and staff interviews). The 29 questions covered all aspects of the Model of Community and were an invaluable data source for this study. See Appendix L for exact questions. In preparing for this final interview, the researcher discussed each of these questions with a senior researcher. The check helped to refine some of the questions and remove others that might prove to be unworthwhile to community or overly sensitive to the teacher. Questions were rephrased and redesigned with these criteria in mind: applicability and sensitivity. Throughout the long interview session, Mrs. N. expanded on nearly all the questions. A few questions were answered so thoroughly that Mrs. N. answered a number of other pending ques- tions that the researcher had formerly thrown out because they may have been too sensitive. 82 Historical Records The researcher had access to student files, health, achieve- ment, and special services records, lesson plans, classroom mate- rials from A-Z, school bulletins, students' art, samples of students' work, seatwork pages, etc. The historical data were helpful in pro- viding demographic data as support for interview and observation results. Summarygof Methodology, The specific methodology used in this study is that of par- ticipant observation. The primary role employed by the researcher was that of observer with a limited amount of participation. Par- ticipant observation is characterized by a blend of field research procedures. Several months of observation in this first-grade classroom produced well over 300 single-spaced pages of field notes, dozens of bulletins and work dittos, 20 hours of tape-recorded interviews, and numerous samples of student work. Direct observation is the core technique of participant obser- vation. Participant observation draws its strength as a method from the fact that the investigator is able to observe the community first- hand and witness the behavior of the participants in a variety of situations. The primary advantage of this method is that . . there are certain types of data which can only be unearthed by the investigator who enters into close and con- tinuous interaction with his informants. . . . Participant observation seems to be the only way by which we can get an 83 "in depth picture" of communities, subcultures and complex organizations. 26 The information gathered during participant observation was coded, classified, sorted, and filtered through the study's Model of Community matrix. Of course, all the data are not included in this research report. That which does appear is, hopefully, representative of the social reality in this first-grade classroom community. 126Dennis E. Poplin, Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research (New York: Macmillan Company, l972):'p. 284. CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Introduction The introduction of this chapter is a brief overview of the educational surroundings, the conditions and the routines which con- stitute the background from which the classroom community will be sketched. These environmental elements are: the city, the school, the classroom, the students, the teachers, the student teachers, the mother helpers, the staff, and the morning and afternoon classroom routines. The City The town of Lincoln is a residential community with 16,000. Many are employed in the nearby university city of Newhaven. Lincoln is mostly white and has a small minority population. The school dis- trict receives no state aid and it is wealthy by comparative stan- dards. There is one large high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools. Lincoln Elementary is centrally located. It is surrounded by one-family residential housing. The School Lincoln Elementary was built in the mid-fifties. It has been expanded as the community has grown. The school is situated in a 84 85 residential valley of homes called Meadowbrook Lane. The building is a cross-shaped structure with l2 classrooms. There are 350 students from kindergarten to grade five. The building is a one-level struc- ture. It has four wings. Each wing has a covered overhang which serves as a poor-weather play area and as an access area to each classroom. (See Appendices C and D.) Entrance into the classrooms was through outside access doors to eliminate crowded hallways during entry and exit from the building. In the center of the building was a carpeted library area. This also served as a multi-media center. Located on the perimeter of the library area were the offices for reading disabilities, learning disabilities, counseling, and admin- istration. The Classroom For the reader to better visualize this classroom, see Appen- dix B. The classroom had 22 desks which were placed in a semi- circular pattern around a central carpeted area. These desks were movable and they each had a slide tray underneath for book storage. Each desk was adjusted for student size and had a straight-backed, unattached chair. The spare desks were used for activity centers and extra work areas. Two adult chairs were always at the front of the room. One of these chairs was used for storage and the other chair was used for class discussion. The room was filled with student art work. The art projects were pinned to tag boards, taped to windows and the chalkboards, and hung from ceiling wires. Two large tables were in the hallway. They were used by the class as work 86 tables. Certain student desks were designated as "offices." These were isolated desks for students who either preferred to or needed to work alone. Other than these few details, Appendix B, The Class- room, is self—explanatory. It is similar in many respects to the typical elementary classroom. The Students There were 20 students in Mrs. w.'s first-grade classroom. There were ll girls and 9 boys. All the students in the room were placed by parental request. The principal noted that, "The students were all referred by parents into Mrs. w.'s room because of her repu- tation for a happy, but structured, classroom." Fictitious names were provided for each of the students. The names are listed as they relate to the seating chart in Appendix A, The Classroom. They are: Jeff, Mag, Cary, Henry, Karla, Brice, Dale, Kris, Joff, Yin, Larry, Betsy, Anna, Brice, Elsa, Trina, Gary, Brenda, Alissa, Lana, and Craig. All students, except for Lana and Joff, had the same kindergarten teacher the year before. Lana was a transfer from California. Lana was held back a year due to the faster academic pace of the Lincoln schools. Joff was academically talented. He skipped the kindergarten year. The only students who had apparent physical problems were Lana and Alissa. Lana had a speech problem and saw the speech therapist once a week. Alissa had a weakness in one eye and she had to wear corrective lens tape. Other than the listed difference, the students in Mrs. w.'s class represent the full range of physical and academic abilities typically found in a first-grade classroom. 87 The Teacher The teacher will be noted under the fictitious name of Mrs. W. Mrs. W. is in her early fifties. She has been teaching for 27 years. She taught l3 years in the nearby city of Milsap as an early-elementary teacher. Mrs. W. spent five years in Europe and Africa with her hus- band, who teaches at a nearby university. While overseas, Mrs. W. kept active by teaching in the foreign schools. For the past nine years Mrs. W. has taught in the same room and in the same grade in Lincoln. Mrs. W. has one son, a senior at Lincoln High School. Her husband went through heart surgery during this study. Mrs. W. weathered the serious operation with little effect on her teaching attitude and teaching performance. Mrs. W. has had a number of researchers in her classroom over the years. She openly welcomed this observer. Mrs. W. was noted by the principal as "a structured and kind teacher with superior control over the students through mutual respect and love." The Student Teachers Two student teachers were present in this first grade during the study. These student teachers were part of a special teacher- training program which was supervised by the nearby university. This program was designed to allow direct, sustained contact with class- room students as early as the junior year in college. The students spent the entire academic year in Mrs. W.'s class on a part-time basis. Miss B. was scheduled every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in the morning. Miss M. was scheduled the same days in the after- noon. These two student teachers were very different in attitude, 88 style, and personality. During the final two weeks of the school year, each of these student teachers assumed full control over some of the classroom activities. The Substitute Teachers Five different substitutes were observed during this study. Mrs. W.'s husband had heart surgery. This forced her to be absent for a number of days and forced the school to replace her with sub- stitute teachers. The substitutes and the student teachers enabled the observer to record the reaction of the student community under a number of different teacher styles and teacher personalities. The Mother Helpers Mrs. W. encouraged most of the students' mothers to help out in the hallway during reading time. The mothers were aides each day from 9:30—ll:30 a.m. A different mother daily helped in the hallway on extra drill, reinforcement, or oral reading with small groups of students from the classroom. The addition of a mother helper in the classroom was a pattern Mrs. W. used every teaching year. Mrs. W. actively solicited the mothers' help, and the response was very positive. Daily the students encountered the parents in a close helper relationship. The Staff A few other staff persons interacted on a regular basis with Mrs. W.'s first-grade classroom. They are briefly listed along with their relationship to the classroom. Mrs. K was the learning 89 disabilities teacher. She helped to teach the slowest reading group, the P.L.A., every Tuesday. Mrs. R. was the music teacher. She taught music every Monday and Wednesday afternoon in the music room. Mrs. G. was the gym teacher. She taught P.E. to the class every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. Mrs. C. was the library director. She frequently taught the students how to use the library center materials. Mrs. S. was the other first-grade teacher in the adjoin- ing room. Frequently Mrs. S. and Mrs. W. shared materials, films, and taught cooperative lessons. They often helped one another watch each other's room. They had a fluid communication from nine years as room neighbors. Finally, Harry, the custodian, was the Mr. Fix-It for the classroom. He was seen on a daily basis. The School Routines The following schedule on page 90 is a skeletal list of the morning and afternoon routines. This is intended to provide a sketch of the recurrent pattern of events and activities in the Monday to Friday classroom life. This schedule is Open to teacher discretion (the instructional sequence and duration are open to teacher change and adjustment). Time blocks are manipulated, if necessary, to com- plete work projects or pursue special activities. The afternoons were devoted to mostly "hands-on" type projects. 90 ll ll ll 12 I2: :25- 9 :10- 9: :15- 9: :45-11: :00-ll: :10-111 :45-12: :40-12: 55- l: :35- 2: :25- 2: :30- 3: :05- 3: :15- 3: :45.. 00.. 10.. 45... 40.. 55... 15... 20.. ..students enter, remove wraps, get seated. ..greetings, roll call, lunch count, pledge to the flag, marking of the calendar. .teacher-led discussion, plans for the day, review of seatwork page assignments. .reading groups called up, taught (four groups) .teacher checks seatwork for the day social studies and recess combination and, on Monday or Friday, replaced by Show-n-Tell with recess combination. .lunch time and recess outside (inside the room if weather is extremely poor) quiet time, students rest with lights out. ..science and spelling, on Tuesday I.M.C. on Thursday, t.v. show I'Jelly Bean Junction." ..art project time with 20-minute recess added; math lesson added. ..get ready for music or gym time, except Friday. ...gym, Monday and Wednesday, and music, Tuesday and Thursday; Friday is listening to taped story day (tape day). clean-up time or abbreviated spelling or math lesson. .get ready to go time, changing, straigtening rows , etc o Figure 3.--Daily classroom schedule. 91 The four exploratory questions listed in the Purpose on pages 4-5 will be used as major headings in the presentation of the data. The purpose of this study is (l) to use the Model of Community to describe the development and maintenance of community within an elementary classroom and (2) to explain the effect of that entity on instruction and the management of instruction. The exploratory questions directly attend to the purpose. They form solid footings upon which the data on classroom community can be presented. The First Guide Question l'Which classroom activities, sentiments, and interactions support classroom community?" For the purposes of this study, an event or activity is said to have a high degree of communityness only if it satisfies all three dimensions of the Model of Community. The activity or event must (l) be recurrent and routinized over a time, (2) be local to the classroom with a high degree of participation (over half of the class), and (3) include the major characteristics of community. Classroom Communal Activities The first subheading under the first guide question concerns those classroom activities that consistently supported the Model of Community dimensions and contributed to an over-all sense of commu- nity. The list of activities is not exhaustive. Those activities that are included best typify communal events. Exit and entry. The students were involved in a community experience early each morning. Before the beginning of each school 92 day, Mrs. W.'s students gathered on the benches underneath the outdoor covered entrance to the room. A few minutes before the bell, the boys and girls jockeyed for position on their respective benches: boys on the south and girls on the east. The students squeezed in next to class friends. Only Mrs. W.'s class was permitted to wait in this entrance area. Moments before the bell rang, the students were nearly all seated. After the bell, Mrs. W. opened the outside access door and surveyed the entire group. She said, "Let's see who are the quietest, the boys or the girls?" Those who entered the room first were rewarded with early water fountain use, with early access to the bathroom, and with more time to talk and play with friends. Each room entrance produced the same cooperative effort. Exit from the classroom was a slightly different operation. Exit from the room meant: recess, lunch, gym, music, library, or a special school event. Cooperation during exit activity was l00 percent. During exit activities Mrs. W. stimulated subgroup competition through challenge cues like "Which row can be the quietest? Which row can be the straightest? Whichever row can will go first." These verbal cues stimulated group pride and subgroup cooperation. Just before morning recess, Mrs. W. said, "If you wanted recess how would I know?" The students began to busily straighten and pick up paper around their respective rows. They then each sat as straight as they could with their hands folded. Jeff and Brice in the Fountain Row continued to talk. Karl complained to Brice, "You are so noisy we will never get out!" Teacher excused the Window Row first, then the next quietest rows. The Fountain Row was last. 93 Some students, like Brice and Jeff, did not comply with the exit and entrance cues. They sometimes hurt their respective subgroups. Most students cooperated with the exit and entrance rituals. A student or teacher who interfered with the entrance and exit activities risked condemnation by the group members. For example, the teacher lined up the students according to lunch designations. She implored, "O.K., the hot lunchers can line up first. Next the packers. Next the going homers." Mrs. W. was interrupted by Brice talking. Mrs. W. st0pped the hot lunchers from going. Henry said to Brice, "Be quiet so we can go to lunch!“ The exit and entry routines stimulated community responsi- bility. The class exited or entered as a large group or smaller sub— groups. The students entered and exited as group members responsible for their own behavior and for the behavior of others. The Pledge of Allegiance. The morning activities from 9:l5 to 9:45 a.m. were directed toward the class as a whole. The Pledge stimulated a high level of student cooperative effort. At about 9:l5 a.m. each day the group rose to the nonverbal cue of Mrs. W. placing the flag in the hands of one of their classmates. The students placed their hands to their chests and said the words of the pledge. Some students were only able to mouth the words, but nearly all students made an effort. For example, at 9:l5 a.m. Yin held up the flag given to him from Mrs. W. The class stood at atten- tion. Brice and Dale got up late. Participation was 100 percent. Dale had trouble saying the words but pretended to say them anyway. 94 The group fully cooperated with this activity. Each student received the chance to be I'flag person" on a rotating basis. Also, the Pledge was a relatively unsupervised activity in which each stu- dent could feel a measure of success without feeling left out. Discussion time. This activity was the strongest contributor to the spirit of community. Usually discussions took place in the morning sessions. On a few occasions, discussion was duplicated in the afternoon sessions. Morning discussions usually lasted for 20 minutes. Afternoon discussions were usually done in conjunction with art, science, or social studies projects and lasted for about l5 minutes. Most discussion topics were posed by the teacher. Some- times a topic was suggested by the students. For example, one day Mag brought in a pussy willow. Mag showed the pussy willow to the class. Mrs. W. said, "Oh, thank you for this beautiful pussy willow!" Mrs. W. put the pussy willow in a vase, and Mag volunteered to sing a song she knew about pussy willows. Mag sang the song twice. The teacher followed this with a pussy willow discussion and art project with pussy willow pictures. During discussions Mrs. W. patiently waited for students to volunteer their points in the discussion. Often the whole group would share something about a particular topic. Discussion time was led by Mrs. W. sitting at the Big Chair in the front of the room. In the morning discussion the students sat at their desks. In the after- noon discussions the students usually sat on the floor around the Big Chair. Discussions included the majority of the students. For 95 example, one morning the teacher initiated discussion on "Boys and girls, can you tell me what is different in the room today?" The students excitedly volunteered answers to the many changes Mrs. W. had made in their room over the spring vacation. On March 26 and March 27, a Thursday and Friday, the researcher tape recorded the discussion patterns during both morning sessions. The discussions lasted an average of 25 minutes each. The sessions revealed that the class members accounted for an average of l00 verbal responses. Most of these responses were in sentence form. An example of the student involvement in discussion was when Joff volunteered to read and discuss what he read the night before. Joff was in the other Big Chair and reading to the group. Following the reading the teacher led the storytime discussion with Joff about the story of a boy who held back the flood with his thumb. Alissa and Elsa were the only students who did not ask questions or talk about the interesting story. Art project time. Art project time surfaced as a consistent support activity for building community cooperation. This activity was a student favorite and an apparent teacher favorite. Mrs. W. said, "Besides reading, my favorite to teach is art!" The room was a veritable collage of art projects. Nearly every extra space was decorated with a sample of student art. The art made the room appear both personal and colorful. These art displays were weekly changed. Each day from l:35 to 2:30 p.m. Mrs. W. organized a student group art project. The class did art projects concerned with the seasons, 96 flowers, social studies, science, and other topics of importance and of interest to the students. Sometimes she organized art projects to present as gifts to friends of the class, such as the secretary or the custodian. Each art project was preceded by a class discussion concerning the art topic. Following discussion she selected student monitors to pass out the needed materials and art tools. Students were permitted to talk and share during art project time. For example, one big art project was making singing-in-the-rain male and female figures. During a large art project like singing-in-the-rain there was little student-teacher interaction following initial discussion. There was a dramatic increase in student-student interactions and a marked increase in cooperation between students. They helped each other and constantly compared progress of each other's art. Show-and-tell. On Monday or Friday the class participated in an activity called Show-and-Tell. Each Show-and-Tell period lasted about 20 minutes. This activity was a prime example of communal activity in the classroom. The students were in charge of supervising this activity. A chairman was selected from the group on a rotating basis. The chairman was in charge of the Show—and-Tell period. He or she was to select students from the class audience who wished to be "showers." Typically five or six students got the opportunity to show their favorite toy or book, etc., to the class. The "shower" was allowed to call on students for questions about the thing that was shown. The student chairman made sure that the class followed the rules of Show-and-Tell. The observer noted fluid interaction between students during this activity. On March 23 and March 27, 97 Monday and Friday, the observer took frequency counts during Show- and-Tell. The results indicated that the activity lasted for an average of 20 minutes. The students asked questions and gave answers at a rate of 60 questions per session and 68 answers and statements. Most questions were in the form of sentences and most responses were two- and three-word replies. There were over three question/responses per minute during Show-and-Tell sessions. Seatwork time. A daily event that provided communal activity in the classroom was seatwork time. At about 9:40 a.m. the teacher would finish the morning opening activities of roll call, lunch count, pledge, marking the day of the week, and initial discussion. She would then assign a series of prepared dittos dealing with reading, math, English, spelling, a fun coloring page, and a penmanship paper. The intent of the seatwork was to keep the students busy while Mrs. W. met with the four different reading groups. Mrs. W. explained the seatwork to the students: "Mrs. W. always gives you something fun that you can do at your seat. That way you won't get so bored." Everyone in the class had the same seatwork pages except for an occasional extra math sheet for the two top math students, Brenda and Kris. Together the entire group would discuss the seatwork pages. The teacher would explain the ditto page, or if she felt that the students already knew how to do the independent assignment, she would have the class members call off the answers in rotation. The entire discussion of seatwork lasted only about five minutes. Mrs. W. would typically end the discussion by saying, "I hope we have super workers today!" or "Let's see how quiet we can be working today." 98 At about 9:45 a.m. the students were left to work on their own. Mrs. W. would leave the Big Chair, go over to the reading table, slide the kidney-shaped table out, and begin to call up to the teach- ing table the different reading groups. Seatwork time lasted as long as it would take Mrs. W. to finish teaching each of the four reading groups (about 75 minutes, from 9:45 to ll:00 a.m.). Because Mrs. W. needed to subgroup fOr the varying reading groups, she purposely designed seatwork time as a cooperative working arrangement between the students. In an interview with Mrs. W. the researcher was told that "The children have the freedom to help each other. If they don't understand a [seatwork] question, they can go over and ask someone else." Mrs. W. geared the difficulty of the seatwork pages toward the large, average-ability group. Most of the students could complete the seatwork pages with minor aid from others. Those students who might have more difficulty were placed in seating positions near the more able students. When Mrs. W. was asked about the pattern of seating she had selected she said, "I have a theory when I seat them. Usually, I might put someone that might need help next to someone that can help. They are free to ask for help but cannot copy." Mrs. W. rearranged the seating order seven times during the year. At the beginning of the year the students were allowed to select their own seats. Mrs. W. then adjusted the seating to encour- age cooperation among the students. By the time that the researcher had entered the room, the seating order was stable and productive. The seating order changed only once during this study. On April 3rd, Mrs. W. arranged a new seating order (see Figure 4 below). 99 the seating change the researcher asked Mrs. W. to comment on the changes. £030 7?th If you will notice, the changes are not all that much. Alissa because she is just so mean to other students. is much better alone. because their parents have requested it. I try to keep those who work well together close Those that can not work well together are put and Anna. to each other. Alissa Certain students remain where they are into offices to work alone. Fountain Row For example, Larry April 3, 1981 Following I moved [ Jeff Brice [Karla Henry Cary 81 813 GS B74 4%, J Tl . 88 ‘_4 (office)-- Dgge H M J A ~°ff1~4 i 89 d L d arr 1 K BIO e B R (Big Chair) nna. o 612 w A (office)-- Alissa J 618 Mag D G2 .IE——_r Kris lBetsy Elsa Trina Gary Brenda., n7. n11 _Gl GIG _ 816 617 ,Window Row Figure 4.--New seating arrangement. 100 If one compares the initial March seating chart in the class- room (see Appendix B: The Classroom) with the seating in Figure 4, few major changes are seen. The seatwork triads of Cary, Henry, and Karla in the Water Foundain Row, Yin, Joff, and Larry, in the Back Row, and Rina, Gary, and Brenda, in the Window Row, are left untouChed. As the study progressed from April 3, the c00perative dyads of Larry and Anna in the Back Row, Kris and Brenda in the Window Row, Kris and Cary in the Window and Back Rows, Kris and Betsy in the Back Row, Mag and Kris in the Back and Window Row, Kris and Brenda in the Window Row, and Brenda and Alissa in the Window Row. One new triad emerged from this new seating order: Betsy, Elsa, and Trina. The connect- ing arrows in Figure 4 on the preceding page indicate these dyad and triad student cooperatives. During seatwork time these cooperative working groups aided each other with answers, helpful hints, and shared paper, pencils, and crayons. While most students were involved in cooperative groups, a few students were isolated from the cooperative theme. These stu- dents were Jeff, Brice, Dale, Lana, and Craig. All of these five were seated in isolated positions of the room in "offices" or row ends. While the majority of the interactive behaviors of the coop- erative dyads and triads was positive and facilitative of task goals, the majority of the interactive behaviors of the isolated five were mostly disruptive and off-task in nature. These five noncooperative few accounted for 70 percent (995/1431) of the disruptive verbal and nonverbal interactions and 58 percent (860/1493) inattention to task behaviors. (See Appendix G for further information.) 101 Since all seatwork pages were the same, it was not diffi- cult for students to aid one another. They were allowed the oppor- tunity and freedom to support one another during seatwork time. This limited freedom to help one another was carried over to other parts of the curriculum. Since Mrs. W. taught all subjects, except reading, to the whole group, the cooperative dyads and triads extended their seatwork aiding patterns to art, social studies, science, and math activities. The patterns of aiding and c00peration were initiated in seatwork time and continued during most work activities that called for practice of a skill or completion of a work project. Summary of community activities. The classroom activities that encouraged cooperation and stimulated group interaction were (1) exit and entry, (2) the pledge of allegiance, (3) discussion time, (4) art project time, (5) show-and-tell, and (6) seatwork time. There was full participation in each of these activities. Also the students actively influenced the direction of most of these highly routinized activities. The fact that the students were given limited self-governing authority in each of these activities enhanced student participation and cooperation. Most of the activities in the daily life of this classroom were group—centered and cooperative in design. The students in this class were frequently allowed the freedom and opportunity to share, converse, and associate with fellow classmates. Mrs. W. directed nearly every activity toward the whole class and instructed each lesson toward the whole class. Each of the listed community activities was consistent with the Model of Community 102 "localness," routinized action, and communal characteristic dimen- sions. Classroom Communal Interactions The second subheading under the guide question, "Which class- room activities, interactions, and sentiments support classroom community?” is classroom communal interactions. This is concerned with interactions that stimulate and maintain a spirit of classroom community. The first interactional pattern that supports the build- ing of community was established long before the researcher entered the setting. Early in the beginning of the school year, Mrs. W. developed and nurtured the spirit of communal interaction. Group rule setting. From the beginning of the school year, Mrs. W. used group interaction to problem-solve and come to group consensus on the establishment of rules and specific rule enforce- ment. Mrs. W. openly and democratically involved the entire class in discussion of rule initiation and maintenance. In interview Mrs. W. revealed that We work the first six weeks of school on our goals, room goals, individual goals, teacher goals, and we don't really meet in classes as such. We don't start, we just work on classroom living in our room for five, maybe six weeks. Mrs. W. concentrated on classroom management during these first weeks and allowed both student input and discussion before asking for a class consensus on a particular rule. The rules are not written and posted but are, nevertheless, well understood. Mrs. W. further explained that: 103 These rules are positive. The class will say, "We shouldn't run in the hall" and then we'll discuss why. We try to think of all the positive reasons that we shouldn't run in the halls rather than a rule you shouldn't. We don't like to write down those rules; however, we'll follow them. Mrs. W. continued this group-consensus pattern whenever the group seemed to need reminding or when a new rule might need to be established. Mrs. W. always actively involved the students in rule establishment or rule reinforcement. The teacher tried to establish a normal behavior pattern at an upcoming assembly in the hall. Mrs. W. said, "Who can tell me one good manner that we should have when we are an audience?" Jeff said, "We don't bother our neighbors." Mag said, "We should sit so that people behind us can see." Joff said, "We don't cheer with our mouths." Mrs. W. extended community membership to include everyone. Mrs. W. came into the room and saw Yin and Alissa hurting Specks, the classroom rabbit. Mrs. W. sat at the Big Chair and Spoke to the class about how to care for the rabbit. mrs. W. then asked for suggestions as to rules to protect "our friend" (Specks). Many students responded emotionally to the discussion. Mrs. delegated some of her rule-making authority to the stu- dent group by allowing them to discuss and come to agreement on the majority of the rules in the classroom. Of course, the class did not create rules in isolation of Mrs. W. and were not allowed to vote on major curricular decisions. Mrs. W. did, however, give the students options on minor curricular matters, such as whether they wished to do an art or science project for that day. A prime example of this was when the class decided that Harry, the janitor, should receive a 104 gift. When the art project (a giant card that the class had decided would be a thank-you to Harry, the janitor) was completed, Mrs. W. asked the class to decide how it should be sent to Harry. The stu- dents decided to take it down in person. We and us statements. Another group interaction strategy that Mrs. W. employed in this class was the pattern of using "we" and "us" statements to gain student attention and participation. Within the first few days in the classroom, the observer noted such a high frequency of these group statements that new categories were included in the Interactional Coding System; specifically tgs (teacher group statement or direction) and tgq (teacher group question), Appen- dix A. The observer gathered teacher group statements and questions for three consecutive days: Friday, Monday, Tuesday (March 27,1M3,31), coding each full sentence that directly addressed the entire group of students either in question or statement form. The results indicated that Mrs. W. made 140 group statements per day and 92 group ques- tions per day. For these three days, Mrs. W. addressed the whole class in question or statement form an average of 232 times each day. Mrs. W. interacted with "we" and "us" statements often through- out the day. She used group statements almost exclusively. Whenever Mrs. W. addressed the group she used "we," "us," "our," "we're," etc., and seldom referred to herself as anything but "Mrs. W." In one discussion she said, "Class, what should we put on our gift to Harry?" and "Maybe we could draw a nice big picture of our class for Mrs. W.?" The discussion continued before, during, and after the 105 students' art project. In this one lesson segment alone, Mrs. W. made 53 separate group statements. Mrs. W. consistently directed her attention and interaction toward the whole class. On Thursday, April 16, the observer noted that Mrs. W. made reference to the whole group 107 times in the morning session. Repeated reference to the group as a whole was one of the most predictable behavior patterns recorded in this study. The students often referred to their membership in the class by using we and us statements. Seldom would these group expressions surface during academic lessons. However, during class discussions, conflict with another class, or threat from without, the class mem- bers would often use we and us statements. For example, when the students had substitute teachers, they would frequently refer to themselves as a "we." An example of this was when a male substitute teacher took over. The substitute teacher named Ted lost control of the class. A few class members fed wrong information to Ted about class procedures. Larry said, "Mrs. W. always has us read the ques— tions." Trina responded, "That's not true. We don't always, some- time we all take turns." The class all said in unison, "We don't read them!" The whold class was upset with substitute Ted. The students often referred to themselves with "we" and "us" terminology. Since most of the classroom day was spent in whole group activity, students' responses and questions were typically group-centered. The teacher designed so much of the day around the group that most of the interactions between the students and the teacher were of the "we" and "us" variety. 106 Mrs. W. nurtured this we-ness of interaction through hundreds of group statements each day. Mrs. W. often said, “Doesn't our room look nice!“ and "Is this how our big first graders are supposed to act?" and "What super stars you all are!" Teacher and student inter- actions of "we" and "us" were commonplace. After the first three weeks, the observer ceased counting group interactions. Only spot checking was needed to confirm the many thousands of verbal refer- ences to the class as a "we." Cooperative task interaction. Mrs. W. permitted the students to help one another during seatwork period and during class project time. Mrs. W. stated the rationale for cooperative help between classmates. It shouldn't take the students more than 20 minutes to do their seatwork during reading time. But I allow them 100 minutes because of the interactions 1 want them to have. I don't want every child to just sit there and not interact with anyone. They can help each other with seatwork and go to the activity centers after. The seatwork dyads and triads were highly interactive (see Figure 4, page 99). These pairings comprise only 17/190 potential classroom dyads. However, these cooperativeworking clusters account for 46 percent (2597/5688) of the classroom interaction. (See Appen- dix E, Table of Peer Interaction.) The peer interaction was diffuse. Most of the interaction was centered around the cooperative working clusters. Most of the negative, nontask interactions were generated by a small number of students. Craig, Larry, Brice, Jeff, and Dale accounted for 89 percent (1272/1431) of the negative task interac- tions. (See Appendix G, Student Compliance Index.) This classroom group was highly interactive during cooperative learning activities. 107 Only a few students were responsible for the negative task inter- actions. Summary of communal interactions. Most of the students were in direct communication with each other. Most of the students were involved in cooperative seatwork clusters. The general pattern of classroom interaction was diffuse. Most of the students' interactions were generated from cooperative working clusters, and most of the students' interactions were supportive task behaviors. The interac- tional patterns which strongly contributed to community interaction were: (1) the democratic style of rule setting and discussion, (2) the high frequency of "we" and "us" interactions by the teacher and the students, and (3) the cooperative, diffuse interactions during task time. Classroom Communal Sentiments The final subheading under the guide question, "Which classroom activities, interactions and sentiments support classroom community?" is classroom communal sentiments. This is concerned with the classroom sentiments which stimulate and maintain a spirit of community. These data were gathered to determine feelings of harmony, feelings of identity and membership, and feelings of accord in the group. Group identity, Mrs. W. referred to the students in group terms. Mrs. W. addressed the students (1) as members of Mrs. W.'s class, (2) as members of a seating row, (3) as members of a specific reading subgroup, (4) as members of a certain sex, and (5) as members of special entry and exit groups. The observer knew the identity of 108 each of these subgroups as a newcomer comes to know different neighbor- hoods in a small town. Mrs. W. often referred to the whole class as "our super stars!" or "Mrs. W.'s class," etc. Mrs. W. referred to class members through row membership (see page 99, Figure 4). They were the "Fountain Row," the "Back Row," the "Window Row," or the "Offices." For example, when it was time to go out into the hall to celebrate Lana's birthday, Mrs. W. said, "Let's see which rows are clean and straight and ready to go out first?" Trina and Kris in the Window Row frantically urged the other Window Row students to clean and straighten their desks. Trina did a final visual check of the row and sat down with her hands folded. Mrs. W. then said, "Look at the Window Row, they really wanted to go to the party!" The students identified themselves in whole group and sub- group terms. For example, when substitutes called reading groups by number rather than name, the students responded, "We are the Teddys, not Group One!“ The students expected to be addressed by their group subtitles. When a student teacher or substitute faltered, the stu- dents quickly reminded the speaker of the error. One substitute day Miss Button said, "Can the window seats please line up?" Betsy reacted immediately and said, "We are the Window Row!" Miss Button then called other rows' names improperly. Dale rudely remarked, "That's not right. We're the Offices!" Through these many subgroup names Mrs. W. was able to address the whole class and subsections of the class very efficiently. One of the frequent subgroup designations was between the sexes. Fre- quently Mrs. W. made reference to the students in terms of "boys" and 109 "girls." Often Mrs. W. determined entry into the classroom by the "quietest and most ready boys and girls." Before lunch period Mrs. W. referred to "hot lunchers," "cold lunchers," and "going- homers." Before final exit from the school, Mrs. W. called the subgroups "walkers" and "bussers." Students responded rapidly to any of these subgroup terms. Each of the subgroups reminded the observer of local neighborhoods within the context of the larger city- community. The subgroup designations became accepted verbal cues which specified subset membership of the classroom whole. Group liking patterns. One standard measure of cohesion is the degree to which members of a group like each other. Class members were friends of other class members. During lunch and recess the students were allowed to talk to and play with whomever they wished. Although they could choose friends from other classes, these first graders exclusively were friends with other first graders in their own room. If the students in this class did have friendships out— side of Mrs. W.'s room they certainly did not play with or talk with them very often while at school. Only Kris, Alissa, Jeff, and Joff played at all with students from another room. However, even this was done very infrequently. Although there was no rule that forbade friendship and play with students from another class, the students in Mrs. W.'s class stayed together as if there was a specific rule against association with nonclass students. The degree to which these classroom members preferred each other's friendship was measured by asking the students to name their best friend and next best friend in school (specific questions in 110 Appendix J, Student Interview, graphed in Appendix F, Class Socio- grams, I and II). The observer took sociometric samples on March 25 and May 28. The results indicate a consistent and diffuse pattern 127 the formula for mere chance reciprocated choice in friendship selection is p = “97-, of friendship. According to Moreno and Jennings, where p equals the probability of reciprocated choice, N equals the number of students, and d equals the number of choices allowed. Since 2 choices were allowed and there were 20 students, the probability of reciprocated choice by chance equals 2 (10.53% or 2.11 pairs) of the possible 20 reciprocal pairings. Sociograms I and II indicated 8 and 12 reciprocal pairs. There were decided pairings of friendship. Sociograms I and II further indicate a diffuse friendship pattern. The friendship choices were broadly scattered and few students were isolated. Only one student received no friendship choices in both sociograms. Rather than isolated clusters of friends, the sociograms indicate interconnectedness. Boys were friends with other boys, and girls were friends with other girls. The sociograms indicate small clusters of mutual friendship. Students were allowed to choose friends from other classrooms if they wished. The results replicate the play-pattern observations inside and outside the room. In both Sociograms I and II, there was not one friendship choice made outside the room. Jeff, Alissa, and Anna had few friends in the class, yet they still chose classmates as their best and next best friends. 127K. M. Evans, Sociometry and Education (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962), pp. 30-39. 111 The liking pattern in this class points to a cohesive, harmonious spirit of belonging. Groupgexpressions of togetherness. The students preferred each other's friendship and companionship. During the school day, Mrs. W.'s class (1) sat together, (2) ate together, and (3) played together. The group sat together whenever they were allowed the free- dom to choose a seating position outside the room. Mrs. W. let the students watch a few movies with other classes in the outer hall. She did not stop students from moving within the larger audience. There was no direct threat to stay in a room cluster but they did stay together as a class. Only two students, Kris and Alissa, sat with nonclass members and did this infrequently. The class sat together during multi-class T.V. viewing or hall art projects or while attending all-school lectures or presentations. The students shifted places during these events. However, the movement was simply a seat— ing shift in order to sit next to their preferred room friends. When asked about the rules for outside seating, Mrs. W stated, "They are allowed to sit where they want to as long as they do not disturb what is going on." The group also ate lunch together each day. The observer charted the students' seating preferences in the lunchroom periodi- cally for 24 days. Typically, at least 16 of the 20 class members ate in the lunchroom (others went home for lunch or were absent). The seating in the lunchroom was Open to student choice. Students were allowed to sit on any table they wished. The pattern was room friend next to room friend. Boys sat with boys, girls with girls, 112 but almost always with fellow classmates. An averaging of the 24 sample lunch times indicated that 14 of the 16 students present from Mrs. W.'s classroom ate together. Most of these room clusters involved four or more room friends. Even the lunchroom ladies were unaware of the preferred seating by the room members. After a number of obser- vations in the lunchroom, the following occurred. The lunchroom ladies asked the observer what he was doing with the paper and pencil. They were told that it was simply a charting of Mrs. W.'s class dur- ing lunch. One lunch lady said (laughing), "You don't need to do that! We're here every day. The kids sit all over the place. They're never together." The exact opposite was true. Mrs. W.'s class members sat together to eat lunch in tight-knit, cohesive clus- ters. These friendship clusters were remarkably similar to the socio- metric choices, Sociograms I and II, Appendix F. Mrs. W.'s class not only sat and ate together, they also played almost exclusively with fellow classmates. Each day the observer recorded recess and lunch-hour play preferences and play patterns. The structure of play was different for boys and girls. Boys played en masse, except for Joff and Yin, who occasionally liked to chase, and be chased, by the girls. While the boys played the large-group games of football, soccer, and kickball, the girls played in mostly twos and threes. The girls played jump rcpe, jacks, "catch" with a playground ball, or just "hung around" the playground climbing bars to talk. Not once did the girls play as a unit. Although the girls and boys played differently, they always chose to play with other room members. The occasional exceptions were Yin 113 and Joff. The only girl who was excluded by the group was Alissa. Alissa was easily angered and fought other girls frequently. Trina once commented to Mrs. W. that Alissa was trying to start a fight with her during recess. Mrs. W. told her not to pay attention to Alissa. Trina then said, "She's [Alissa] always like that. Nobody likes her!" Even though Alissa did not have many class friends, she still played with other classmates most of the time. The same pattern seemed to occur during 60 noon-recess observations. The pattern was cohesion. Except for a few students, classmates played exclusively with other classmates. At times other students from outside the class would try to join the boys in their kickball or soccer games. Seldom were members of other classes allowed to join in. An example of this occurred one noon recess. The boys were playing kickball. All the boys were involved in the game. Betsy, Trina, and Alissa were play- ing skip rope while Brenda and Kris watched. The observer looked for Mag, Elsa, and Lana in the playground area but found them in the front of the school playing Chinese jumprope. Every student was playing with other classmates. Mrs. W. allowed free choice as to whom the students wished to sit next to, eat with, and play with. In all cases the class members preferred other members of their own class. This togetherness closely followed the friendship clusters indicated in the sociometric data. Summary of classroom communal sentiments. The communal sen- timents which supported the spirit of community in the classroom include (1) the feeling of membership in, and identification with, the classroom group and subgroups, (2) the exclusive and diffuse 114 liking pattern of class members, and (3) the many expressions of group togetherness. The feeling of we-ness appeared to go beyond the classroom walls to include other school-day activities. These students were exclusive friends of one another and were exclusive playmates of one another. Throughout the school day they carried with them an exclusive communal identity. They were members of Mrs. W.'s class. The Second Guide Question The second guide question is "What role does the teacher play in the development and maintenance of classroom community?“ This serves as the second major heading in the presentation of the data. The central figure in the classroom community is the teacher. She occupies the position of responsibility in coordination and organization of instructional activities. The focus of this section of the presentation of the data will concern the teacher as a group leader who facilitated and maintained conditions conducive to a spirit of classroom community. Establishing a Structured Democracy Mrs. W. established a highly structured and democratic class- room pattern. She encouraged the students to question and discuss the "why" of each class rule. She asked the students to contribute their own ideas about proper group behavior (see also Group Rule Setting, page 102). From the beginning of the school year, Mrs. W. pursued a pattern of group rule-setting. The group was encouraged 115 to discuss each class rule and routine. The students knew what the rules were and knew why the rules were established. Other staff members commented on Mrs. W.'s class structure. According to the learning disabilities teacher, There's a skeletal structure in Mrs. W.'s class that's very solid. The children know at every moment what is expected. Yet it's not repressive in any way. It's probably the most positive, highly structured environment I have ever seen. The neighboring first-grade teacher, Mrs. S., commented on the pattern of training Mrs. W. used to create a structured democracy. "She trains the students from the beginning of the year in a very struc- tured, slow process to bring them to the point of independence within certain limits. The structure is subtle but always constant." Mrs. W. did not directly punish students who did not comply with the accepted class rules. She seldom aimed criticism at an indi- vidual class member. She used positive, group-centered statements to insure group attention to the rules. Often Mrs. W. pointed out positive, conforming behavior of an individual as a model for the group to follow. Mrs. W. said, "Simon says, those who want to have fun give me a pattern like Joff." Joff sat straight and listened attentively during the lesson. She further said, "Oh what super stars we have. They are all showing us a pattern like Joff!" Mrs. W. often encouraged the students to repeat the rules by saying, "How is our class supposed to behave during indoor recess?" or "Who can tell us what we are to do when we walk in the halls?" The music teacher commented on Mrs. W.'s firm and democratic class environment: "They are structured to the point that they know 116 how to come in and sit down. They are very polite. They know what they are there for yet have the freedom to do their own thing also." Mrs. W. created a democratic feeling in the class by dele- gating some rule-establishing responsibility to the students. She commented on how this was done. She said, We make the rules together. For example, I"ll say, "What do you think would be a good rule so that we can all use the bathroom when we need to?" They might say, "Could we have a pass?" They we talk about a number of options and decide. Mrs. W. allowed the students to have a legitimate voice in setting room rules. Often the students were asked to repeat the class rules. For example, Kris volunteered to repeat a class rule. Mrs. W. queried, "Who can tell us what the rules are during seatwork time?" Kris said, "No one is to come up to the table during reading time. When we get our work done we can go to the activity centers. Not too many people can be at each center. We cannot play at the centers." The structure of the class went beyond specific rules. The activities in the classroom day were predictable in two ways: timing and sequence. Mrs. W. had an internal timeclock that enabled her to estimate, to the minute, the transition from activity to activity. On page 90 is the Daily Classroom Schedule. The timing of the events and activities was seldom more than a few minutes off. If the timing was off, Mrs. W. would forewarn the students of the time difference by saying, "Well, it looks like our discussion is running a little long today. Could we put our thoughts that we wanted to say in our pockets 'till later?" When timing was jeopardized by a school announcement, a special activity, or class interruption, Mrs. W. would typically ask 117 the group, "Is it all right if we continue this in the afternoon?” The students were able to anticipate the next classroom activity with minimal teacher cueing. Often the students began to get ready for the next lesson before the teacher gave a verbal cue. Mrs. W. never forgot to forewarn the students of a major change in the timing of a routine activity. Mrs. W. also was consis- tent in the sequencing of classroom activities. The teacher did not juggle the activity schedule unless a major interruption, like a fire drill, caused an activity to run into the scheduled time of another classroom event. Again, when sequence needed to be altered, the teacher typically warned the students well ahead of the needed change. This is not to say that Mrs. W. lacked spontaneity in her teaching style. In fact, the ability to adjust her instructional plans to meet student need or interest was perceived by Mrs. W. and others as one of her major strengths. Mrs. W. talked about her strengths during interview. You have to have some structure. You can't just teach some— thing out of the blue. I feel I want to fit it into our schedule. After they have learned something about maps, then I might say, "Now is a good time." Even when Mrs. W. spontaneously took an idea a student might suggest, she would fit it into the sequence of class events in a scheduled time for that type of an activity. The following was an example of this spontaneous teaching: Mag brought in a pussy willow to show to the class. Mrs. W. put the pussy willow in a water vase to keep it longer. Mag then volunteered a pussy willow song. Mag sang it twice. Mrs. W. led the pussy willow discussion. Mrs. W. changed 118 the art lesson to drawing pussy willows later that afternoon. The classroom schedule of events was routinely timed and sequenced very accurately by the teacher. If sequence or timing was to be changed, Mrs. W. would clearly define the purpose for the change and the new sequence or timing of activities to come. Mrs. W. structured activi- ties and events in such a way as to insure predictability and security in what was going to happen and what would be expected. In summary, Mrs. W. promoted a democratic forum in which the students could introduce, discuss, and have a voice in deciding general classroom rules. The class rules established were enforced through individual and group praise of accepted behavior and never through negative statements or actions. The teacher orchestrated a highly routinized set of basic activities. These events were predict— ably timed and sequenced so that each set of activities was easily anticipated with little anxiety or surprise. Each change in routine was forewarned and explained to the student group. The teacher designed a highly organized democratic structure which was a stable and predictable work environment. The students were allowed the Oppor- tunity to discuss rules and procedures. Mrs. W. led the group to a measure of limited freedom within a structured environment. This micro-democracy encouraged high involvement by the students in a routinized, group-centered environment. Mrs. W. created and nurtured a democracy within certain classroom limits. Focus on Group Success The teacher played a central role in the sponsoring of an attitude of "we-ness." As noted on page 107, the teacher referred 119 to the whole group over 200 times per day. Mrs. W. not only directed interactions toward the group as a whole, she designed every activity and every lesson, except reading-group time, for whole-class consump- tion. Even in reading-group time, success was not measured by indi- vidual gain. Rather, the separate reading groups completed tasks as a learning whole. All members of each reading group had the same direct instruction, the same material to read, and the same practice sheets. Although the different reading groups had a wide range of ability, all students in the class did essentially the same daily reading seatwork. Mrs. W. started the day with, "Good morning, boys and girls!" and ended the day with a similar group address. Mrs. W. always focused less attention and less interaction on the individual. Mrs. W. concentrated attention and interaction toward the whole group. Individuals did exist but not out of the context of the group. Success was usually measured in terms of the group. Even when Mrs. W. called the students up to check their seatwork, she did so in threes and fours. All students had the same basic set of seatwork pages. Checking was done as a small group by simply eyeing the correct answers. Checking took only a few minutes of time for each group. Mrs. W. would say, "What superstars we have today!" or "I can see that everyone was being extra neat today!" The classroom day was filled with communal activities (see pages 91-107). Instruction was aimed toward the large, central group. She selected work material that the majority of the students would be successful with. She gave the rationale for similar seatwork for all the students: 120 I like to give everyone at least two or three [seatwork] sheets that everyone can do. I think 75% of the seatwork should be done without teacher help. That way a youngster doesn't feel dumb because he's got easier work. Each student was allowed to go to one of the many activity centers hithe room following completion of seatwork pages (Appendix 8). Free access to these centers was contingent upon overall group quiet- ness during seatwork time. Mrs. W. would say, "If we wish to keep using the centers, how would I know it?" The teacher insured that each class member had the opportunity to participate equally in class discussions and all other class activities. After one month of classroom observation, the observer noted that every activity, except reading, involved the entire group. Every activity was totally group centered, and each activity had high levels of class participation. Every major activity was highly routinized and occurred in a highly sequenced pattern. The teacher designed class projects which were completed only when all the stu- dents in the class participated. For example, she initiated a Globe Club. In order to be a member of the Globe Club, a student had to (1) find the Pacific Ocean, (2) show another student that he or she had found it on the globe, and (3) write his or her name on the Globe Club Roster. Every student, except Craig, completed the project within a few days. Mrs. W. reminded the students over and over that "The Globe Club is still not complete. One of our students has still not finished." The class waited for two weeks before Craig signed the roster. Mrs. W. daily reminded the student group that one person was still not listed. The students pleaded with Craig to complete 121 the project for a full week until he signed. The day Craig did sign, Mrs. W. said to the group, "We are now all signed up on the Globe Club! Isn't that wonderful. Let's all give ourselves a hand! [applause].” Mrs. W. encouraged her students to compete and to excel on the group level in school and in competition against other classes. However, she was quite opposed to competition between her students. Following a Field Day (all-school competition in running, jumping, and playing events), Mrs. W. spoke of how much she disliked giving first-, second-, and third-place ribbons. She said, "What about the kids that can't win, what do they get?" After the Field Day, Mrs. W. gave everyone in the class a ribbon for "just trying.“ Mrs. W. seldom commented about an individual's performance unless the comments were meant to encourage the group. Often Mrs. W. commented about her pride in the class. After a one-day absence she sighed, "I missed my super workers. I was lonely for them." The students told Mrs. W. that they were good for the substitute. Mrs. W. said, "How do you think I feel about that? We all have feel- ings." Trina said, "You feel happy because we did so well!" In summary, Mrs. W. taught nearly every lesson to the whole group. She assigned the same seatwork to the whole class. She con- sistently referred to the group in "we" and "us" terms. Mrs. W. designed seating patterns to stimulate cooperative work clusters. Furthermore, the teacher delegated selected classroom duties and selected classroom responsibilities to the student group. Mrs. W. encouraged the classmates to be responsible for themselves and for 122 other class members. Under the strong, democratic leadership of Mrs. W., the class displayed high levels of cooperative community effort. Promoting Positive Grogp Social-EmotionaT'Tone Mrs. W. provided a warm and secure atmosphere in the class- room. The teacher never used negative statements. In interview with Mrs. W., the observer asked, "What are your major strengths as a teacher?" She replied, My most important strength is that I never use negatives in my room. My second strength is that I love children and I think they sense it. Another strength is controlling the room through body actions. The raise of an eyelid or the expression of the mouth is sufficient. I don't have to use words. Mrs. W. interacted in a supportive and positive style through- out the study. Mrs. W. used indirect verbal cues to notify a student that he or she was not behaving properly. For example, during one reading period Jeff and Brice were passing a toy car back and forth. Mrs. W. noticed that the two boys were disturbing other workers. She asked, "Are all my workers being quiet during reading time?" Imme- diately Jeff and Brice began blaming one another for causing too much noise. Without directly criticizing the boys, Mrs. W. sent a message out that the misbehavior should cease. Sometimes merely looking in the direction of misbehavior was enough of a cue. When Mrs. W. was out in the hall talking to the janitor one afternoon, the class was buzzing with interaction. There were 45 separate interactions in three minutes. When Mrs. W. came in, she made her mouth in the shape of the letter 0. They quieted immediately. 123 Mrs. W. even changed the seating order in the kindest of ways. On April 2nd, Mrs. W. decided that a few students needed to be moved to other seating. Instead of simply moving them, Mrs. W. asked, "Will the students who would like to move to a new seat please put their names on a piece of paper and put it on my desk by the end of the day?" The next day Mrs. W. moved Jeff, Mag, Kris, Betsy, Alissa, and Dale. The observer asked Mrs. W. to explain the rationale behind the moves. She said, I like them to decide if they want to move. They usually do if they haven't been getting along well. If you will notice, the changes are not all that much. I wanted to move Alissa because she was so mean to Brenda. She [Alissa] is better off alone. Each morning Mrs. W. met the students at the back door fol- lowing the bell. Each morning Mrs. W. cheerfully greeted the students with kind and considerate remarks. Mrs. W. commented, At the beginning of the school year I met with each child at the back door and said at least one kind word to them so that they would have a happy feeling about coming into the room. I don't know if you have noticed, but I have tried to say one nice thing about each child each day. At the back door the teacher greeted the students with "Oh, what a beautiful dress!“ or "You got a new haircut!" The students either smiled or stopped to talk for a moment. Mrs. W.'s voice was very soft and gentle. The observer had to listen very carefully to hear her voice. After a few days in the classroom, the observer adjusted to the softness and to the gentleness of her voice pattern. During rest period Mrs. W.'s voice was especially soothing to the students. During one afternoon rest period Mrs. W. walked around the room say- ing, "We have such good resters today. I am so proud of the way you 124 are resting!" After the rest period, Mrs. W. asked the students to come up to the Big Chair for discussion. She said softly, "If you think you can come up to the front with your lips like this [gestured to her closed lips] then we can start discussion." These students became such good listeners to Mrs. 1.'s soft voice that little said, even in whisper, was missed by the students. One day Harry, the janitor, came in and quietly spoke to Mrs. W. Harry quietly asked Mrs. W., "How many are in the room?" Mrs. W. joked back, "30!'I Immediately many of the students started to wave their hands to ask a question. Cary walked up to the teacher and Harry and said, "How many in the room?" The teacher had to tell Cary and the class that she and Harry were only joking. The students were listening and were listening closely. The teacher praised student actions that revealed considera- tion and respect for others. Mrs. W. also created numerous opportu- nities to express these sentiments. One such occasion was a special art project for Cathy. Mrs. W. remarked, "Does anyone remember a person named Cathy who was in our class and went away?" The teacher reminded the students of Cathy. The group discussed the many nice memories of Cathy. Teacher mentioned, I'How lonely our friend must be in a town so far away. How nice it would be to send a message of friendship!" Following discussion the students busily made individual friendship cards for Cathy. The observer recorded many episodes of kindness and consideration in this classroom. The class produced art projects of consideration for Mother's Day, for Harry, for the 125 secretary, for the student teachers, for classmate Yin, and even a special project for Specks, the class pet rabbit. Mrs. W. also played the roles of referee and detective. Mrs. W. refused to take sides in a student-to-student conflict. Mrs. W. usually took the role of arbitrator. One day Brenda ran up to Mrs. W. on the playground and yelled, "Alissa's mean! She kicked and punched me. She's always doing that. I hate her! Nobody likes her.” Mrs. W. simply told Brenda to try to stay away from Alissa when she was on the playground. Later that day Mrs. W. talked with Alissa in private at Alissa's desk. She talked to Alissa about "getting along with all our friends in the class." Another example of Mrs. W.'s role as conflict resolver occurred when Henry beat up Yin over noon recess. Mrs. W. noticed Yin was sulking during quiet time. She went over to Yin and asked, "What's wrong today, Yin?" Yin just leaned into Mrs. W. seeking comfort. He said he and Henry fought and that "Now, all the boys hate me!" Mrs. W. later talked to Henry and a few of the other boys, asking them, "Wouldn't it be nice if all our friends got along with each other?" Mrs. W. also helped to create a satisfying group atmosphere by enlisting the help of room mothers. Mrs. W. explained how she talked parents into volunteering. I explain to them that I am a mother too, and that I realize how important our time at home is. But then I tell them that our most precious commodity is our children and that, as a teacher, I cannot do everything. I show them our class day and tell them I probably couldn't teach as well without their help. They always volunteer. Jan—“'- 126 Daily, mother helpers would come in during reading time and help the students with drills, practice sheets, and reading games. The observer recorded the attendance of all but two of the students' mothers during the study. The two who did not help were Dale's mother, who worked during the day, and Craig's mother, who was a medical doctor. Each day there was a different parent volunterr. When a student had his or her mother in the class for the morning, that student usually was the recipient of an increase in peer inter- actions such as, "Your mom is so pretty!” or "Larry, is it your mom today?" The daily presence of the mothers created an opportunity for each student to meet the parents of other classmates and, more impor- tantly, for each student to observe the solid agreement of purpose between the teacher and parents. The observer talked with each parent volunteer about the reasons for volunteering in the classroom. The responses were strikingly similar. The parents were very appre— ciative of the special efforts that were put forth by Mrs. W. Joff's mother said, The reason I come to help here is because Mrs. W. gives of her time for our children and it gives me a chance to see all the friends and things that Joff talks about each day. I think it helps Joff to do better in school when he sees that I care enough to come to help his class. Mrs. W. extended the boundaries of class we-ness to partially include most of the children's parents. She actively solicited parent volunteers. By having the parent volunteers present each day, the students directly observed home-to-school communication about the importance of school. Trina's mother commented, "We like to help Mrs. W.'s class because she is the only teacher that bothers to come 127 to the Parent-Teacher Organization meetings." Mrs. W. stated that she had been invited into nearly every home of the students for dinner. She said, ”I have been in almost every home, and the children feel free to come to my home and visit." Mrs. W. involved herself with the local community beyond the school hours. She promoted a very positive, emotional involvement and positive communication between the parents, the home, and the school. In summary, Mrs. W. promoted a positive social-emotional tone in the classroom (1) through positive and loving interactions, (2) by avoidance of negative criticism, (3) through praise of considerate and respectful student actions, (4) through organization of class projects of consideration for others, (5) through neutral arbitra- tion of classroom conflict, and (6) through daily involvement of parents in the classroom. Summary of the Community Role of the Teacher Mrs. W. developed a spirit of community by early establish— ment of a highly structured and democratic classroom pattern. The students were allowed to help set some of the class behavior guide- lines. Through a structured environment the teacher promoted a safe and secure classroom environment in which students knew what to expect and how to act. Mrs. W. focused nearly all instruction toward the entire class. She seldom isolated individuals for teaching, for praise or for reproof. Mrs. W. promoted interpersonal kindness and consideration and often verbalized the goodness of the class. She involved parents as important partners in the classroom and maintained 128 close personal relations with the parents of the students. In short, Mrs. W. played the roles of group leader, arbitrator of conflict, and mother substitute. She created and promoted a spirit of interper- sonal consideration, a spirit of kindness, and a spirit of we-ness. The Third Guide Question The third guide question is "How do the individual char- acteristics of community effect instruction or the management of instruction?" This serves as the third major heading in the presen- tation of the data. The four community characteristics are presented on page 19, Figure 1, Model of Community. These four characteristics are: (l) Cooperative Activities, (2) Diverse Structure, (3) Norma- tive Boundary, and (4) Group Cohesiveness. Each of these subheadings is defined and more fully explained on pages 10-18. Each of the communal characteristics is interrelated with the other characteristics and interrelated with the other two major dimensions of the Model of Community ("localness" and typology of action). However, each characteristic can be dissected as to its specific effect on instruction. In the following pages, each of the community characteristics is presented in the order listed on the Model of Community. Each of the characteristics will serve as sub- headings under the third guide question. Cooperative Activities This subheading refers to the events and activities which the students shared together as a classroom community. Mrs. W. focused instruction at the whole-group level. Every subject and 129 every activity was taught at the whole-group level except for reading. Mrs. W. usually presented each lesson once, and she used one set of common materials for all the students. The teacher expected students to do their own work, but she allowed students to help one another during most activities. Mrs. W. often remarked, "We can help each other but we must not disturb others." Most of the students belonged to seatwork sharing groups. Since the seatwork clusters were so cooperative in their aid to one another, Mrs. W. needed to give lesson instructions and lesson direc- tions only once. Mrs. W. seldom repeated or restated parts of a lesson since each student could get that information from other group members. When students were absent they received assistance from other seatwork partners. For example, Henry had been absent for four days. He returned from Mrs. W.'s desk with a handful of old assigned seatwork. Henry began to work feverishly to complete the old work. Cary and Karla helped him finish by supplying him with answers and help on how to do assignments. Henry said to Cary, "How do you do this one [phonics page]?" The high rate of cooperation in the classroom resulted in a high rate of completed assignments by the majority of the class (15/20 students totalled only 29 incompleted tasks over three months). Since Mrs. W. focused instruction on the group level, she only had to make plans, instruct, and design practice activities for one group. Because the students cooperatively shared information about a lesson with each other, Mrs. W. only had to teach a lesson once, give direc- tions once, and make an assignment once. Mrs. W. relied on the 130 interpersonal communication between students to restate, redirect, or reteach. Not once during the study did Mrs. W. call a student to the side and give directions, reteach a lesson, or remind a student of assigned pages. Mrs. W. expected that the students should listen carefully during the first direction or seek information that they missed from other class members. Mrs. W. often reminded the students that they were responsible to help each other and not always seek out the teacher. Lana came up to Mrs. W. and asked for directions to a phonics sheet in her packet of seatwork. Mrs. W. reminded her that ”You might not have been listening when we went over that. No other students are allowed to come up and ask. Go back to your desk." The observer asked Mrs. W. about Lana's plea for help. Mrs. W. told the researcher that "She can do it. She just likes the attention." Mrs. W. warned the observer the first day of the study, "I do not want you to help the students at their desks. They can help each other, but I don't want you to help." Mrs. W. stated that she believed that the seatwork should not be too hard to do. "If it is, then I'll change it, but most can do 75 percent of the work very easily." Students were not allowed to talk with each other during directions or while the teacher was teaching. Apart from these two times, the students were permitted to quietly share information or classroom tools such as crayons and pencils. Since the instruction was directed toward the whole group, management of behavior was sel- dom a problem. If an individual student began to disturb others, Mrs. W. would simply remind the entire group, "Are all of our super workers busy?" When the assignments were finished it was easy for 131 for the teacher to score the work since all work was the same and the work was mostly correct. The transition from activity to activity was very smooth since everyone was involved in the same activity. Group cues were used as signals to transfer from one activity to another. The cooperative activity structure of this classroom effected management of instruction in the following ways: Only one lesson plan was needed. Only one set of directions was given. The lesson was taught only once (to everyone). Scoring of practice pages was simplified (same). Teacher needed to control only one group. Transition between activities was fluid. Students had high success rate (all same, helped each other). \JOU‘IDWNH The net results of the cooperative activities were that (l) lesson preparation was relatively easy, (2) teaching the lessons was non- repetitive and efficient, and (3) management of behavior was simpli- fied. In order to appreciate fully the effect cooperative activities had on instructional management, one needs to analyze the one daily activity that was not taught whole group. The activity was reading. Reading was the only subject subdivided according to student ability. The class was divided into five reading groups. The groups, listed from top to bottom ability, are (l) Teddys, (2) Lions, (3) Tigers, (4) Green Group, and (5) P.L.A. Mrs. W. taught four of these groups each day. She did not teach the Green Group (Henry and Elsa) as they were taught by Mrs. S. in the other first grade. In exchange for taking Henry and Elsa, Mrs. S. sent three of her students (Alecia, Seth, and Megan) to Mrs. W.'s Lions group. Mrs. W. instructed each 132 group from a different reading book for 15 minutes each, except for P.L.A., a remedial reading group, for about 30 minutes. For each reading group Mrs. W. prepared a separate lesson plan, gathered different materials, and taught different skills. Besides the problem of increased planning, preparation, and teach- ing, Mrs. W. had the double burden of keeping track of the behavior of all other students not at the reading table. While at the reading table Mrs. W. often said, "I hope my workers out there are keeping busy and not disturbing others," or "My friends, not at the reading table, are not all being nice and quiet." While cooperative, whole-group activities were easily managed by the teacher, the ability-grouped reading time presented the teacher with a much more complex organizational problem. To counter the extra management problems created during reading time, Mrs. W. organ- ized the following reading time system: (1) the students were typically given five or more seatwork pages of busy, practice work to do during reading time "to keep them busy so they won't get bored!" (Mrs. W.), (2) Mrs. W. set up 10 activity centers (Appendix B) that the students could go to when they were done with their seatwork pages, and (3) Mrs. W. scheduled the mother helpers into the class during this period on a daily basis to drill and administer enrich- ment reading skills. Thus, the plan to manage the rest of the class during subgroup reading time included five mother helpers per week, over 25 extra seatwork practice pages, 10 activity centers inside the room, and a set of rules governing the students' behavior during seatwork time and in each activity center. All other subjects were 133 taught in whole-group, cooperative structure, except for reading. The cooperative activities effected instructional management by enabling the teacher to plan, teach, and manage the entire class more easily and efficiently. During the cooperative activities, the stu- dents freely interacted and aided one another with the assigned tasks, thus lessening the burden of reteaching, redirecting, and reassign- ing by the teacher. The teacher was able to easily teach and manage the classroom during whole-group, cooperative activities. The only time that Mrs. W. needed extra helpers and activity buffers in the classroom was during reading time, a noncooperative, subgrouped activity. The transition from one activity to another was much smoother between cooperative activities. Closure of one activity was typically done in a nonthreatening, casual manner. Since most of the activities were cooperative, whole-group in structure, Mrs. W. usually began to give signals for closure on a class activity when all the students were finished, or nearly finished, with a project. Not once during the study did Mrs. W. cease work on a project or an activity without full completion by every classroom member. Even when a project was delayed to another time, it was delayed as a whole class. This seemed to create a spirit of togetherness in the numerous cooperative activities. Reading, however, was strictly timed by the teacher. Completion of reading time was when all four subgroups had been called up to the reading table for instruction. Instead of the group working as a whole for an activity completion, the responsibility to complete reading was laid squarely on the teacher. While students were up at 134 the reading table they were not allowed to give or receive help from one another. It was the responsibility of the teacher to initiate the activity, time the duration, gather the materials, teach and direct the lesson, grade the student responses, and provide closure for the activity. The transition between reading groups was typically preceded by numerous glances at the clock by Mrs. W. Complicating the transition between reading groups was the need to create 30 minutes for the P.L.A., a special remedial reading group. The only time the observer noted nervousness by Mrs. W. was during transition from one reading group to another. The subgrouping for reading caused Mrs. W. to sit at the back drill table for about 100 minutes each day. In summary, cooperative activities were the central theme of the classroom instructional day. Most of the planned activities and events were orchestrated by the teacher to be whole-group and c00p- erative in nature. The students were allowed to help one another during the activities, have some say in the direction of the activi- ties, and were busily and quietly involved. The effects of these cooperative activities were that the teacher had less preparation, planning, directing, and managing problems. Further, the teacher had more whole-group involvement and less behavior-management difficulties when teaching the group as a single, COOperative unit. The Opposite effect was observed for the multi-grouped, separately taught reading- time activities. 135 Diverse Structure The structure of the student community refers to the network of varied roles, statuses, and reciprocal expectations between stu- dents and between students and the teacher. The student organiza- tional pattern of relationships emerged in two discrete forms: (1) the formal structure and (2) the informal structure. This study is concerned with the formal student structure and the impact of the student leadership patterns on instruction. Formal student structure. The student leadership that was observed during instruction was both ascribed and achieved. Since Mrs. W. was the titular head of the classroom, the formal student structure was largely determined by her approval and disapproval of students' academic and social behavior. The formal structure of the class refers to the external system consisting of behavior that helps the group survive the task environment. The formal student leadership performs the tasks that help themselves and other students survive the social and academic classroom environment. The social environment. during formal instruction emerged from discussion and agreement by the students and teacher early in the year and developed from praise and/or reproof by the teacher of the students' social behavior during instruction. The adherence to the class rules constituted formal social survival. Those students who complied with the classrom rules during instruction were praised. Those students who were noncompliant were directly, or indirectly, criticized. The following rules were restated by Mrs. W. in the June 12th interview with the researcher. 136 We must not interrupt the teacher or others. We must not disturb the class. We must listen and pay attention to the teacher. We must show good manners to the teacher and others. We must work quietly and neatly during seatwork. We must raise our hands to ask a question. We must not disturb teacher during reading-group time. We must always keep busy. oowcnm-wa-A Student Compliance Index: In order to dissect the student community to determine the specific leadership, the observer designed a Student Compliance Index (Appendix G). The index comprises three categories of student behavior during formal instruction. These are: (1) positive task behavior (lack of verbal and nonverbal misbehavior), (2) positive task attention (lack of inattention), and (3) successful task participation. Each of these major categories is more fully explained in Appendix G. As the investigator observed the students' reactions to formal instruction, it soon became apparent that certain students were task leaders, others followers, and still Others, dis— ruptors. The students who emerged as the student instructional leaders were those who (1) complied with class routines and class rules and (2) successfully volunteered questions and answers. Those students who did not comply and seldom positively contributed to discussion emerged as the noncompliant, sometimes disruptive minority. The Student Compliance Index is a compilation of the observed frequencies of the three category behaviors: task behavior, task attention, and task volunteers. The observer used field notes to gather 35 class days of almost 5,000 of these task behaviors. In Appendix G these frequencies have been compiled, tabulated, and Z-scored for class ranking purposes. The rankings from most to least compliant are as follows: 137 l. Trina 6. Mag 11. Gary l6. Lana 2. Joff 7. Henry 12. Yin l7. Alissa 3. Betsy 8. Cary 13. Anna 18. Larry 4. Kris 9. Elsa 14. Dale l9. Brice 5. Brenda lO. Karla 15. Jeff 20. Craig The researcher chose to compare the upper and lower five students (quartiles). The top five compliers, ranked 1-5, are com- pared with the bottom five compliers, ranked 16-20. The results are charted and compared below. Neg. Beh. Neg. Att. Pos. Part. Top compliers 1.19% 6.36% 57.32% Bottom compliers 65.97% 72.94% 6.03% Central core 32.84% 20.7 % 36.65% The results indicate that the top five compliers accounted for very minimal amounts of negative behavior and attention while amassing the majority of positive participation. The bottom five compliers accounted for the majority of the negative behavior and attention categories while accumulating a minimal amount of positive participa- tion. The majority of the class, referred to as the central core, includes rankings 6-15. The central core accounted for only minor amounts of negative behavior and attention and less-than-average amounts of participation. Under the safe and secure leadership of Mrs. W., the vast majority of students complied with task behavioral standards, participated in lesson discussion, and paid attention to the task at hand. The central core majority was led by the highly compliant top five students: Trina, Joff, Betsy, Kris, and Brenda. Mrs. W. consistently rewarded these top compliers with verbal praise and pointed these students out as prime behavioral models. Mrs. W. 138 praised them by saying, "Trina, you are working so quietly! Let's all see if we can work as quietly as Trina?" or "Look at Joff! He's finished his seatwork and he is reading a book at his desk!" The highest compliance status was accorded the top few compliers, followed by the central core, and trailed by the low-status, often-criticized, bottom compliers. Mrs. W. would often stop whatever was being done to note, "Some of us are not paying attention [looking at Jeff]?" or ”Craig, do we use our outdoor voices in class?" The teacher's praise and reproof of specific task behaviors ascribed task roles and task statuses to certain compliant and noncompliant members. The student community was led by five top leaders, was followed by ten mostly compliant followers, and was trailed by a minority of five non- compliers. Student Ability Index: The researcher designed the Student Ability Index in order to determine the academic leadership struc- ture in the student community. The Student Ability Index (see Appen- dix H) was developed to determine, from observations and student survey questions, whom the students perceived as academic leaders in the classroom. The index comprises four categories: (1) reading ability (a pooling of a student survey asking the best and worst reader choices in the class), (2) math ability (a pooling of a student survey asking the best and worst math students in the class), (3) pre- ferred helper (a student survey as to student best able to help during seatwork time), and (4) task completions (lack of incomplete assign- ments). Each category is more fully explained in Appendix H. Mrs. W. had selected the reading groups before the researcher had arrived. 139 The best readers were in the Teddys reading group, and the worst readers were in the P.L.A. reading group. The investigator also had access to achievement and placement tests. This information aided the observer in knowing the teacher and school opinion of the students' ability to compare with the Student Ability Index. The frequencies of responses to survey questions and the compiled frequency of task completions has been tabulated and Z-scored for class ranking pur- poses. The rankings Of best academics to weakest academics are as follows: 1. Brenda 6. Cary 11. Karla 16. Alissa 2. Joff 7. Betsy 12. Henry 17. Lana 3. Mag 8. Kris 13. Gary 18. Yin 4. Brice 9. Elsa 14. Jeff 19. Larry 5. Trina 10. Dale 15. Anna 20. Craig Again, the researcher chose to compare the upper and lower five students (quartiles). The top five academics, ranked 1-5, are compared with the bottom five academics, ranked 16-20. The results are charted and compared below. Read. Abil. Math Abil. Pref. Help Task Compl. Top academics 100%/ 0% 90%/ 0% 50%/ 0% 2.43% Bottom academics 0%/95% 0%/95% 0%/85% 89.07% Central core %/ 5% 5%/ 5% 50%/15% 8.50% Best/Worst Best/Worst Most/Least The results indicate that the top five academics dominated the student selections for best readers and best math students. The bottom five academics were nearly exclusive selections for the worst readers and worst math students. It appears that the students strongly agreed on who were the best and worst students in these two 140 subjects. This also agreed with reading group placement. The top three academics all were in the top reading group, the Teddys. The bottom three academics all were in the bottom reading group, the P.L.A. Further, the top academics were the most preferred seatwork helpers with half of the choices, while the bottom academics received no most-preferred and 85 percent of the least-preferred seatwork helper selections. Finally, the top academics very seldom had an incompleted task. The bottom academics accumulated the vast majority of the classroom incomplete assignments. Almost all of the best and worst reader and math choices are isolated in the top and bottom aca- demics. Only in the preferred helper category did the central core accumulate a significant frequency of selections. One top academic, Brenda, surfaced as a far superior student (Z-score of 1+). Two bottom-ability students emerged as very weak academic students: Larry and Craig (Z-score of -l or less). Three students, Brenda, Joff, and Trina, were ranked in the top five of both the student ability and compliance indexes. They emerged as the highest-status students in the class. These results were strongly supported by the field-note data. These students volun- teered more than expected. One day, Brenda presented a report to the class on Texas. The report was orally presented by Brenda from the Big Chair. Brenda also wrote the report in long-hand and submitted it to Mrs. W. following the presentation. Another example of extra effort and contribution was when Joff asked if he could read two books to the class. Mrs. W. agreed to have Joff read at 11:15 a.m. Without help with the words, Joff read aloud each of the small booklet 141 booklets. The class applauded after the reading. Mrs. W. said, "Joff reads every night to his parents! Joff reads so clearly!" Eight students were ranked within the top ten on both the compliance index and the ability index. These students were Brenda, Joff, Trina, Betsy, Mag, Cary, Elsa, and Kris. Six of these eight students were located in the powerful Window Row, which has been previously noted for its strong support and compliance during task situations. These 1xn) eight students provided the central student leadership during formal instruction. These eight students provided 73.46 percent of the successful class participations, 1.61 percent of the negative task behaviors, and only 1.62 percent of the incom- pleted tasks. Mrs. W. had a core of eight top students who were highly verbal, positive support models for the rest of the class. Four students, Craig, Larry, Alissa, and Lana, were ranked in the bottom five in both the compliance index and ability index. Thesestudentssurfaced as the lowest-status students in regard to student task leadership. The research notes are filled with inat- tentive and noncompliant behavior from these four students. These four students accounted for 62.42 percent of inattentive behaviors, for 46.61 percent of negative behaviors, for 71.66 percent of incom— pleted assignments, and for 2.81 percent of the successful class par- ticipations. These four students received 75 percent of the least-preferred seatwork helper, worst reader, and worst math student choices. Clearly, these students represented a small minority of noncompliant, bottom-ability students. 142 Community structure effects on instruction. The two indexes pinpointed the top five, bottom five, and central core students in task compliance and task ability. The structure of the student leadership was very supportive of task goals. The formal student structure held the community together by supporting the teacher and reaffirming the goals of instruction. The top five compliers and top five academics were a solid crutch that the teacher used as models to sway the central core toward prOper task behavior. The two indexes helped the researcher dissect the student leadership structure to more accurately assess who the supportive leaders were and who the nega- tive leaders were. A further benefit of these indexes pointed to the effects the bottom compliers and bottom academics had on the management of instruction. The impact of these bottom few negative leaders is fully discussed in Guide Question 4, pages 164-182. Essentially, without a strong supportive teacher-leader liks Mrs. W., the classroom structure begins to break down and restructure itself into a basically non- supportive, negatively led classroom. The negative leaders who emerged during the leadership void were the bottom five compliers and academics. The direct effects of the student structure were (1) the teacher was usually able to secure group compliance and group con- sensus through the typically supportive student leadership, (2) the students were able to voice their concerns through the student lead- ership, (3) the teacher was usually able to suppress the negative student minority through the typically positive student leadership, 143 and (4) the leadership provided modeling of proper student task behavior for the entire group. The reverse effects were observed under the negative leadership of the bottom compliers and academics. The structure of the student leadership was vital to the success of the teacher. The student leadership was positive and supportive under the strong and positive leadership by the teacher. If the teacher was not strong and positive the student leadership restruc- tured itself into a negative and nonsupportive element. Mrs. W. created a safe and secure climate in which top-ability and top- complying students were solidly in control of the student leadership. When this climate was changed the negative leadership from the bottom compliers and academics began to emerge. Community was thus effected by the ability of the teacher to structure a climate which was positive and supportive of task goals. The student structure reacted to the teacher lead. If the teacher was weak, then the student leadership reacted by restructuring itself with negative students as leaders. If the teacher was strong, then the student leadership was stabilized with positive students as lead- ers. The final effect on the community was dependent on whether the teacher and student leadership patterns supported each other. Under strong, positive leadership the community was a tight-knit and cohesive entity. Under weak or negative leadership the community was a loosely bound and anarchic entity. Normative Boundary The next characteristic of community to be discussed is nor- mative boundary. In this classroom the norms were the unspoken and 144 unwritten rules of behavior that were accepted formally and were established informally. These norms dictated a form of behavioral consistency. The presentation of the data on this characteristic concerns the question of how normative boundary effects instruction or the management of instruction. The student community had to cope with the full range of classroom behaviors that existed from highly acceptable to highly unacceptable. The parameters of these expecta- tions are termed the normative boundary. Normative boundaries in the classroom existed on a formal and informal basis. The formal norms emerged from the accepted social and instructional goals established by the teacher with the students. The informal norms were developed through student-to-student interac- tion and were generated by the internal needs of friendship and free time. Formal normative boundaries. Mrs. W. was asked in the June 12th interview what the instructional and socialization goals for the class- room were. The fOllowing is a list that Mrs. W. provided. Instructional Goals: listening and paying attention to the lessons getting the seatwork done working quietly together producing neatly done work becoming better readers, writers, spellers, etc. m-wa-J Socialization Goals: being considerate and respectful of others not interrupting others when they are speaking showing good manners to each other behaving well outside of the room showing kindness and consideration to each other 01-9de 145 The formal norms in the classroom were drawn from the instruc- tional and social goals established by the teacher in concert with the students during the first six weeks of the school year. Mrs. W. was asked to clarify how the teacher and the students reached con- sensus on the rules. She said, All the rules are positive. They'll say [in discussion about the school and room rules at the beginning of the year], "We shouldn't run in the hall," and then we'll discuss why. You think of all the positive reasons why we shouldn't run in the halls rather than a rule you shouldn't run in the halls. I don't like to write down those rules; however, we will follow them. On the previous page are the instructional and socialization goals orchestrated by the teacher and accepted by the majority of the student membership. In the following pages there is an attempt to present information concerning the formal norms observed in this classroom work group. A primary instructional norm of the classroom was to pay attention to what the teacher and others were trying to say. Mrs. W. often encouraged the students to attend to the class directions. For example, she said, "Craig, let's use our walking fingers. Is your walking finger ready? Larry, is your walking finger ready?" The teacher would use this and other attention-gathering cues throughout the day to maintain and encourage high levels of attention to task. The classic Simon Says routine was used an _average of three times each day to draw the students to attention. She said: Ready, class? Simon says put your hands on your ears; Simon says put your hands together, like this, on top of the desk. Finally, Somon says, put your thumbs up. Very good, boys and girls! I think we're ready now. 146 It was a direct benefit for students to attend to discus- sion by the teacher or other students. Many times a student who did not attend well would have problems with the assigned task. Also, Mrs. W. usually directed attention cues to the entire group and did so in a game form, such as Simon Says or a math problem jingle, rhyme, etc. Sometimes Mrs. W. gave verbal cues to reawaken students to attend. She said, "Some of you were not listening when we did this lesson. Let's all touch our right hand to our nose." Most students complied with the pay-attention rule but the bottom "compliers" made only marginal effort in this regard. The bottom three nonattenders accounted for 862 nonattentive behaviors and 57.54 percent of all inattention to task. (See Appendix G.) Another instruction-time norm was to produce neat, accurate, and completed work. Most students complied with this norm. The seatwork time lasted for over 75 minutes each day, and the work assign- ment could be completed by the average student in fewer than 20 minutes. The extra time allotted for seatwork encouraged neatness and accuracy by the majority of the students. However, the bottom three "academ- ics" found this a bitter pill to swallow as they accounted for 65.59 percent of incomplete and do-over assignments. The seatwork was not long and was not hard for most students. They also received activity- center and free-time rewards for neat, accurate, and complete work. Mrs. W. said, "Those that stay between the lines and do it all right will not have a phonics page today." The students accepted the neatness and completion of work with little complaint and no challenge. The relationship between 147 neat and accurate work was a form of social contract between the teacher and the students. Mrs. W. said, "Mrs. W. expects neat work. If you appreciate the light seatwork today then you will color between the lines and get a book to read after you are finished with your seatwork. Does everyone understand?" Mrs. W. often encouraged neat and accurate work. Those students who could not complete the seatwork in the assigned time were usually given more time following recess to finish. Seldom did Mrs. W. make students stay in for recess due to incomplete work. The normative boundary for task completion was a stable and accepted standard. However, for the bottom five aca- demics, who accounted for 88.26 percent of the incompleted assign- ments, the normative boundaries had to be adjusted. The work norm of working quietly together was an accepted standard of behavior for the majority of the class. The class seat- ing was designed by the teacher to allow students to work together, as long as they were quiet and did not disturb the reading group, dis- cussion, or other students. However, a minority of the students did not comply to this norm. Larry, Craig, Brice, Jeff, and Dale accounted for 1,067 negative behaviors, or 74.67 percent of the class total. The majority of students were part of seatwork groups that worked quietly and cooperatively together. Mrs. W. commented, "I can't do anything when everyone talks. Let's work better together." The instructional room norms of neatness, accuracy, comple- tion of work, and working quietly together contributed to the more general classroom goals of becoming better readers, writers, spellers, and mathematicians. 148 The majority of students accepted the formal instructional and social norms and defined the limits of these norms through trial and retest. The teacher outwardly stimulated student involvement in the norm-development process by encouraging early discussion of school and room rules. For a corps of five boys, Larry, Craig, Jeff, Brice, and Dale, these standard boundaries were grudgingly tolerated under the consistent directorship of Mrs. W. and support by the majority of top academics and top compliers. Informal normative boundaries. The students worked side by side for the greater part of the day. The continual interaction throughout the year led to shared expectations about how members should think, feel, and act. As part of the class group, a member was expected to act and react in certain predictable and somewhat expected patterns. Informal group norms were defined as informal behaviors that are accepted and expected in matters of importance to the group. These internal, informal group norms emerged from the social relationships within the group and are conditioned by environ- mental experiences of the group members. Two matters of importance that stood out as significant in the lives of these first graders were: (1) friendship and (2) free time. The first graders' norm development did not center upon instruc- tional tasks and academic achievement. These items were considered "work" in much the same manner that a factory assembly-line worker views a piece of chrome trim. Each day the first graders were to produce neat and accurate work within a specified time and in a standard volume as directed by the teacher-manager. The students 149 valued these instructional work norms in a means-end relationship. The doing of the work enabled them to acquire certain friendship and free-time rewards and to be a viable member of Mrs. W.'s first- grade classroom. This classroom membership created a common tie organiza- tionally and socially with others. The resulting interactions within the formal class structures enabled the students to develop a number of friendship bonds. These friendship pairings between the students were the central force that undergirded the informal normative bounds of this class. The second most important element in the students' lives that merits significance was free time. Free time for the students was earned reward for completion of work. Free time will be defined as that time that the students were allowed to be free from direct supervision. Typically, these times were recess, lunch, activity- center time, enrichment-center time, class parties, and special pre- sentations (movies, plays, etc.). The informal norms were divided into informal work norms and informal play norms. The students developed these informal norms through the day-to-day interaction between class members in regard to acceptable and unacceptable behaviors concerning work and play. Informal work norms. From the direct observation of the students during seatwork and discussion the following norms emerged: 1. Workers shared with each other. 2. Workers helped each other. 150 3. Workers helped their respective row. 4. Workers did not harm the rewards of the group. During seatwork time the classroom was alive with busy pencils, erasers, crayons, glue, and other assorted first-grade learning tools. When the students were scant of any of these supplies, they sought each other out for aid. Certain students would share only with friends, while others shared openly with nearly everyone. An example of this took place one afternoon. Dale lent his felt-tipped pens to Cary and Kris. He watched closely as Cary bent and grossly mutilated the ends of his pens. Dale quickly rushed over to Cary and sternly said, "I won't let you borrow them again if you don't take care of them." Most of the students shared with seatwork partners if they were part of a seatwork group. Working groups formed within this classroom were as follows: Henry, Cary, and Karla Mag and Kris Trina, Gary, and Brenda Anna and Larry Betsy, Elsa, and Trina Larry, Joff, and Yin Betsy and Kris Kris and Brenda In each of these worker groupings most of the interactions between members concerned sharing information, work supplies, or friendly chatter (see page 99, Figure 4). Workers helping each other was another informal work norm. Workers helping workers was observed to occur most often during seatwork time. During the course of this research, the observer daily recorded interaction between class members using the Interac- tional Coding System described in Appendix A. Coding was done through- out the instructional day. With 20 students the total possible paired interactions is 190. Appendix E is the Table of Peer Interaction: 151 Verbal and Nonverbal. This table shows the tabulated frequencies for each interactive pairing. The total verbal and nonverbal interac- tions recorded into field notes and transferred to this table was 5,688. The mean score was 29.94 with a standard deviation of 78.90 interactions. At slightly above 1 standard deviation from the mean (110+) there were 14 highly interactive pairings. Of these 14 pairings emerged the entirg_list of classroom working groups listed on page 99. Also surfacing at 110+ interactions per pairing were Jeff and Brice, Brice and Craig, Dale and Craig, and Dale and Brice. None of these were working pairs in the classroom. However, the high interaction rate is closely paralleled with 68.90 percent share of the negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the class. The observer cannot find one recording in the field notes of a single instance in which these negative pairings ever COOperated on a work assignment. The worker pairings owed their 2,501 interactions almost exclusively to on-task conversation and cooperation. It was normal for friends to aid friends and work partners to aid work partners. The work group of Cary, George, and Karla were seated next to each other on the south end of the Fountain Row (see page 99). They were academically of average ability and were constantly exchanging answers to difficult problems, especially when doing math seatwork. Another work cluster was the group of Elsa, Trina, Gary, and Brenda. This group was also of similar average ability, except for Brenda, the tOp student in the class. These four were seated next to each other in the eastern part of the room called the Window Row. Also seated in the Window Row is another work 152 group pairing Mag, Kris, and Betsy. These two working groups con- stitute the entire Window Row. So powerful was this row in work accomplishment, volunteering, and positive interaction that the row became noted in the field notes as the "power row." The work group Larry and Anna accounts for the final work pairing. Larry and Anna cooperated with each other out of extreme necessity. Larry and Anna were both near the bottom of the class in academic ability and both found the assignments frustrating and difficult. Anna was in such desperate need that she would stand for long periods of time to copy Mag, who was two seats away (separated by a blank desk). Larry tried to copy from Joff, but Joff would finish far ahead of Larry and turn his papers over. Joff would stay at his desk and read. Larry had difficulty copying. Larry and Anna became more of a survival pairing than a work pair. Larry and Anna worked out an ingenious system for answer transfer. Larry would get as many answers as possible from Joff while Anna was constantly spying on Mag for answers. Throughout the seatwork period they exchanged answers that they needed. However, they still would often not complete assignments with this time- consuming work pattern. The majority of students worked well with others and shared their daily work. Students, like Anna and Larry, were in desperate need of help but were positioned in locations that did not afford them the opportunity to get help or copy. The other low-academic students, Craig, Lana, and Alissa, were located in offices (seats all alone). Yin was sandwiched between Joff and Jeff and received 153 some help from Joff. The rest of the students--Jeff, Brice, Dale, Joff, and Mag--chose to work mostly alone. These students could easily complete the assigned tasks and could afford the no-help luxury. Fifteen of the 20 students appeared willing to seek and give help to others Of fairly equal academic status. Workers help with their respective rows was another informal observed work norm. Mrs. W. referred to the students by the rows they were seated in (Appendix B and on page 99). These rows were: (1) the Window Row, (2) the Back Row, (3) the Fountain Row, and (4) the Offices and Middle Row. Helping a respective row would occur when there was a specific direction by the teacher that rewarded certain rows for getting ready the soonest, becoming the neatest or cleanest row, being the quietest, being the straightest, etc. Mrs. W. would usually begin this row awareness by stating, "Let's see which row can get ready to go home the soonest?" The typical reward doled out was opportunity to line up first for recess, lunch, or going home. Sometimes the reward was simpy pride in the row and praise from the teacher. A student who did not cooperate with hisrtwv was usually publicly encouraged, then chastised if not compliant with the row competition. Throughout the research days the Window Row, with its top-complier overload, was first or second in the competitions. Nearly always the Fountain Row was last because Brice and Jeff were so noncompliant. The pattern remained the same throughout the study. Those rows which had com- pliant, task-supportive members were first. Mrs. W. said, "If you wanted to go to gym how would we know it?" Brice and Jeff were talking 154 loudly. Mrs. W. said, "Let's see which row will show me they're ready first?" Brice and Jeffcausedthe row to be last. Whether the teacher realized it or not, the system of reward by row compliance was a lopsided contest in favor of the powerful Window Row. Just as it was an informal norm to comply for the sake of the row one was in, it became an established norm to behave in cer- tain patterns for whole-class rewards also. This informal group norm, workers do not harm the rewards of the whole group, was a well- established taboo in this class. Too much was at stake for too many members. All students complied with this group standard or risked immediate and negative response by peers. This may have accounted for the fact that none of the top compliers or top academic students associated with or interacted with bottom compliers and bottom aca- demics. There was a strong interconnectedness of friendship choices by the majority of the group. The bottom-status students typically hung around with other bottom-status students. This is witnessed in Sociograms I and II, Appendix F, and in the many field-note entries during recess and noonhour play. For example, Craig, Brice, Larry, and Dale were solid friends and were each bottom compliers. Simi- larly, Brenda, Trina, Betsy, Kris, and Cary developed solid friend- ships and were each members of the top compliers. Some students were isolates such as Jeff, Alissa, and Anna. Most of the students main- tained friendships with students of similar academic and compliance status. In summary, the boundaries of norm behavior were formal and informal. Homans developed the theory that peOple stay in groups on 155 a reward-minus-cost equation.128 Similarly, this classroom group exchanged acceptable work performance and acceptable behavior for the rewards of friendship and free time. The rewards equated to recess, free-choice activity centers, easier seatwork, and relaxa- tion of direct supervision by the teacher. The students accepted the external-learning task norms of neatness, accuracy, work comple- tion, attentiveness, quiet, and participation in return for free-time privileges, praise, and a relatively light work load. Internally, the student community developed a set of acceptable behaviors with one another that allowed them to get along and cope with the external demands. The workers shared with each other, helped one another and their respective rows, and did not harm the student-group rewards. The acceptance of external and internal normative boundaries increased participation, compliance, and provided the majority of the students in the community with a stable, secure, and expected learning environment. Group Cohesiveness Classroom cohesiveness is the "sticking together," the feeling of membership, belonging, and accord with the group as a whole. This community characteristic had considerable impact on instruction and the management of instruction. On pages 109-114 of this study, cohesiveness is indirectly discussed through the subheadings Group Liking Patterns and Group Expressions of Togetherness. The following 128George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950). 156 pages will directly present group cohesiveness as it impacts instruc- tion. This group of first graders did most everything together. They talked, sat, ate, played, and worked together. Moreover, class members were friends with other class members. In analyzing the field notes, if the students in this class did have friends outside of the class, they certainly didn't play with them, eat with them, or talk much to them. Not one class member was observed to prefer a nonclass friend over their classmate friends. Even Jeff, who did not receive one choice (see Appendix F, Sociograms I and II) as friend from other class members, played exclusively with fellow classmates. The class, as a whole, liked each other and displayed a diffuse liking pattern with few isolated friendship clusters. The highly cohesive nature of this classroom effected instruc- tion in a number of ways: 1. increasing work productivity 2. increasing adherence to instructional norms 3. easing the burden of class management Increasing work productivity, Since the majority of the events and activities in this classroom were designed for the whole group, unity and solidarity of purpose were highly important. The diffuse liking structure of this classroom enabled the majority of students to feel comfortable in small working clusters with other classmates. Since all seatwork assignments were basically the same, it was necessary for the low- and some average-ability students to seek help from deskmates. The majority of students freely helped their neighbors with questions they might have and answers they might 157 need. The majority of students averaged less than one incomplete assignment every month (two incompletes for every 31 class days). An example of this cohesive aiding for task completion was when one of the students was absent. Henry returned to class after being absent for two days. Karla and Mag (seatmates) were busy catching Henry up by giving him all the answers on his old missed seatwork pages. Dale asked him, "Are you caught up yet?" and "Do you need any crayons?" In just one morning Henry caught up with the rest of the class. If an assignment was particularly difficult, the entire class would be buzzing with conversation, one seatwork cluster after another attempting to find the answers. The classroom group would exert pressure on those students who delayed completion of an assign- ment given to the whole class. If the reward to the group was significant, the class would exhibit a solidarity of purpose and a cohesion of effort. On the last day of school Mrs. W. said to the class, "If we clean up quickly we might have time for a kickball game against the other first-grade class!" The class acted as one almost immediately. The entire class began taking the room apart. They quickly moved the desks out in the hall in rapid order. Some of the students began washing the boards, others cleaned the erasers, and still others swept the floor. The whole time they were cleaning they were talking about the upcoming game against Mrs. S.'s room. Later following the game Mrs. W.'s class chanted all the way back to the room, "We're number one!" In this case the reward of free time to play another class a kickball 158 game stimulated cooperative, cohesive effort. Mrs. W. barely could control their enthusiasm to help clear the room. Increasing adherence to instructional norms. Group compliance with instructional norms was very high. Only a small minority of students accounted for the majority of negative comments and nega- tive behaviors. The majority of students were generally very posi- tive and supportive of the teacher and the instructional norms. This cohesive support of task norms helped to produce a subtle pressure by the group for positive task behavior and a pressure against non- compliant or disruptive behavior. An example of this was when Craig was making silly faces at the members of the strongly compliant Window Row. Craig tried to get the attention of the Window Row members, but they simply paid no attention to him. Finally Gary said, "Don't pay attention to Craig. He's weak in the head!" Sometimes the rejection was much less subtle. Alissa had difficulty getting along with other students during seatwork time. She was moved eight times during the year because, according to Mrs. W., "She's [Alissa] just mean!" On May 18 Alissa got out of her seat to walk around the room and talk to different class members. After her fifth such visit to the Window Row, Trina blurted out, "Quit bothering us, we're trying to finish our work!" At times Mrs. W. would ask the group for clarification of the room rules. On these occasions many hands would be waving for an opportunity to express the unwritten rules of the class. An example of this occurred during an afternoon indoor recess. Mrs. W. said, "Who in this class can tell us our class rules when we have indoor recess?" Many of the students 159 raised their hands. Dale was chosen. "We have to be busy at a center or we can get drawing paper. We have to stay in the room. We can't be too noisy and we can't run around too much." When an instructional norm was broken, the group members usually responded very quickly. The cohesiveness of the group usually worked in favor of the teacher. Sometimes the class was so conscious of what was proper and expected that it surprised the teacher. One such occasion occurred early in the study during the morning opening rou- tine. Mrs. W. forgot to do the calendar routine in which a student is selected in rotation to say four things about that particular day. Mrs. W. was very busy and started immediately into the seatwork pages for the day. Most of the hands were raised while Mrs. W. began the busy-work pages. Mrs. W. called on Joff, who reminded the teacher. The students knew the class rules, routines, and limits of acceptable behavior for most happenings in the room. Mrs. W. was so confident about their positive cohesiveness that she told the researcher, "You'll notice I have placed Joff next to Larry and Yin. Most of my students will model after good behavior." Not only did the students have an understanding of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, but they also knew the class routines so well that they were able to time them almost to the minute. Mrs. W. usually gave the group five minutes to clean up their work areas and desks before lunch. On Wednesday, May 20th, Miss B., the morning student teacher, took the discussion up to the final minute. While Miss B. continued to talk, class members began to whisper to each other. A few hands were raised and Miss 8. called on Betsy. Betsy reminded Miss B. of the time as 160 the bell rang. The class was late to lunch. Many students grumbled about Miss B. "keeping them too late!" Brice looked at Miss B. as she passed his desk and said loudly, "She's always doing that! [keeping us late]." Jeff responded, "Yeah, always!" When a student teacher or substitute did not follow the instruction pattern or changed a rule to suit the situation, the students, en masse, would raise their hands and remind the new teacher about the established procedure or rule. Often the student teachers and substitutes were reminded with, "We don't do that!" or "That's not the way we do roll call!" Mrs. W. outwardly encouraged the we-feeling in the class. From the first few weeks in the fall, Mrs. W. included the class in the making and understanding of the classroom rules. As noted on pages 111-115 of this study, Mrs. W. heavily promoted and nurtured "we-ness." Whenever there was a challenge or question concerning a classroom rule or procedure, Mrs. W. took the opportunity to restate the situation in "we" and "us" terms. Given this type of positive, daily reinforcement, the student community not only adhered to the classroom normative boundaries, it held the teacher and teacher replacements responsible to the same parameters. Easing the burden of class management. Under the firm but fair leadership of Mrs. W. this class developed such a strong feeling of we-ness that they literally did everything together, from work to play. Although Mrs. W. spoke with such a soft voice that she was nearly inaudible, everyone heard and nearly everyone obeyed. The class was so unified that when a piece of information would be heard 161 by a few, within a few moments the entire class was informed. An example of this occurred during a substitute day. Substitute Doug mentioned to Kris at the art center that maybe if it's nice out, the kids might get to go outside for recess. Within a couple of minutes, the entire room was buzzing about going out to recess for the first time this year. Without question Doug was now forced, rain or shine, to go outside for recess. On another day, June 3rd, the class was to go outside to the all-school field day. The gym teacher came into the room and told Mrs. W. that the color their class would carry for the field games was brown. Only Brice heard the conversation, but within seconds the class was passing the color, "brown," around the room. Informa- tion that needed to be given to this class concerning instruction was usually given to the whole group. However, the interaction networks in this classroom were so fluid that not once did the observer witness a case of a student needing to have Mrs. W. repeat a direc- tion. Even when a student was absent for a number of days, Mrs. W. simply placed the missed assignments on the student's desk and expected the classmates to provide the directions or needed help. When the observer asked Mrs. W., "What students do you perceive as a disruptive element in your classroom?" Mrs. W. responded, "I don't have any!" Indeed, she didn't. When conflict within the group did arise, Mrs. W. nearly always consulted the group before making a deci- sion. Most often, Mrs. W. would delegate a major portion of the decision-making responsibility to the students by asking them to suggest alternative ideas and solutions. Mrs. W. said, "Class, the 162 gym teacher just told me that you did not behave well in the gym class." Most students raised their hands. Henry said, “We didn't get a drink. She let some get a drink but not the rest of us. It's not fair!" Although Mrs. W. was forced to defend the gym teacher by saying, "All the teachers are good!" she did allow the students the opportunity to air their complaints. Joff then asked, "Can the rest of us get a drink now?" Mrs. W. agreed. The 57 days that the class was under Mrs. W.'s leadership there was not one instance of a student challenging Mrs. W.'s authority. Mrs. W. enhanced this authority through a democratic forum. The Socio- grams in Appendix F reveal a diffuse liking pattern within the student community. The students liked each other, the teacher, and the class itself. The students took pride in being Mrs. W.'s class. Being in Mrs. W.'s class was being a member of something "good." Mrs. W. often referred to the class as her "super stars," "big first graders," "helpers," and most often, "friends." Mrs. W. even referred to Specks, the class rabbit, as ”our friend." The spirit of "we" pervaded this class. They were referred to as "good boys and girls" and "such hard workers" with we and us statements that exceeded 200 times per day (see page 104, We and Us Statements). Class cohesiveness could produce one of two reactions from the student community: cohesion for or cohesion against. Most often, with positive and firm leadership from the teacher, the students were supportive and aided in self-management during instruction. The key was to use the positive praise and reward to sway the majority of the students to pull together. For example, Miss M., the afternoon 163 student teacher, said, "It's a shame that a few of our resters might stop us from all sharing something that I have prepared for us. Some- thing special!" Many students told the other students, "Shhh!!" Miss M. said, "Won't Mrs. W. be proud of her resters!" In the case of one substitute, Ted, the class cohesion was a force that humiliated and all but drove him from the room. Ted had been yelling and threatening the class to behave from the first moments of the day. He was too firm and unfair in numerous interactions with class members. By the end of the day Ted was exhausted and the class was in negative accord. The following scene shows how the group cohesively rejected Ted. The substitute Ted accused Larry, "You've been lying to me all day!“ Larry just laughed at Ted. The sub then retaliated against the whole class: "Clean your desks, now!" Ted said, "I'm going to turn around and when I turn around again you better have everything cleaned!‘l The students were angry now and didn't obey Ted. Ted counted, turned, and realized no one complied. Larry then picked up a box of crayons and dumped them at Ted's feet, laughing again. Just as Ted was ready to explode, the bell rang to end the day and the students ran out of the room. Ted lost control. On April 1, Mrs. W. asked the students which substitute teacher they liked best, Ted or Doug. The vote was 20-0 in favor of Doug. The students immediately began to tell Mrs. W. about the differences between the two male substitutes. They said, "He doesn't yell as much! He doesn't make you put your heads down! He's nicer and joked more!" The class was unanimous and cohesive in their total rejection of Ted. 164 Summary of cohesiveness effects. These students were more than an assortment of singular personalities. They were a highly cohesive social community known as Mrs. W.'s class. The friendship pattern was one of diffuse liking. The class did almost everything together and developed nearly exclusive intraclass friendships. The sticking together and ease of social interaction between classmates enabled many seatwork COOperative clusters to develop. The inter- action networks were so fluid that the class members were highly involved and informed on most matters of importance. Mrs. W. directly encouraged and nurtured the spirit of we-ness. She also delegated a considerable amount of rule-making and approving authority to the student group. The spirit of togetherness influenced high work productivity, strong adherence to task norms, and the smooth opera- tion and management of the classroom. The Fourth Guide Question The fourth guide question, "How does community alter or effect instruction?" serves as the final major heading in the presen- tation of the data. The direct outcomes of Mrs. W.'s year-long efforts to develop, nurture, and maintain a classroom community were high levels of group (1) compliance, (2) stability, (3) cohesion, (4) coop- eration, and (5) interaction. These outcomes provided an environment in which Mrs. W. was able to effectively and efficiently manage instruction. The development of the class into a community directly changed both the student group itself and the manner in which they were instructed. As the group became a more tight-knit, cohesive 165 social unit, it exerted more and more direct and indirect pressure on the teacher to maintain and extend the boundaries of classroom commu- nity. Dewey spoke of the classroom community as a microcosm of the democratic process, Kohlberg pictured students moving through stages of moral development, and Durkheim viewed education as a social means 129 to a social end. Each was concerned with the moral, cognitive development of the child in relation to his or her society. Durkheim presented three essential elements of a moral education: 1. Discipline, or regularity of conduct and respect for authority. 2. Social Attachment, or membership and identification with the group. 3. Self-determination, or rational, self-choice with knowl- edge and understanding of discipline and attachment]30 The classroom community outcomes of compliance, stability, cohesion, cooperation, and interaction are similar and related to Durkheim's essential elements of social morality. Mrs. W.'s class did not become a community of students overnight. From the very first days of class in the fall, Mrs. W. facilitated and maintained the sense of community. The purpose of this study was to use the Model of Community to describe community and explain the effects of that entity on instruction. On every dimension of the Model of Community, this first-grade class represents nearly the “ideal" in community. In the first three questions of presentation of the data are numerous accounts 129Brenda Munsey, ed., Moral Development, Moral Education, and Kohlberg (Birmingham: Religious Educational Press, 1980), pp. 18-27. 130Robert A. Nisbet, Emile Durkheim (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 40-43. 166 of the communityness of this class. The following pages will present data to explain the bidirectional effect that community had on instruction and the management of instruction. Student Pull Most research in the classroom concentrates on the unidirec- tional, one-way effect of teachers on students. The effect that the student community has on the management of instruction is referred to 13] This refers to the teacher's adaptation to the as "student pull." student community's internal and external demands of exchange. Mrs. W. organized, facilitated, nurtured, and maintained all the necessary ingredients of we-ness of community in the classroom. The outcomes of this entity were of substantial benefit to the teacher in terms of ease of instruction and ease of classroom management. The student community, in turn, exchanged these compliant, positive, teacher- supportive behaviors for praise, free time, and a reasonable work load. As the community developed and, by year's end, became a complex, highly cohesive entity, it exerted its influence on the teacher in more subtle, but powerful ways. It was very difficult to analyze the cause-effect relationship between the community and the teacher, Mrs. W. She had nurtured and maintained the student com- munity with such consistency that it was difficult to separate what appeared to be community from what was Mrs. W.'s specific teacher style. In order to see the community effect on the teacher more 13iDavid E. Hunt, "Teachers' Adaptation: 'Reading' and 'Flexing' to Students," in Flexibility in Teaching, ed. Bruce R. Joyce et al. (New York: Longmans, Inc., 1981), pp. 87-93. 167 clearly, the researcher analyzed the field notes of those times when Mrs. W. was not in direct control of the group. These occasions were (1) when the two student teachers were in charge and (2) when a sub- stitute replaced Mrs. W. for the day. During these teacher replace- ment field notes, the true influence of the student community was separated from its critical link, Mrs. W. Success and Failure as Indicants The observer noted that during the times when Mrs. W. was in charge of the class there were seldom occurrences of any interactions or behaviors that were negative or threatening to group compliance, stability, cohesion, cooperation, and morale. However, when Mrs. W. was replaced, the class immediately would begin to "test" the new teacher as to his or her ability to control instruction. These tests mirrored Tuckman's four stages of group development: Stage 1: Testing-Dependence, or a testing and "feeling out" of_what is andEWHat is not allowed. Stage 2: Conflict, or intragroup conflict where group members, in an attempt to express their individuality and resist group structure, display acts of hostility toward each other and the leader. Stage 3: Cohesion, or the emerging desire to work as a cohesive group, accept group norms and avoid task conflicts. Stage 4: Functional Roles, or establishment of interpersonal relationships and the adopting of different task roles by members. 32 During the initial moments of "feeling out" between students and teacher replacement, the observer was able to discover some of the 132B. W. Tuckman, "DevelOpmental Sequence in Small Groups," Psychological Bulletin 63 (1965): 384-399. 168 key expectations time student community placed on the teacher. One student teacher and one substitute maintained the positive, sup- portive student community. One student teacher and four substitutes witnessed a restructuring of the community into a negative, non- compliant community (see Collapse to Normlessness, pages 172-178). The community expected the teacher to (1) model the “ideal“ community member, (2) enforce norm boundaries, and (3) support the student com- munity leadership. Each of these expectancies exerted a "pull" by the student community which directly and dramatically effected instruc- tional outcomes. Model of the "Ideal" Community Member Often Mrs. W. reminded the students of model student behavior through praise and reward for (1) being considerate and respectful of others, (2) not interrupting others when they speak, (3) showing good manners to each other, (4) behaving well outside of the room, and (5) showing kindness and consideration for each other. The stu- dents expected that the teacher represent the "ideal" in these cate- gories. Miss B. was a prime example of not meeting the ideal commu- nity member standards, while Miss M. closely mimicked the ideal standards. Both of these student teachers were in the classroom throughout the year on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Miss B. helped Mrs. W. in the morning; Miss M. helped in the afternoon. The difference in the images these two future teachers portrayed to the students was vast. Miss M. warmly greeted the students at the back door each day, saying something nice about each child as they entered. 169 Miss B. simply opened the door and occasionally smiled at a few. When students needed help, Miss M. would seek out the raised hand, kneel beside the students' desks and help. Miss B. was daily busy with lesson plans, bulletin boards, etc., which she was supposed to have completed before class. Students raised their hands for pro- longed periods. When Miss 8. did help students, she would summon them to come up to her teacher's desk. When Miss M. led class discussions she frequently praised student contributions and stimulated many and varied contributions. When Miss 8. led class discussions the majority of the contributions remained isolated in the Window Row. Miss B. seldom complimented group members. In fact, Miss B. disregarded some efforts of students to volunteer information. One day Miss B. lec- tured on "the country of Africa." Mag attempted to correct Miss B. about the fact that Africa was not a country: "Miss B., Africa is a continent. It is not a country. I know because I went there!" Miss B. missed a golden opportunity by simply responding, "O.K., it's a country" (in bothered fashion). However, Miss M. never missed such opportunities. Miss M. never yelled at the group and consistently used praise to steer group behavior toward the positive. Miss 8. directly attacked misbehavior with threat, used whole-group punishment for isolated misbehaviors, and seldom praised the group for good behavior. The difference between the two student teachers was dramatic. The student community reacted to the ideal and not-so-ideal in a con- sistent and powerful manner. For example, one morning Mrs. W. returned to the room and many students had their hands waving high, 170 complaining that Miss B. had punished them with extra math work. Trina and Henry led the unfairness complaints. Hearing the com- plaints, Mrs. W. changed the extra punishment to an optional coloring page. The student group supported Miss M.'s attempts to teach and undermined Miss B.'s attempts to teach. An example of this occurred when Miss B. and Miss M. were visited by their university supervisor of teaching. During the sample teaching lesson by Miss B., Brice and Larry made whistling noises and asked silly questions like, "Is your name Miss Buzzard?" and “Why do we have to do this anyway?" Larry said, "Let's have recess!" over and over. The lesson in the afternoon went smoothly for Miss M. Larry, Brice, and Craig even volunteered correct answers. Mrs. W. commented, "I think that the students thought anything went with Miss B. You got the feeling Miss B. would work for just the money, while you felt Miss M. would work for no money." The observer asked the students a survey question as to "Who would you prefer to have as a teacher, Miss B. or Miss M.?" The students preferred Miss M. in 14/20 choices. When asked why they pre- ferred each of their selections, the students responded that they liked Miss M. because she was nice, brought in special projects, brought in animals, etc. The students who preferred Miss B. either stated they did not know why or they liked to study Japan. The stu- dents pressured the teacher and teacher replacements to model the "ideal." Mrs. W. said, The students asked me about Miss M. often, while they didn't ask about Miss B. In the going-away cards that they made, I saw a definite trend in their pictures. They were better 171 for Miss M. They tried harder with their writing for Miss M. They were neater inside. I think they thought that with Miss B. anything went as long as you put something down. She just didn't care and I think they sensed it! The research notes are dotted with misbehaviors and negative comments during Miss B.'s lessons and activities with the students. The observations during Miss M.'s tenure as class leader were seldom noted with negative student behaviors and were filled with numerous positive interactions. A similar pattern occurred when substitutes entered the classroom. Four substitutes modeled much less than the "ideal" community member, and one substitute, Doug, was an exemplary model of the "ideal." While all other substitutes witnessed diffi- cult behavior problems with the student community, Doug, like Miss M., had excellent, positive behavior from the students (see pages 179-182). Enforce normative boundaries. The student community expected the teacher to model the "ideal" community member and rejected teacher replacements who were less than "ideal." The student group was typic- ally very compliant to task norms and seldom did more than occasion- ally "test" the teacher for reassurance of her leadership position. The normative boundaries of task behavior were (1) listening to and paying attention to the lessons, (2) keeping busy and working quietly together, (3) being considerate and respectful of others, (4) not interrupting others, and (5) showing kindness and consideration to others. This list is a combination of Mrs. W.'s instructional and socialization goals and the informal work norms of the students (pp. 144 and 149). 172 In order to understand the pressure exerted by the student group for the teacher to enforce normative task boundary, the reader is presented with a pattern of collapse that consistently occurred when normative boundaries were not enforced. Collapse to Normlessness If the teacher replacement did not enforce the major task norms of listening, attending, keeping busy, working quietly together, and being considerate and respectful, the student group would I'pull" the replacement or substitute into a negative, anarchic merry-go-round of misbehaviors. During weak enforcement of task norms, the bottom— complier students filled the leadership vacuum. The top-compliant students usually controlled the majority of the classroom interac- tions and typically supported the teacher in her attempts to maintain norm compliance. However, if the teacher was weak in enforcing ini- tial negative comments and nonverbal misbehaviors, then the bottom compliers literally would outshout the top compliers and top academics into submission. The pattern was the same for four of the five sub- stitutes and one of the student teachers. Larry, one of the lowest- ranked academics and compliers, would make initial negative probes. If the teacher replacement did not adequately control the outbursts of Larry, then Craig, the lowest academic and lowest complier, would join the negative probing. These two would harass the teacher and establish a negative dialog between themselves and the teacher. Once Larry and Craig had secured a beginning negative foothold, then Brice and Jeff would enter into the negative student alliance. 173 Brice and Jeff were both average to high in academic ability and would initiate much more complex and subtle negative probing. Once these four students were allowed to control the majority of the student-teacher interaction, other low-compliance, low-to-average- ability students would join in the negative sparring. The sequence was the same for each of the four substitutes and one student teacher who failed to enforce the boundaries of normative behavior. The next few pages provide information concerning the student group's reaction to weak norm enforcement by substitute teachers. Due to the fact that Mrs. W.'s husband had heart surgery, there were five separate substitutes covering six classroom days. The teacher was forced to be absent on five Tuesdays and one Wednesday. Of the five student teachers there was almost total collapse of accepted room task norms in four substitutes. One substitute, Doug, was extremely successful in maintaining and reinforcing routines and task standards (see pages 175-176). The student community structure was most clearly observable when there was a direct challenge to teacher authority. The student leadership structure was stable and positive under Mrs. W.'s stable and positive leadership. However, the following pages reveal the fragile nature of the community leader- ship without the norm-enforcing support of the classroom teacher. On Tuesday, May 26th, a female substitute replaced Mrs. W. The substitute had detailed plans for the day left by Mrs. W. Even though these plans noted the timing and sequence of activities, the substitute frequently asked the class to tell her what they were to do next. Throughout the morning Larry provided misinformation. The 174 substitute had allowed Larry and the negative compliers to restruc- ture the class into a negative, anarchic community. In one morning scene with the sub, Larry yelled, "Where are we, anyway?" and "We know how to do all this work!" Larry turned to his fellow students to laugh and urged them to join him in the fun. The sub then yelled, "Quiet!" Larry told the sub that "You shouldn't make such loud noises." Once Larry established a foothold, the top academics and top compliers volunteered information much less frequently. Craig, the lowest academic and lowest complier, then entered with verbal parries with the sub, Miss P. Craig said, "Why don't we go on recess?" and "Let's not do any work today!“ Craig then stood up and got a drink from the fountain. Others followed him. Larry said, "Let's all get a drink, guys!" The typical pattern was that if Larry and Craig were successful, then Brice and Jeff would enter the leadership battle. Larry and Craig would then relax their negative probes as Brice, Jeff, and other negative compliers took command of the class- room interaction. The following illustrates the degree to which com- mand was lost by another substitute, Miss Button. The students called the substitute teacher "Miss Button," mimicking her real name. Brice and Jeff stopped doing their seatwork and began to race around and around their desks making motor car sounds. Craig stood near the desks to count the laps for the boys. Craig then joined the race and they continued until they reached 100 laps. The sub did not attempt to stop them. While all this was going on, Larry's mother came in to take him to the dentist. As she took her son out of the classroom, she turned to the observer and said, "Am I glad that I'm 175 getting Larry out of here! It's like a zoo!” She did not realize, of course, that her son was very much the catalyst for such disruptive behavior. The pattern was the same for each of the four weak substi- tutes. The key was how each was to handle Larry's beginning negative comments. Mrs. W. recognized Larry's probes. One day, when Larry made silly comments at the beginning of morning openers, Mrs. W. said to Larry, "I don't think you have your thinking cap on this morning!" After the morning openers, Mrs. W. said to the researcher, "I'm glad I was able to catch that one [Larry's comments] in the bud!" Those who didn't catch it in the bud spent the entire sub day reacting to Larry and the negative compliers, Brice, Jeff, Craig, and Dale. The group cohesion was one of tacit acceptance by the top academics that the bottom compliers were in control. There was no point in backing up a nonleader. Support was then behind their fellow class members, negative as they might be. The top compliers did nothing to stem the negative tide once Brice and Jeff joined the negative coup. One substitute was successful in controlling and maintaining positive classroom cohesiveness. On March 31, 1981, substitute Doug took the class over for the day. Doug appeared to do all the right things. He greeted the students at the rear access door well before the bell rang and spoke to each student as he or she walked in. Doug let the students have time to settle down and converse with each other. Doug explained who he was and where Mrs. W. was. He told them when she probably would return and spoke to them from the Big Chair. 176 As Doug called off the roll, he asked the students to stand when their names were called off. Larry quickly told Doug that ”Mrs. W. never does it that way!" Before Larry had the opportunity to take the conversation away, Doug said, Yes, I know, Larry, but if you stand up, I can get to know your names more quickly. I'm not Mrs. W. and we are going to do some things differently today. But she will be back tomorrow. Following this, Larry, Craig, Gary, Brice, and Dale all asked ques- tions of the substitute. In each case, he responded calmly and surely. In the entire morning introduction, except for the first initial probes by Larry, there were no challenges, no negative comments, and no negative behaviors. During the morning discussion, the top compliers and academics took the lead. The group sensed that Doug was in charge and responded with positive student leadership. Group cohesiveness was not inter- rupted from the previous day with Mrs. W.'s leadership. The ultimate compliment to Doug came when he excused the rows outside. Doug said, ”O.K., the row over there can go first because they're the quietest." The Window Row members said in unison, "We're the Window Row!" Each row then informed Doug of their correct label. Larry told Doug, "Mr. 0., we're the Back Row!" The students appreciated and respected Doug's leadership. The group was together again in a positive, cohe- sive manner. The same pattern of collapse existed for Miss B., the morning student teacher. The student teacher faced less of a direct threat of total collapse since Mrs. W. was always nearby. However, when 177 Mrs. W. was not in the room, Miss B. encountered the same sequence and intensity of probing as witnessed in the substitute collapse observations. Miss B. not only did not support the task norms, she also broke a number of them. During a long half-hour lecture on Japan Miss B. noticed that Brenda, the top academic, was bored. Miss 8 took a necklace toy that Brenda was playing with away from her. As Miss B. continued to lecture, shg_began to play with the toy necklace, con- stantly turning it and touching it throughout the next 30 minutes. Brenda just stared at her toy being played with by Miss B. That same day Miss B. asked the group to come up to listen to "my story." Dale refused. He shouted, "I can see fine from here!" (his desk). Miss B. began to read the book and did not look up at the class. Few listened to her. A few minutes after the story was completed, Craig turned to Anna and teased her over and over. Anna said that she would "tell Miss B." Elsa said, "I'm on her side!" With Miss B. watching the entire incident from only a few feet away, Craig turned to Elsa and said, "You want to get killed!" clenching his fist in anger. Miss 8. did not enforce the rules, broke a few herself, and allowed a few low compliers to have a relatively free reign in the class. A dramatic difference existed between the two student teach- ers. Each afternoon, following Miss 8., Miss M. also faced Larry and the noncompliant group. Each afternoon Miss M. would enforce the task norms and “shut off" Larry's negative probes. The results of Miss M.'s enforcement of task norms mirrored class behavior when Mrs. W. was in charge. Miss M. responded well to the negative probes of Larry. 178 Larry got out of his chair and wealked over to the garbage can. He began to thump his tennis shoe against the side of the can. Miss M. asked what he was doing. "Cleaning my shoes, can't you see?" Miss M. said that "during quiet time we are supposed to be quiet." Larry said, "I'm being quiet!" Miss M. very sternly replied, "I think not!" Larry sat down. The researcher asked Mrs. W. about her view of how well the two different student teachers handled student behavior. Mrs. W. said, "Miss B. has definite trouble handling the students. They take control. Miss M. never lets Larry or Brice take over." The student community expected the teacher and the teacher replacements to enforce the task norms when these boundaries were severely tested. If the teacher replacement allowed a few negative compliers to control the verbal interaction and to break the task norms, the class would degenerate into anarchy. The replacement would spend the rest of the day reacting to, rather than leading, the stu- dents. The student community's rejection of teacher authority was swift and sudden once the teacher allowed the negative compliers to assume temporary leadership. The majority of the class became spec- tators in a one-ring circus that was formerly Mrs. W.'s classroom. Support Community Leadership The student community expected the teacher to be a model of the "ideal" community member and expected the teacher to enforce the accepted task boundaries of the classroom. If the teacher did not follow these two basic patterns, the student group would rudely 179 reject the teacher's attempts at task leadership. The community developed a student-leadership structure that was very positive and supportive in pattern. The student leadership included a few top compliers and a majority following that positively supported the instructional goals. The student leadership, however, could not lead well, without being led. The top leadership in the class sought the support of the classroom teacher to maintain its influence. In Appendix I, Negative and Positive Student Interaction (Substitutes), the frequency of negative behaviors and successful volunteers is charted to show the relative social interaction during each of the different substitute days. The counts are taken from the morning periods for each of these substituted days. Two of the substitutes, Miss P. and Mrs. G., were present for the morning sessions only. Substitutes Doug, Ted, and Miss B. were present for a full day. Miss B. was present for two full days, but only one morning period on Tuesday is included. The morning period is measured from 9:00 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. Each of the measured sub days was on a Tuesday (Ted, March 24; Doug, March 31; Miss B., April 22; Miss P., May 26; and Mrs. G., June 2). The results of the analysis of the observation data with concern to the negative and positive interaction during the five dif- ferent substitutes indicates a radically different pattern in one substitute's morning and a consistent, although negative, series of interactions in the other four substitutes' mornings. Only one sub- stitute, Doug, was able to stem the negative tide of interaction that flooded forth from the bottom compliers. The results also indicate 180 that Doug was able to stimulate the positive, tOp compliers and turned the negative compliers, Larry, Brice, Jeff, Craig, and Dale, into supportive, positive contributors to class discussion. Doug was able to capture many successful student volunteers and neutralize the effect of the negative probes. While Doug stimu- lated 122 successful volunteers from 18 different students, the other substitutes--Ted, Miss Button, Miss P., and Mrs. G--totalled only 58 successful volunteers from a minority of students (average of seven). Doug more than doubled their total output. While Doug had only nine negative behaviors recorded from the students, the other subs had 104 to 271. Clearly, Doug elicited a positive interaction from the stu- dents, and the other substitutes sponsored negative behaviors. As the negative interactions multiplied and multiplied in the "collapsed" classes, Doug's positive interactions multiplied and multi- plied. Doug's interesting, positive-yet-firm approach was in dramatic difference to the other four substitutes. None of the other four subs captured student interest. None of the other four substitutes was able to quiet Larry, Brice, Craig, Jeff, and Dale. Out of the five substitutes, only Doug spoke to them from the Big Chair and on eye level. Only Doug used group terms, like "we" and "us," when addressing the group. Only Doug gave the students a rationale for what he was doing in each activity. Only Doug did not attack group members with negative rebukes. Acceptable standards of behavior that were solidly intact under the leadership coalition of Mrs. W. and the top compliers were 181 collapsed in a matter of hours under the weak leadership of four of the substitutes. Mrs. W. believed that when she was gone from the class, her students would react in much the same way as if she were there. Mrs. W. noted this to the researcher on numerous occasions and took pride in this fact. On return from the hospital one day, Mrs. W. stopped into the classroom to pick up some papers. At the end of the day, she walked into the classroom. She was shocked by what she observed. Seconds later, Mrs. W. walked back out with a stunned look on her face. The classroom was in such disarray and chaos that Mrs. W. could not stay inside the room. She sat down on the hall table with the observer, the afternoon student teacher, and the university supervising teacher. Mrs. W. looked distraught as she sat down at the hall work table and lamented, "I just had to walk out of that room. I would not be part of that!!" Mrs. W. was annoyed and tired when she heard the sub yell at the tOp of her voice, "BE QUIET!!" Mrs. W. said sadly, "In my 27 years of teaching I have never said that! If this is what might happen when I'm gone, I won't go!" The image of her class as a well-behaved, well-mannered, and self-controlled unit had been shattered by the experience. The student community structure had a powerfully positive effect under stable, positive teacher leadership. This same student structure could, how- ever, have direct negative effects while under unsupportive, negative, or unstable leadership by the teacher replacement. The formal student leadership could be supportive and positive or disruptive and negative, 182 depending on which student leaders are stimulated and supported: the top compliers and academics, or the bottom. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Summary of the Results The purpose of this study was (1) to use the Model of Commu- nity to describe the development and maintenance of community within an elementary classroom and (2) to explain the effect of that entity on instruction and the management of instruction. Three central findings surfaced from this study. They were (1) a high level of community did exist in this classroom, (2) the teacher is the critical link in the maintenance of classroom commu- nity, and (3) the community had a dramatic effect on instruction and the management of instruction. Each of these findings has been briefly summarized under each of the finding subheadings. The Existence of Classroom Communipy The researcher used the Model of Community Interactional Coding System (MOCICS) to gather data on community activities inter- actions and sentiments within the first-grade classroom. The data were then sorted and filtered through the Model of Community to categorize data according to their relevance to community. New data were then gathered in the light of the observation and interview data already gathered, sorted, and analyzed. The final results strongly indicate that this first-grade classroom was a highly developed, cohesive community. 183 184 The Model of Community was designed to indicate the degree of community a social entity exhibited. If the classroom possessed a high degree of community it had to include all three dimensions of the model: community characteristics, "localness," and routinized action. This classroom exhibited a high degree of community in the following ways: (1) it contained all the Model of Community char- acteristics, (2) it had full participation in nearly all activities and events, (3) it contained highly recurrent, routinized events and activities, and (4) its events and activities were specific to and generated by the local class. In short, this class exhibited all three dimensions of the Model of Community to a very high degree. A brief summary of the data that generated this finding follows. Communal activities. Homans believed that any social entity could be described by analyzing activities, interactions, and senti- ments that the group displayed. Nearly every class activity was taught to the whole group. The majority of this classroom worked cooperatively on each classroom activity except for reading. Even during reading-subgroup time the majority of the classroom pursued the highly cOOperative seatwork time. The activities in this class that were very strong community supporters were: discussion time, show-and-tell, seatwork time, art-project time, group entry and exit, and mini-activities like the Pledge, calendar time, and storytime. In many of these activities Mrs. W. permitted a high level of self- governance and always included the entire class. Communal interaction. The language of this classroom was "we" and "us." From the beginning of the school year the class was 185 involved in group rule setting through consensus. The entire class was involved in this decision-making process, and Mrs. W. made special efforts to include each student in class discussion. Over 200 times per day the teacher referred to the student group as a "we" or "us." Seldom did the students refer to themselves in "I" or "me" terms. Diffuse interaction led to over 10,000 interclass interactions. The majority of students interacted in a positive, cooperative manner while a minority of students interacted in a negative, uncooperative manner. Communal sentiments. This class had a spirit of together- ness. This class did virtually everything during the classroom day together. They ate, sat, played, worked, and interacted with each other. They excluded almost all nonclass members on the playground and in the lunchroom. The class stayed together in the halls, in special all-school activities, on the playground, and in the lunch- room. Within the classroom the students became members of community subunits such as the Window Row or a specific reading group like the Teddys. Another communal sentiment was diffuse liking of fellow classmates. The sociograms revealed diffuse, interconnected clusters of friends. Few students were isolated. Boys liked boys and girls liked girls, with many reciprocated friendship choices. The activities, interactions, and sentiments of this class- room centered on a theme of togetherness. Activities were almost all group centered. Interactions were dominated by "we" and "us" group statements. Sentiments for fellow classmates were decidedly communal 186 in character. In summary, the activities, interactions, and senti- ments indicated a powerful sense of community in the classroom. Model of Community characteristics. The characteristics of this model (cooperative activities, diverse structure, normative boundary, and group cohesiveness) all existed in this classroom. To determine class ranking in the student structure, two indices were designed: the Student Compliance Index and the Student Ability Index (Appendices G and H). They were used to determine the specific leadership patterns within the community. The data were gathered through student interviews and observations. The findings indicate that three students, Brenda, Joff, and Trina, were the top task leaders in the classroom. Five other students, Betsy, Mag, Cary, Elsa, and Kris, emerged as a high-compliance, average-to-high- ability class leadership. Led by Brenda, Trina, and Joff, these top eight students constituted the main class leadership during instruc- tion. Four students, Craig, Larry, Lana, and Alissa, surfaced as the weakest students in compliance and ability. The findings indi- cate a significant overload of positive, compliant behaviors in the top five compliers and a significant overload of negative, noncom- pliant behaviors in the bottom five compliers. High status was accorded to the most competent in compliance and ability, while lowest status was accorded to the least competent in these two cate- gories. Further, the findings indicate that the students were able to honestly and accurately determine the few extremely competent task leaders and the few marginally competent task isolates (pages 138-141). 187 These results seem to indicate the existence of an organized and structured set of task roles and relationships. The findings also indicated that the student group developed both formal and informal normative boundaries, the third major char- acteristic of community. The formal norms of the classroom were drawn from the instructional and socialization goals orchestrated by the teacher and approved by the majority of the students. The formal norms included those behaviors necessary to satisfy the external task goals of compliance and work production. These students were expected to pay attention; produce neat, accurate, and completed work; and work quietly together. The formal socialization task norms were consideration and respect for others, not interrupting others, show- ing good manners in and out of the room, and showing kindness and consideration for others. The students complied with these formal boundaries of task behavior in exchange for praise, free-time privileges, and a rela- tively light work load. The students also developed a series of informal task norms that were generated by the students themselves as a way in which to better cope with the external work demands. The informal norms were that workers shared with each other, helped each other, helped with their respective rows, and did not harm the rewards of the whole group. As members stretched the limits of the accepted formal boundaries, they were cautioned by the teacher and/or classmates. If the unacceptable behavior continued, the student risked censure by the teacher. If the student's behavior broke an 188 informal norm, the student risked rejection and censure by the majority of the class. This class displayed a high level of group cohesiveness, the final community characteristic. As noted earlier, they did every- thing together. The findings indicated that most of the group members liked each other, most helped each other in work, and most played with fellow classmates. In moments of conflict and threat from with- out, such as a substitute teacher, the group was powerfully cohesive. A remarkable display of cohesiveness occurred when Mrs. S., the neighboring first-grade teacher, came into the room and challenged Mrs. W.'s first grade to a kickball game. There was a buzz of excite- ment the whole afternoon about the impending confrontation. During the game there was a total team effort, with boys exhorting girls to do well, and wild cheering at the least success. Following the lop- sided win by Mrs. W.'s room, there were taunts of unfairness and who was better between the two rooms. Mrs. W.'s class chanted all the way to the room, "We're number one! We're number one!" This class had a belonging to one another, a togetherness, and a powerfully displayed feeling of "we." They liked each other, worked cooperatively to achieve goals, and often, when challenged or threatened, became a highly cohesive community. The findings indi- cated that this class had all the major characteristics of community: mostly cooperative group activities, an organized structure of leader- ship roles, specific formal and informal boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, and a tight-knit, cohesive we-ness. 189 Further evidence of this class community is found in the typology-of-action dimension of the Model of Community. The schedule of classroom activities, page 90, was seldom changed. The only major variations to the schedule of activities were slight timing and sequence changes due to a special activity or event inclusion or exclusion. The pattern of activity was so recurrent that the students were able to tell replacement teachers the schedule of events and the exact timing of each activity. The pattern of activities was so similar that Mrs. W. was able to signal transition from one activity to another by simple, nonverbal cues, such as moving out the kidney table to begin reading classes. If there were new happenings during the day, Mrs. W. would fully forewarn and discuss the changes with the students. The stu- dents were within a safe, secure, and highly predictable work envi- ronment. ’ The final dimension of the Model of Community concerns the "localness" of the event or activity. Seldom did Mrs. W. have the class work with another class. When the class did get together with another class, it was with Mrs. S.'s adjoining first grade. Mrs. W.'s class joined three times with the neighboring first grade: once for a movie, once for an art project, and once for educational television. Most all other activity was generated and centered inside of Mrs. W.'s classroom. Even when the class did share an activity in the hall or in the gym, the class stayed together and sat next to other class- mates. In all the room activities, participation was almost always 100 percent. Only once a day did any class members leave, or other 190 nonclass members come into, the room. Even then, only Henry and Elsa left for 20 minutes. Alicia, Seth, and Megan came into Mrs. W.'s class from the other first grade for 20 minutes during the same time that Henry and Elsa left. Lana left the room to go to speech class once a week for about 45 minutes. Other than these few instances, the class was totally locality centered for the entire day (except, of course, for music, gym, specials, etc.). In all aspects of the Model of Community this class was a highly developed, highly routinized, self-contained community exhibit- ing high levels of communal activities, interactions, and sentiments. The Teacher as the Critical Link Durkheim referred to the teacher as society's agent, the critical link in the cultural transmission. The findings indicate that the teacher was the central figure in the development and main- tenance of the class community. She was the central figure in the stability of the formal classroom structure. Mrs. W. as instructional leader, designer of curriculum, and instructional leader provided con- sistently strong, positive leadership. Her leadership provided a safe and successful environment for the students. She created an environment in which students willingly volunteered with little fear of failure, ridicule, or nonsupport. The teacher's role of instructional leader promoted and supported positive student contributions and discouraged negative, noncompliant behaviors. The safe, strong, and consistent leadership became the structural support system for the top academics' and 191 compliers' efforts to participate. Mrs. W. presented the daily lessons in a predictable, calm, and friendly pattern. The teacher always involved the majority of students in discussion. Mrs. W. refrained from attacking specific individual misbehavior. Mrs. W. was very kind and considerate of student feelings. Her warm and friendly style supported the feeling that the class was attractive. Each day Mrs. W. made hundreds of whole-group "we" and "us” statements which fostered a feeling of we-ness. The teacher's role of leader, group supporter, and norm enforcer provided a safe haven for the positive student majority. The students' top and average academics and compliers helped support the task goals and exerted group pressure on the bottom academics and non- compliers to join the work community and to comply with the task norms. The informal community existed in isolation of the classroom teacher. The role of the teacher in the internal friendship community was one of protector and comforter only. Mrs. W. was a friendly per- son but was not an equal replacement for agemates. Her informal role was to provide a safe play and friendship environment. Mrs. W. was the pulse of the community. Under her strong and emotionally supportive leadership the classroom community was a cohesive, highly structured social unit. Mrs. W. was the critical link in the class community. With her at the helm the class was a safe, secure, and stable environment. She created an atmosphere of limited freedom similar in many respects to our own limited democracy. The class norms were created by Mrs. W. with the consensus of the stu- dent community. Each day the teacher discussed with the group issues 192 of student interest. During these discussions the teacher solicited contributions from most of the students. Mrs. W. delegated some authority and responsibility to the student group. The group was emotionally in tune with Mrs. W. She was an expert at using body language, verbal and nonverbal cues, and indirect statements in order to secure individual and group conformity. Mrs. W. developed, orchestrated, and maintained classroom community through the roles of task leader, group supporter, and norm enforcer. Without her, or someone strikingly similar, the student community was like a rudderless ship. It lacked direction and lacked purpose. The Community Had a Dramatic Effect on Instruction The year-long efforts by Mrs. W. to create a cohesive class- room group resulted in a number of positive outcomes: (1) the class had high levels of compliance with task norms, (2) the class developed a stable student leadership, (3) the class became a cohesive work group, and (4) the class exhibited high levels of COOperation and interaction between class members. These outcomes enabled Mrs. W. to efficiently and effectively manage the class during instruction. The student community was very compliant and supportive of social and instructional norms. In return the students received praise, free time, and a reasonable work load as exchange benefits. The student community was able to exert influence on the teacher and teacher replacements through subtle, sometimes direct, pressure. Since Mrs. W. was so closely intertwined with the community and the 193 community with her, it was difficult to measure the student pull, or influence, on her. A much clearer view of the student influence on the teacher was observed through the teacher replacements. They were: the student teachers Miss B. and Miss M., and the teacher sub- stitutes of Ted, Doug, Miss P., Mrs. G., and Miss Button. The results of the observations of these teacher replacements indicated that the student community supported and complied with Miss M. and Doug. Miss B. and the other four substitutes were all but chased out of the first-grade room. The student group expected the teacher and teacher replacements to (1) model the "ideal" community member, (2) enforce norm boundaries, and (3) support the student community leadership through positive interaction. The afternoon student teacher, Miss M., and the substi- tute, Doug, met these student expectations. They were rewarded with positive, compliant behavior with high levels of student support. However, the student community rejected the other student teacher, Miss B., and the other four substitutes because they did not meet the student expectations. When this occurred, the student community restructured itself into a negative, noncompliant community. This student pull severely hamstrung Miss B. and the other four substitutes. The student pull under Mrs. W.'s strong and posi- tive leadership was a positive and supportive influence. Typically the tOp academics and compliers were the student leaders. They directly influenced the central core of average-ability and average- compliance students. This combination was a positive and powerful support system for the adherence to instructional norms. 194 There were distinct patterns of positive and negative commu- nity influence. Under normal conditions the top few academics and compliers initiated successful contributions to the morning Opening activities. They contributed positively to discussion and provided accurate information when requested. The teacher praised their efforts with kind remarks. Other less-able academics and compliers then would begin to volunteer information. During these beginning moments the bottom few academics and noncompliers probed with negative com- ments and negative behaviors to test teacher authority. Mrs. W. typically quashed these negative behaviors immediately. The teacher asserted her authority and provided a secure, no-risk task environ- ment. This was the consistent pattern throughout the 57 days that Mrs. W. was in charge of the classroom. However, if a student teacher or substitute replaced Mrs. W. the same testing of authority occurred, but this time the pattern was much less subtle. The students seemed to sense the relative weakness between these teacher replacements and Mrs. W. The student pull was direct and obvious. If the replacement figure was positive, firm, and fair, like Mrs. W., the student influence pattern slowly pulled and shifted toward the positive, supportive work environment. How- ever, if the teacher replacement was weak or negative, the student influence quickly pulled and shifted toward a negative, nonsupportive work environment. During weak or negative teacher leadership the low academics and noncompliers filled the leadership vacuum. Although the top aca- demics and compliers again would try to volunteer, they were immediately 195 stifled by the loud and negative outbursts of Larry, a bottom academic and noncomplier. If Larry was successful in the negative exchanges and probes, Craig, the lowest academic and noncomplier, tested the leadership waters. Once Larry and Craig established a fairly immune negative foothold, then Brice and Jeff would enter. Brice was of high ability and noncompliant, while Jeff was of average ability and noncompliant. If these four students formed an unchallenged coali- tion, then other less-compliant students entered the negative inter- play and the day was literally lost. The teacher replacement would spend the rest of the day reacting to the negative thrusts in a no-win game of attrition. The normal community response to Mrs. W. was positive, com- pliant, and cohesive behavior. The pattern of group development went from the initial testing-of-authority stage to cohesion and functional role taking. However, when the leadership was weak the community restructured itself into a negative, unsupportive community. The pattern during weak leadership appeared to be a testing-of-authority stage to a conflict stage and then back to the testing stage in a never-ending loop. With a weak teacher-leader the community appeared to be stuck in Tuckman's first two group-development stages of testing and conflict (see page 167). The negative compliers thrived under weak leadership and forcefully choked off any attempts for the top compliers to stabilize the community. A less-direct student community influence was observed when- ever the students felt cheated or unfairly treated in some way by other staff members, student teachers, or substitutes. When the 196 group felt it had been wronged in some way the students exhibited an uneasiness and anxiety that was unmistakable. Once when a visiting college student had given candy to only a few "favorite" students, Mrs. W. said, "What seems to be wrong today? You seem to be so upset and jumpy." A seemingly small incident of unfairness or mistreat- ment triggered a community response if enough members were able to communicate the information. The student community could subtly shut off persons not con- sidered friends of the group. Miss B., the morning student teacher, seldom bothered to go out of her way for the students. When they raised their hands, she seldom reacted. When Miss 8. made a promise, she seldom followed through. Mrs. W. remarked, "Miss B. didn't care and the students knew it." The student community rejected Miss B.'s mild attempts at leadership by poor participation and by being unfriendly. These feelings were strongly expressed during the visits by Miss B.'s university supervisor. When the supervisor visited, the students exaggerated their misbehavior and unfriendliness. As Mrs. W. put it, "The students made her [Miss 8.] look bad. She didn't care, so they [students] didn't care." The opposite student community pull was observed for Miss M. When the same university supervisor visited the afternoon sessions with Miss M. the students were models of proper behavior and compliance. Mrs. W. commented, "Miss M. was kind to the students. She prepared well for the lessons and always helped the kids. She brought in baby animals and did extra things throughout the year. The kids liked Miss M. and it showed." The students sensed 197 Miss M.'s extra efforts and rewarded her with attention, participa- tion, and compliant behavior. The student pull had a dramatic effect on instruction and on the management of instruction. In cases where the student community is allowed to become negative and unstable, it can be disastrous for the teacher-leader. This classroom community literally embarrassed and exhausted four of the five substitutes and occasionally drove one student teacher out into the hall "to get Mrs. W.!" Thus, the student community could be a positive influence to support and main- tain the work community. It could also restructure itself into a negative influence that was an unsupportive, anarchic community. In summary, from early in September Mrs. W. developed and maintained a unified, democratic student community. The group evolved from a simple clustering of individuals into a community of interact- ing members. At the center of the community was Mrs. W. She was the critical link in the social machinery. Under her strong, nurturing guidance the group developed a real sense of "we.“ This spirit of community led to positive task behaviors, group compliance, and group cooperation. The group developed a feeling that they were “good" and that their teacher was the "ideal" of community member- ship. The unerring consistency, warmth, and democracy with which Mrs. W. taught created a stable, cohesive social community. This student community was either dramatically supportive or devastat- ingly negative. The final effect depended on how nearly the teacher- leader approximated the expectations the community had for itself and for the teacher. 198 Durkheim reminds us that the class is a small society. "Thus no member of this small group acts as if he were alone; each is sub- ject to the influence of the group, and this we must consider very carefully."133 Implications The purpose of this study was (1) to use the Model of Commu- nity to describe the develOpment and maintenance of community within an elementary classroom and (2) to explain the effect of that entity on instruction and the management of instruction. Therefore, emerging from this study are a number of implications for the school organiza- tion, administrators, instructional programs, teachers, teacher- preparation programs, and for future research. Each will be subheaded and briefly discussed. School Organization The study revealed the importance of the socialization process within the elementary classroom community. The school organization might consider the merit of the self-contained, group-centered class- rooms in the middle, junior high, and high school settings as potential stimulators of group cohesion and social learning. The school organi- zation might benefit from the understanding of community in the class- room when placing students for the upcoming year. The school organization could use the information drawn from the study of each classroom community to better sort, separate, and match students to 133Emile Durkheim, Moral Education, trans. Everett K. Wilson (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1961), p. 150. 199 classrooms. Further, the understandings gained through observation of community in each classroom might improve the matching process of students to teachers and of students to other students. The benefit to the organization could be a maximizing of student-to-teacher and student-to-student compatibility. Administrators The administrator plays a similar role in relation to the teachers as does the teacher in his or her role to the pupils. In each case the teacher or administrator is the central figure in the formal task organization of the community. This study stressed the importance of primary social relations such as daily, predictable, face-to-face social interactions with members of the community. It is suggested that both teachers and administrators consider developing positive, firm-but-fair, face-to-face relations with their subordi— nates in order to build and/or maintain a cohesive, cooperative community. A direct implication to administrators from this study con- cerns their role as evaluators. Given the fluid and fragile nature of the classroom social group, might not the administrator use ability to develop classroom community and reasonable measures of task socialization as criteria for teacher evaluation? If so, the results of this study concerning "student pull" and leadership in the class- room community might aid administrators to better evaluate teacher strategy, control, and maintenance abilities inside the classroom. 200 The study indicated that both teachers and students became anxious and altered previous behavior patterns when a stranger entered the room environment. When the administrator evaluates within the room, he or she should take into consideration the effect his or her presence might have on classroom reality and realize that what he or she is observing might or might not be a realistic reflection of the typical teacher performance and student group response. To possibly avoid "canned performances," the administrator might visit often and casually, being careful to avoid evaluator status while within the classroom. Instructional Programs The study pointed to the fact that the students were at least as able, and sometimes more able than the teacher, to rank classmate academic ability and task compliance. The teacher could not observe the students in daily "behind the scenes" positive and negative peer behavior as well as the students could themselves. A corps of bottom academics saw little opportunity for success, and the top few academics were completely bored with the assignment of basically the same seatwork. This points to the need for teachers to adjust independent assignments and task leadership opportunities in relation to the extremes of ability. The study revealed a large, diffuse middle-ability majority that existed between the top and bottom extremes. Although it was impossible for the students or the researcher to differentiate between these average-ability students, they were subdivided into 201 three subgroups within the middle group. It is suggested that for efficiency of instruction and more accurate placement, the schools and teachers should use more than generalized achievement and/or historical records to determine subgroup selection. The study sug- gests that observation of actual student participation patterns, attention to task, task completion, and peer interview as to fellow- student ability might be extremely helpful indicators of true student ability. Teacher In order for the teacher to better know the students, he or she could be available at the times when the students are free, such as recess, lunch, in the library, etc. The advantages are obvious. Not only does the teacher become more aware of the social dynamics of the informal student group, but the teacher might gain access to student-to-student relationships within and outside of the classroom. By spending time with students during recess, lunch, and other free times, the teacher might better understand the social structure of the student community and might better understand the social reali- ties of school life from the perspective of the student community. It is suggested that the teacher learn more about the next year's class by frequent observation of the class(es) that are the feeder system to his or her own class. Through these observations, teachers could observe potential academic and social abilities. At the same time, fellow teachers might observe each other's classes. This could help the teachers to understand their students and their own teaching behavior in a nonthreatening, sharing environment. 202 In order to more efficiently teach and prevent student frus- tration, teachers might give varying-ability seatwork assignments. Those students, especially at the upper and lower ability extremes, could be given interesting and mildly challenging independent busy work. At the same time, the teacher might pattern the seating in the classroom to encourage cooperative sharing between similar- ability students. If the teacher wishes to stimulate group cohesion and indi- vidual social learning, caution might be exercised when isolating low ”compliers" and "academics" from similar-ability workmates. The teacher in this study used many group statements on a daily basis whenever addressing the class. These "we" and "our" statements appear to reduce the anxiety of personal, public failure. Finally, if the teacher has a replacement in the classroom, it might be beneficial to consider the study results concerning the negative "compliers'" takeover of four of the five substituted classes. The teacher replacement might be given a thorough summary of the daily activities, special events, student names, and a list of key student supporters and nonsupporters. If the substitute is available, it might be advantageous to introduce the replacement to the class in advance and explain to the class the role and authority ascribed to this person. The more information that the teacher might be able to give to the replacement teacher concerning his or her style, goals, expectations, and communication patterns with the stu- dents, the smoother the transition might be during teacher absence. 203 A key consideration for the teacher might be the impact individualized instruction and so-called ”contract learning" might have on the develOpment of a cohesive, COOperative classroom commu- nity. More consideration might also be given to the separation of students by academic or social ability as to the short- and long-term effects on community in the elementary classroom. University Teacher- Preparation Programs If building, maintaining, and nurturing a we-feeling and sense of community in the classroom is an important ingredient in the student social-learning process and cooperative group effort, then it may be necessary for university teacher-preparation programs to include both coursework and practicum experience in classroom group dynamics. Further, student teachers might be taught to use the MOCICS-International Coding System in order to better acquaint them- selves informally with the work group members' academic and social selves. The university supervisors of student teachers might use the Interactional Coding System to analyze teacher and student-teacher behaviors in relation to the particular student group. The analyses might lead to better teacher/student teacher and student teacher/student pairings. Student teachers might be able to get to know the class members from an unobtrusive-visitor status before the direct, formal teacher role is thrust upon them. This inside view of the classroom work community might aid in smoother transition of authority from 204 student teacher to teacher within the classroom. The student teacher could pinpoint the decisive negative and positive role players well before public, formal visibility as teacher. The university could provide the classroom teacher with a variety of inservice programs and graduate coursework aimed at a practical day-to-day understanding of the classroom group dynamics through similar interactional coding systems and classroom community models. Implications for Future Research The Model of Community might be of use for future investi- gation into the classroom community. The Interactional Coding System (MOCICS) is designed so that it can be implemented in most school classrooms with only minor adjustments. This coding system might provide a practical behavioral data-gathering device for researchers interested in interactional analysis in educational settings. The Model of Community might provide a matrix through which community study data can be filtered and sorted. The Student Ability Index and the Student Compliance Index also may be of some use to the investigator wishing to measure various dimensions of student competence in the classroom. The methodology used in this study points to the value of long-term, direct observation of the student group. This research was concerned with the investigation of an already established stu- dent community. Future research might be directed toward investigation of the development of community from the beginning of the year and 205 toward the manifestation of community in other grade levels and in other environmental settings. In summary, this research on community in the classroom might add to the body of educational literature a theoretical Model of Com- munity, a new interactional coding system (MOCICS), and new data concerning the development, maintenance, and effect of community in the classroom. APPENDICES 206 APPENDIX A INTERACTIONAL CODING SYSTEM (MOCICS) SAMPLE HALF-DAY FIELD NOTES 207 208 APPENDIX A MOCICS SAMPLE HALF-DAY FIELD NOTES Note: These notes are taken from the morning of Wednesday. March 22. 1981. Consult the MOCICS(Mode1 of Community Interactional Coding System discussion on pages 65-74 on procedures used to implement MOCICS. Check pages 70- 72 for exact codings to understand the samples. Wednesday the 22nd of March.......1981 There is a substitute teacher today....Regu1ar teacher taking husband to hospital for heart surgery.... 8T1 is in today and helps by taking the intro....strange that the sub teacher lets st1 take complete lead.... 9:10 5T1, Miss B....has handled everything....Sub has yet to introduce herself....just sitting in the back corner.....St1 goes through intro routine at the end of which the sub.states her name.... While the Sti was doing the intro and taking the roll calls again 10 began pestering the st1 as is usual Ihen 10 senses that st1 is running the class and the teacher(regular) is not present...Today 10 is especially active and gets cautioned twice by the 8T1 to quit his loud outbursts and misleading questions....10 says ”We don't do that:"....even though taking lunch count is of course routine.... IOOfC. e OIOOfCO e 08°fc0 e e OBOfCO e 0 e1 has his cap 0n(n0t allowed) . . . Bofc....During ledge 13 making believe he is blowing a horn...Sub is between(seated T 1 and 13 in extra desk...both 1 and 13 take sub for a ride. . . .teas ing and pushing her to limits with monkey shines and misleading statements....13 ofc..130fc...'Can we call you Miss Button?“ Teachertfl