Cohen chapter from Designing Groupwork

This chapter describes the multiple-abilities treatment to changing students' status within the classroom. There is an academic reason for this that is also a moral one: low-status students do not have the same opportunities to learn that high-status students have in most classrooms. We have talked about why this is so. This chapter provides concrete techniques for addressing status issues. As you read, consider the following:

• How does a multiple-abilities treatment change the meaning system of the classroom?
• What kinds of tasks in your discipline require multiple abilities and could be used in designing groupwork in your class?
• Which of the strategies Cohen suggests do you think would be most useful? Most comfortable for you to apply? Most problematic?

Bullying articles

Astor, et al.: Unowned places and times

This is a research report in a prominent research journal on education. Start by reading the abstract, which provides an overview of the contents.

On p. 6, the authors note that we have known for a long time where and when bullying and other forms of violence tend to occur in schools (when students are crowded and unsupervised), but that this has not led to straightforward interventions. They suggest the problem is an interaction between the physical and social structures of the schools. In other words, the specific roles, responsibilities, and relationships of teachers, administrators, security personnel, and students are implicated along with the nature of the buildings and schedule. Pages 6-9 describe some of the intervention strategies that have been tried with little success.

On pp 9-11 Astor, et al draw on environmental psychology and studies of housing projects, in which crime rates have been shown to be highest in "unowned" spaces (e.g., lobbies, common hallways), or where ownership is ambiguous. Such places are not defensible, in contrast to spaces where ownership is clear-cut, as in apartment interiors. They ask what spaces in schools are considered "unowned" or "owned" by the adults in the school, particularly given the organization of middle and high schools into subject-matter specialties. Read the paragraph just before "Methods" on p. 11.

Pp. 11-16 describe the methods used to gather data from five large midwestern high schools. Interviews, focus groups, and having students map violent events were primary methods. Individually-constructed maps were collapsed to form a combined map in each school showing the times and locations of violent events. These maps were used to interview students and teachers.

Results are descriged beginning on p. 16. On p. 18, the authors note that though troubled by the reports of violence, teachers were unclear about their role and responsibility in violent acts that occurred outside their own classrooms (their defensible space). The section on the organizational response to violence provides an idea of the confusion and lack of clarity in schools over these responsibilities.

• What do you know about your role in responding to or preventing violence in your field placement school?

Frequency and location of violence was differently reported for girls and boys. However, race and class did not seem to determine times and places. Race and class were implicated in the likelihood of violence, according to students and adults, largely because of the association of poverty and minority status with hopelessness. See the quote on p. 26.

On pp. 27-32, Astor & colleagues describe the interventions tried in these schools, including various forms of monitoring by both electronic means and security guards. Note the issues raised about these means in the table. It is interesting that the status of guards was quesionnable, as was their "ownership" of the common spaces they were employed to guard. The last paragraph of this section provides a summary of student suggestions for intervention.

• What is your view of the suggestions provided by students to redue violence?
• How are the related to the themes we've discussed in this class?

Pp. 32-35 discuss the practical implications of this study.

• What is your response to their arguments?

Mishna, et al:

pp. 725-727 describe the factors that affected whether a teacher responded to a bullying incident:

• whether the incident was considered serious
• whether the victim was considered responsible
• whether the victim fit teachers' ideas of victin characteristics
• whether the teacher felt empathy for the victim
• the "nature of the school environment," which appears to mean whether or not the school had a reputation for violence or "nice" behavior

Read the examples for each. Reflect on your own observation of aggression at the schools in which you teach. How do you know whether or when to intervene?

On p. 728 the authors descibe the difficulties teachers experienced with intervention. Note the distinction between "direct" (physical) and "indirect" (relational) bullying here.

Read the top of page 729. Despite the fact that all the teachers had been bullied as children, they missed incidents of bullying, identifying only 7 of the 17 self-identified victims as such.

Strom & Strom: Cyberbullying

For information and resources on cybercrimes: University of Dayton School of Law.

The first three and a half pages provide an overview and description of cyberbullying, which, they emphasize, is a crime and can be prevented and responded to.

Pages 24-26 provide suggestions for responding to cyberbullying, particularly aimed at teachers, administrators, and parents.

Most of the rest of the article provided suggestions for research and policy development, but there is also some information that debunks myths about bullying, including that bullies have low self-esteem. In fact, bullies often have inflated self-esteem and are often, especially in middle school, accorded high status by their peers. Consider why this might be; what patterns did you see in the chapters from School Talk?