"We Do Good Stuff Together": A Cross-case Analysis of Children's
Voices on Group Work
Jane West
Penny Oldfather
The University of Georgia
Abstract
Children have much to teach us about the kinds of group work that enhance their social,
emotional, and cognitive development. Using children's own words, this playlet juxtaposes
third-grade and fifth- sixth-grade views of how group work helps and hinders their school
experiences in literacy learning.
* Outside in a courtyard several groups of sixth graders write skits about
different countries they have researched.
* Four third graders sit at a table, each with a copy of Miss Pickerell on the
Moon (MacGregor & Pantell, 1965), offering in rapid succession their
predictions for the story's outcome.
These scenarios exemplify some of the interpersonal learning in "group work" took shape
in the classrooms of Dorothy Rice and Sally Thomas. Their students, Dorothy's third
graders and Sally's fifth and sixth graders, had much to say about group work--how it helped
and why it went wrong. In this paper we compare and contrast the multiple voices of
children in these classrooms as recorded by Jane West in Dorothy's class and Penny
Oldfather in Sally's. After reviewing a variety of conceptions of group work and clarifying
how the students and teachers in these two classrooms defined group work, we describe the
classrooms and present a playlet constructed from students' interview comments about group
work. After the playlet, we share the ways these students have helped us understand how
children at different grade levels experience collaborative enterprises: feeling that they "do
good stuff together" or realizing that "sometimes you get smarter when you're by yourself."
How This Dialogue Came to Be
We discovered that our separate studies had similar focuses, methods, and some
converging findings. Oldfather's eight-month study addressed students' perceptions of their
motivation in a whole language classroom (1991; 1993), and West's studies spanning two
academic years addressed students' perceptions of whole language (1993) and peer helping
(in progress). Students in both studies represented diversity of gender and ability. The 14 fifth-
and sixth-graders in Oldfather's study included African-American, Mexican-American, and
Asian-American as well as Caucasian children in a small academic community in Southern
California. In West's studies the 18 and 19 students, respectively, were Caucasian and
resided in a rural Southern community. The voices in this dialogue represent the variety of
ideas of both groups of children, though not all are directly quoted. Interview segments
quoted here were chosen because they most clearly illustrated categories found in data
analysis. Both investigators employed participant-observation and series of open-ended
interviews analyzed through constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
We went back to our original interview data and identified all segments relating to
students' views of group work. We extracted these from the complete data sets, printing the
data from each study on contrasting colors of paper. As we read and re-read this newly
pooled data set, common themes began to emerge. We cut up the interview segments and
sorted them into piles according to the emerging categories. The two colors of paper
facilitated easy visual identification of the balance within each category of data representing
the two groups of students. The resulting emic categories included 1) learning each other
well; 2) sharing ideas; 3) sharing the load; 4) giving and receiving help; 5) learning to
cooperate; 6) choosing groups; 7) making girls go with boys; 8) not getting along; 9)
disagreements; 10) having your own ideas; and 11) people who goof off and copy your
work.
Working with one category at a time, we arranged and rearranged the data segments,
juxtaposing third-grade and fifth/sixth-grade comments by taping them onto large pieces of
paper. The result was a remarkably flowing and coherent conversation that became the basis
for the playlet. We found some striking similarities and telling differences between the ways
the two groups of children perceived group work. The comparison of these studies, like the
overlaying of one transparency on another, highlights both the uniqueness and the
commonality of students' experiences and allows us to understand each study more fully.
What Is Group Work?
Researchers have used a number of terms for what these teachers and children call
"group work." Among these are "collaboration" (Bruffee, 1984), "cooperative learning"
(Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Slavin, 1985), "groupwork" (Cohen, 1986), "collaborative
community" (Short, 1990), and "group enterprise" (Smith, 1988). Definitions proposed by
Smith (1988) and Short (1990) most closely match the experiences of children in our studies.
In "group enterprise" (Smith, 1988) grades are de-emphasized or eliminated, restrictions on
time and group make-up are lifted, coercion by force or exclusion does not occur, and status
of group members is equalized. Although student groups in Sally's and Dorothy's
classrooms did not always have Smith's characteristics, Smith's description of group
enterprise most closely resembles what these teachers hoped to accomplish. "Collaborative
community" (Short, 1990) denotes "shared responsibility for learning. Such a community is
structured to encourage continuing conversations among individual voices and to support the
learning of everyone in that community. Collaborative communities go beyond cooperating
with someone else to learning from and with others" (Short, 1990, p. 34).
The Value of Group Work
Many of the benefits of group work are summarized by Cohen (1986): effective
conceptual learning, creative problem solving, oral language proficiency, socialization of
students for adult roles, as well as amelioration of many discipline problems,
accommodation of the needs of a diverse student population, and positive intergroup
relations. The research reported in this article is based on the premise that these intergroup
relations have intrinsic value apart from the many academic benefits documented by other
researchers (Solomon, Watson, Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 1990).
A key purpose of schooling is to help children learn "how to build and maintain positive
relationships with other people" (Johnson & Johnson, 1978, p. 11). The "positive
relationships" referred to by Johnson and Johnson are inherent in Nel Noddings' (1984)
conceptualization of the importance of caring in schools:
The primary aim of every educational institution and of every educational effort must be
the maintenance and enhancement of caring. . . .If what we do instructionally achieves the
instructional end--A learns X--we have succeeded instructionally, but if A hates X and his
teacher as a result, we have failed educationally. (p. 174)
Because cooperation is such a fundamental aspect of human experience, children
naturally collaborate with others in their learning (Smith, 1988). Children and adults learn
continually by helping each other; the most effective learning often occurs first in
interactions among children and then is internalized as "part of the child's independent
achievement" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). According to Smith, "Collaboration is at the heart of
learning in the world outside of school" (1988, p. 64).
The Classrooms
Dorothy's third-graders lived in a rural working-class Southern community. Most of
them had known each other since kindergarten. Her primary goals for students were
process-oriented and affective: "coming together as a unit" and learning to get along with
each other and being "whole people" who felt good about themselves. Academic learning
was important, but she wanted, above all, for them to learn how to learn, both together and
alone, and she wanted them to enjoy school:
As the teacher, I have to create [a] positive environment by offering more. There has
to be more there for them than just sitting in a desk doing the same old thing.
(Dorothy Rice, in West, 1992)
The children seemed to feel Dorothy was successful in meeting that goal. During the
year of Dorothy's first experiments with whole language, Kendra noted, " I didn't really like
it the way it used to be [before whole langauge]. All you did was work. Now, you can pick
whichever thing you want to, work with different people, pick your books. Everybody likes
it." And during the following year, when the current study began, another child reported
that "In Miss Rice's class, fun is everything."
The fifth- and sixth-graders attended "Willow," a century-old school in Southern
California, that served a diverse community. Willow, known for its student-centered
experiential curriculum, was in an open-enrollment district, and about half of the 350
students attending were from outside the school neighborhood. The teacher, Sally Thomas,
was respected in her school district and in the state of California as an exemplary whole
language teacher. The dominant goal in Sally's classroom was for learning rather than
performance:
Ultimately, it's meaning that counts, your meaning. The ultimate value in what you're
doing is in the meaning of it which is really unrelated to the skills part, except the skills
support being able to access the meaning. (Sally Thomas, in Oldfather, 1991)
In keeping with the emphasis on meaning in this classroom, errors were seen as a part of
learning. Paul, a sixth-grade student, shared his perceptions of the class:
One of the things I love in school is that we're trying to learn--not just get the right
answer. That's really good. You want to get the right answer, but you still learn.
You do better because learning is more important than getting the right answer.
Sally emphasized collaborative construction of meaning, and group work enhanced that
goal. Rather than presenting herself as the sole possessor of knowledge, she established a
climate of honored voice and "shared the ownership of knowing" (Oldfather, 1992).
Integrated curricula in both classrooms was responsive to students' interests, ideas and
needs, and students were engaged in reading and writing in a variety of subject areas
throughout the day. Classroom activity structures included whole-class teacher-directed,
independent, and small-group opportunities. A multi-task approach (Bossert, 1977) enabled
flexibility within clear structure and requirements accommodating a variety of interests and
pacing needs. Students often had a choice about group participation and membership.
Group structures were informal and student-centered, but occasionally were more
structured and teacher-directed. Groups were formed by student selection, random methods,
or teacher selection designed specifically for heterogeneous membership. The emphasis was
generally collaborative rather than competitive. Fifth- and sixth-grade students' desks were
arranged in groups of four or five; third graders sat at tables of four or five. Seating in both
classrooms was changed from time to time. Students talked freely among themselves except
when the whole class was being addressed by the teacher or a student. Teachers expected
the students to work together and encouraged them to seek help from peers.
The Playlet
In reporting our findings, we present the voices of third graders and of fifth and sixth
graders who will describe group work in their respective classrooms. In this "interview
profile" (Hudson-Ross, Cleary, & Casey, 1993; Seidman, 1991), the dialogue, with the
exception of a few words added to ease transitions (shown in brackets), was constructed from
the very words of the children in our interviews. Similar techniques for reporting children's
voices have been used by Terkel (1972) and Hudson-Ross, Cleary and Casey (1993). Our
purpose in selecting this format was to step aside so that the children could speak and readers
could interpret the children's ideas for themselves. For flow and clarity a mythical
interviewer asks questions of the children--often the same questions we asked them in the
actual interviews--with care to be faithful to the original context and students' intent. The
result is a conversation composed of the words of two groups of children who never met
each other but who have some common joys and concerns about getting things done in
groups. Headings interspersed in the dialogue represent key categories identified in data
analysis and highlight topics under discussion. Sometimes the comments under a heading are
dominated by one group; this reflects the differences in the perspectives of the two groups
of students. Often one comment represents many similar comments made by the speaker's
classmates.
On Learning Each Other Well
Interviewer: I understand you really like reading and writing in small groups.
Can you tell us why?
Violet (3rd Grader): You get to meet people that way....You learn to work together and to
be nice and sort of connect. And you learn each other well. And you
learn more about them. Like, if you didn't know their name, like that
first day I come in, I didn't know anybody. But then I got working
with Callie and Bethany and everybody was hollering my name!
On Sharing Ideas
Marcel (5th Grader): [In groups] you get to share your answers with somebody else....
You get to share how you think it should be. Like if you're
writing a story with somebody else, I think it's usually better,
because you share ideas...you polish it. You say, "No, it should
be that way...no, that way." And you just make it together and
make it perfect.
Joseph (3rd Grader): You can come up with more ideas. It's a lot easier because three or
four brains is smarter than one. I like writing with somebody because
the other person gives me ideas.
Brian (6th Grader): That's kind of fun to do in a group 'cause you get about
quadruple--or however many people are in your group--times the
information. Well, maybe not, because more people remember
different things. So you don't just get the information that one
person knows. You get it from a bunch of people so it can
contradict each other and get more things down.
Marcel (5th Grader): You get to share your answers with somebody else....You get to
share how you think it should be. Like if you're writing a story
with somebody else, I think it's usually better, because you share
ideas...you polish it. You say, "No, it should be that way...no,
that way." And you just make it together and make it perfect.
On Sharing the Load
Interviewer: So sharing ideas is helpful. Are there other ways groups are
helpful?
Lauren (5th Grader): It's sharing ideas and it's sharing the load. Because everybody's
doing some of it. It takes longer for one person to do one thing
than for a whole lot of people to do it....If you get people in the
group and they actually work then your group can get done easier.
David (3rd Grader): [Yeah], you know how to do it better when you have someone to help
you. If you don't know a word or if you don't know something, the
other person can tell you. Or if neither one of you know, you can
figure it out together. I know Kathy and Terrie are pretty smart, and if
I ever need any help, I can look to one of them.
Ricky (3rd Grader): If [your group members] are having a real, real, real hard time, you
could just tell them the answer. But you've got to work together and
read the sentences to each other and everything. And give them a little
hint.
On Giving and Receiving Help
Interviewer: What if somebody tells you the answer?
Florencia (6th Grader): No, they should tell you how they did it first. Like help you do it
and then you figure out the answer.
Interviewer: What are some other ways you get help in groups?
Chrissy (3rd Grader): If you're stuck on one question...the other person might know it.
If one person didn't know, I would go to another one. If the other
person didn't know, I would go to the last person. If the last
person did not know, I would go back to my seat and think as hard
as I could, and when I got the answer, people might come to me
and ask me. And I might say, "Go back to your seat, think as
hard as you can. But if you don't want to do that, I'll give you an
answer."
Andrew (6th Grader): Yeah, it is sometimes just so hard that you just have to go on and
tell them what the answer is and then they'll sort of get it. I tell
them the answer and have them tell me why that's the answer....If
they can't get the answer then I'll tell them the answer, and then
I'll give them a minute to think about it and I'll say, "Do you
know why that's the answer?"
Nicki (6th Grader): There might be some people in the group that are really faster than
you or you're faster than them. And I know I've been faster than
some people, and I don't get mad or anything. I like helping
them, showing them what I know so that they can catch up--or just
understand it better. That makes me feel better. I know that when
my dad helps me understand something real well, that makes me
feel like I can do it, and it's not so frustrating.
Interviewer: Do you think you learn anything from helping others in the group?
Nicki (6th Grader): You learn how it might feel when somebody's [helping] you.
When my dad's explaining things to me, I don't really realize
maybe he's going, "Oh come on...can't she get it?" Because he
might feel he is explaining it just perfectly. But I want to learn it
in a different way. And so when I explain to people then I know
how it feels to have to be kind of waiting, "Come on...get it."
On Being Wanted
Interviewer: So, being in a group helps you imagine how other people feel
about their learning? How does it make you feel?
Paul (6th Grader): Well, I'd say most teachers probably would think that if kids are
going to be right next to each other then they're going to start
talking, and they're going to start not doing their work.
Sometimes that happens, but whenever I'm in a group I don't feel
isolated. And I feel like I'm where I'm wanted. And it helps me
do my work better.
Interviewer: So you feel like you're wanted in a group. Are you always in a
group with your friends?
Tina (3rd Grader): Miss Rice chooses our partners because we always...same, same,
same partners. Like Tom would choose Max every single time.
Jeremy would choose Scott.
Mike (3rd Grader): It's fun when she lets us pick. But she's picking it because some
people, they'll get a partner that they act up with. It's fun either
way. Last time me and Monica got to do it. 'Cause me and
Monica do good stuff together because we don't get in trouble.
On Learning to Cooperate
Interviewer: So far you're telling us that in groups you have fun, you share the
load, and you feel wanted. What else do you like about reading
and writing in groups?
Lauren (5th Grader): We're learning to cooperate with all the other kids. 'Cause we're
going to have to be with other people later in life. When we're in
high school and we're doing a project we're not going to be able
to yell at each other. 'Cause they give us a week to do a project,
and we have no time to waste. We learn here that it's important to
have friends.
Carrie (3rd Grader): We gotta learn to work with everybody....You don't have to like
people. You just gotta learn to work with other people 'cause there
might be a time in your life where you have to work with others.
Marcel (5th Grader): If you write one story, it's not like, "I'm right, you can't change
it." You shouldn't be like that. You should say, "Okay, let me
use yours." And maybe combine the answers, or go with one.
Interviewer: So you're learning how to cooperate. Sounds like you're really
teaching each other. Are you pretty good teachers?
Andrew (6th Grader): [The teacher] puts me with a lot of kids who aren't as smart as I
am and I don't know if I've helped them any but I don't know that
I made them any worse.
Interviewer: Wouldn't you rather be off on your own, learning more
challenging things?
Andrew (6th Grader): [This] is really a challenge for me. In fact, that's probably the
most challenge that I have in groups; you have to learn to be with
people your age who need some help. And if you want to teach
them you've really got to learn how to teach right. So that's
always a challenge.
On Choosing Groups
Andrew (6th Grader): Sometimes [Mrs. Thomas] will put a smart person with three not-
so-smart people so that the smart person can help them learn, and
help teach them even. She also has to evaluate whether she thinks
that some people are good teachers or not. If she thinks that
they're good teachers, she might put them with some people that
they can help.
Bethany (3rd Grader): See, [Miss Rice'll] choose the right people for us. Like if
somebody's not really a good drawer, she'll pick somebody who's
a real good drawer...like me...and show the person how to draw
real good.
Mike (3rd Grader): She won't choose Max and Louis together though. See, she don't
want us to get in trouble. So she just puts us in the group that we
won't get in trouble. We like it because then we won't be hollered
at.
Marcel (5th Grader): You have to have good friends together, so they understand each
other. Opposites attract, it's true. But you don't want completely
opposite, because then you don't agree on anything.
On Making Girls Go with Boys
Interviewer: What about boys and girls being in groups together?
Joseph (3rd Grader): Oh, my God, no! They argue and they just can't get along very well.
That's because they're different.
Blanche (3rd Grader): I like mine because it's all girls, and we're a lot alike. We like
the same things. We all want to grow up
and be writers and have a go-go club and an apartment so we can
all live together.
Interviewer: Does Miss Rice let you be in all-girl groups?
Lisa (3rd Grader): Sometimes she makes girls go with boys that you don't like.
Monica (3rd Grader): [Working with boys] makes it a lot more easier 'cause they don't
get in trouble. 'Cause boys you don't see [child mimics flapping
mouth with both hands] like when it's all girls.
On Not Getting Along
Interviewer: Do boys and girls in your 5th- and 6th-grade class mind being in
groups together?
Abigail (5th Grader): [No. What matters is] who all the people are. If they get along,
it's fine. But if they don't, it's not. 'Cause everybody fights, or
they talk or laugh the whole time, if they don't know each other
very well. But if everybody knows each other, they get right to
work, usually.
Julia (3rd Grader): Sometimes me, Callie and Violet are working together, and I want
to work with them. But I pull one [game] out, and they pull the
other [game] out. Then I pull [the one they choose] out, and they
move to another table.
Marcel (5th Grader): Sometimes you get stuck with the leftover people, when other
people didn't want to get them in the group. It's just sort of
depressing. And then you sort of start not wanting to work at all.
Interviewer: That's too bad. Do you have advice for how many people should
be in a reading or writing group?
Josh (5th Grader): Well, it's easy with two people, but one thing that I don't like is a
group of four. Usually one person will try to be in the same group
as his friends. So if I am stuck with a group of three others that
are all friends, there's like a majority rule, and my part is not that
big.
On Disagreements: Carefulness, Taking Your Time, Being Told the
Answers
Nicki (6th Grader): Some kids just want to get the assignment done. They just want to
write it and then say, "Okay, it's done." But I [think] it has to do
with enjoying it more than wanting to get it done. Putting extra
work into it, putting more time in it, more carefulness.
Abigail (5th Grader): And in 4th grade I did a group thing that was on Indians....And it
wasn't very good. We had just a little bit of information 'cause
we didn't have enough time. We made this thing in this box, this
diorama, and we put little figures in it, and they fell off, and they
fell apart, and the whole thing was smushed, and it looked like a
ball of dirt. The other kids weren't very interested in it 'cause it
was just like a blob.
Interviewer: Not having enough time or information causes a problem, and
going at different speeds causes a problem?
Marcel (5th Grader): Sometimes people are ahead of you, and you don't understand it.
You want to be working, but they give you all the answers....And
you just write it down like that because you hear it like that. So
fine, it's the answer!
Lauren (5th Grader): I think you learn more as an individual because you have to keep
up with the group whenever you're in the group. But you can read
it over and kind of let it sink into your brain when you're alone.
You can take as much time as you need if you don't have to keep
up.
On Having Your Own Ideas
Interviewer: So there are times you like to read and write together and times
you'd rather work alone?
Nicki (6th Grader): If your group is assigned to do a story together, then you have to
write it together and put all your different ideas in it. And that's
really neat. But on the other hand it can be worse for some people
because they like writing on their own and having their own
ideas....Maybe they feel more comfortable in writing first by
themselves.
Chrissy (3rd Grader): I would like to write with someone else, but I wouldn't want to be
copying their work. But sometimes I would like to write my story
by myself because I was afraid that I might be copying somebody's
other piece, not mine.
Abigail (5th Grader): Everybody has different kinds of writing. Some people just have
just plain sentences like, "Look--over--there." And some people
like to make it funny a little bit. And some people like a lot of
narrating kind of thing. And sometimes people might be in the
middle--just straight out with the information. And [in groups] one
writer gets to choose how they're going to write, and so it's not
very fair. It's fun to work by yourself because you can get your
own choice of what kind of writing it is--not the subject but the
way you write.
Interviewer: So, expressing your own ideas in your own way is really
important.
Marcel (5th Grader): [What's important is] doing it yourself and understanding it more.
On People Who Goof Off and Copy Your Work
Interviewer: Are there times when people don't want to do it for themselves?
Florencia (6th Grader): They might be doing something else, like homework that they
haven't done. And then if you've just read something and then
you ask them what they think about it, they wouldn't know 'cause
they weren't listening.
Lauren (5th Grader): They won't do their share, and so your whole group gets behind
because they're not behaving.
Tanya (3rd Grader): [Sometimes] Julia and Violet don't do their work [either]. They count
on me to sit there and do it all. When they grow up they'll start
working like at a laundrymat [sic] or at the dump or somewhere like
that. Because they won't have a good education. If you depend on a
friend to do it always, when you grow up you're going to be dumb,
and you'll say, "Well, this friend got me this education." When you
go to college, you're not going to know anything if you depended on a
friend in third grade to do everything for you. Sometimes you get
smarter when you're by yourself.
Callie (3rd Grader): See [when somebody copies] you're not getting any credit....But it's
different if somebody's writing with you. But if nobody's writing with
you, then it's not fair because you're not getting the credit you should
be, and the other person is.
Interviewer: How do you feel when you do the work and someone else gets
credit?
Joseph (3rd Grader): That's something that aggravates me there! My [old] group never
read anything. I was the only one that read it, and had to tell them
the answer....For one minute there I thought, "Well, if I'm going
to have to read it by myself, I ain't going to help them." [But] I
knew I wasn't going to be nice if I don't [tell them], so I just went
ahead and done it.
Paul (6th Grader): But mainly in groups they don't cheat. Because automatically if
you sat in a desk that was five feet away from each other--your
first reaction would be that it's going to be boring. And then you
don't feel that confident about yourself. If you're going to be
isolated, you're going to start thinking that you're not going to do
it. And if someone's sitting like real close, you could cheat if you
wanted to. But most everybody subconsciously thinks that it's not
that great to cheat and that they can do [things] because they are
friends and they feel inspired, and that they can do a lot of things
because they're not scared to be alone.
Callie (3rd Grader): I don't think they cheat much [either]. You can't cheat [in reading]
because it's all the same. There's no cheating in reading.
Paul (6th Grader): If you're far away from each other, [cheating] is going to run
through your head a lot more [because] you feel like you're alone
and that you're not going to get it right. When you're close to
each other you feel like you're more confident.
And Overall
Interviewer: It sounds like there are some problems with your groups. Is it
worth the hard work you have to do to learn how to work
together?
Tanya (3rd Grader): [Of course! Like I said before], we gotta learn to work with
everybody....You don't have to like people. You just gotta learn to
work with other people 'cause there might be a time in your life where
you have to work with others.
What the Cross-Grade Comparison Taught Us
Data analysis revealed that students in both contexts agreed about how group work
enhanced their learning processes: they got to know classmates better, had more fun, shared
their ideas as well as the burdens of work, had ready access to help, and learned to
cooperate. The older students also noted that they learned how to teach others and feel
empathy for their struggles in learning and that they felt emotional support from their group
members. Most of the areas of difference between the two contexts arose in relation to
problems involved with group enterprises. In trying to make sense of those differences, one
might consider the two classroom contexts and goal orientations, the cultures in which the
students live, and the cognitive, social and emotional development of the children.
Although we are not assuming causal relationships, there appear to be patterns that
provide clues for understanding how children perceive their involvement in group
enterprises. The differences highlighted by the comparison include issues of egocentrism,
gender, and autonomy. The younger students were more likely to address the issues of
group endeavors in light of more egocentric perspectives, asking "What does this mean for
me?" Although this was true of many of the comments of the older students, they were also
inclined to consider the problems or benefits to the whole group, asking, "What does this
mean for us?" Younger students also preferred not to work in mixed gender groups, while
choice of group members for older students related to considerations other than gender.
The older students talked a great deal about allowing for individual differences within
group frameworks--for different pacing needs, conflicting academic standards, and unique
styles, ideas, and opinions. For third graders, the benefit of having the security of the group
seemed to outweigh any concern for losing their own voices or not having certain individual
needs met. However, a few of the third graders' comments indicated a growing tension
between group membership and autonomy. It seems that most of these fifth - and sixth-grade
children were fully aware of their need for autonomy and demanded it; the third-grade
children, however, may have been just realizing their own potential as autonomous thinkers
and not yet so protective of this aspect of their learning.
Being told the answers was another source of difference. Some older children did not
like being given an answer if it interfered with their understanding. Third graders, on the
other hand, had less concern about having their understanding preempted and clearly
expected other members of their group to share ideas, information, and answers. This
contrast might be seen as a reflection of the different goal orientations in the two classrooms.
Although there were common aspects of the goals of the teachers, each had a particular
emphasis. Both classroom teachers made efforts to establish caring classroom climates and
promote cooperative endeavors. Dorothy emphasized processes and cooperation. Although
those were certainly valued by Sally, she placed a heavy emphasis on the collaborative
construction of meaning. Therefore, it might be expected that the third graders would be
less bothered by being told answers than would the fifth- and sixth-graders.
Though not necessarily tied to development, a further implication is that group
involvement in closed-ended tasks may change the dynamics of collaboration. Being told or
searching for one "right" answer can encourage competition, preempt the search for
understanding, and create pacing conflicts. Open-ended enterprises may diminish
competition, facilitate the search for understanding, and accommodate different pacing needs.
Final Thoughts
The nature and quality of group experiences depended to a large extent on the individuals
involved and the classroom culture in which it occurred. We recognize that the demarcations
of grade levels are blurred by individual differences. There may be some fifth graders who
resemble the third graders represented here and vice versa. Teachers at any grade level
might consider the implications of this study by using the following questions related to
communicating goal orientations, helping children learn to work in groups, selecting
appropriate tasks, providing options, and listening to children. In this way, teachers can
examine their classroom practices regarding group work, applying contextual, developmental,
and cultural lenses appropriate to their own situations.
Further explorations are needed to extend our understanding of students' perceptions of
group enterprise. Similar inquiries with children in other grade levels and contexts are
needed. This cross-case comparison came about after the interviews were conducted;
therefore, exploration of some of these issues is incomplete. For example, the third graders
did not talk about learning how to teach other. Further interviews may provide that
information. Additionally, we have not performed analysis by gender. Such analysis might
prove helpful in light of other studies indicating that some females are more likely to learn in
connection with others (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). Finally, the study
of interactive processes is inherently complex, given their ever-shifting and contextual nature.
As we read and reread the children's words to make sense of what they've told us,
we detect an almost tangible tension between intimacy and interdependence, between
autonomy and independence. This tension was noted by Short (1990) as a paradox resulting
when "individuality and 'groupness' are both highlighted at the same time" (p. 39). Working
alone does not guarantee autonomy; nor does being in a group require sacrificing it. For
example, students may perceive lack of autonomy when working independently in teacher-
centered classrooms; groups may be able to collaborate and also to honor individual voices.
The additional "air time" created when teachers decentralize learning creates greater
opportunity for students to be heard, for their voices to be honored by others. The task of
the teacher is to allow enough autonomy within group frameworks that the child's developing
sense of self and individual identity are maintained while the values inherent in group work
are nurtured.
In attempting to be sensitive to the cultures of these two groups of children, we have
tried to listen to them, learn from them, and present their ideas in the most direct way we
can. This research experience affirms our belief that it is important to continue to go
directly to the children to learn from them about how we can create classroom contexts that
enhance meaningful language learning so that all our students can "do good stuff together."
References
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing:
The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bossert, S. (1977). Tasks, group management and teacher control behavior: A study of
classroom organization and teacher style. School Review, 85, 552-565.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "Conversation of Mankind." College
English, 46, 635-652.
Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. L., (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldline.
Hudson-Ross, S., Cleary, L. M., & Casey, M. (Eds.). (1993). Children's voices: Children
talk about literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 3-15.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S.
Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23-37). New York:
Praeger.
MacGregor, E., & Pantell, D. (1965). Miss Pickerell on the moon. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
McDermott, G. (1974). Arrow to the sun. New York: Viking.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Oldfather, P. (1991). Students' perceptions of their own reasons/purposes for being or
not being involved in learning activities: A qualitative study of student motivation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
Oldfather, P. (1992, December). Sharing the ownership of knowing: A constructivist concept
of motivation for literacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Oldfather, P. (1993). What students say about motivating experiences in a whole language
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46, 672-681.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Short, K. G. (1990). Creating a community of learners. In K. G. Short & K. M. Pierce
(Eds.), Talking about books: Creating literate communities (pp. 33-52). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Short, K. G., & Burke, C. (1991). Creating curriculum: Teachers and students as a
community of learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Slavin, R. E. (1985). An introduction to cooperative learning research. In R. Slavin, S.
Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to
cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5-15). New York: Plenum.
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, J. (1990). Cooperative
learning as part of a comprehensive classroom program designed to promote prosocial
development. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.
232-260). New York: Praeger.
Terkel, S. (1972). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel
about what they do. New York: Random House.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
West, J. (1993, April). "Having your way": Children's perceptions of fun and work in
literacy learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Jane West is a doctoral candidate in Language Education at The University of Georgia.
Her interests relate to children's perspectives of whole language teaching and learning
processes.
Penny Oldfather is Assistant Professor of Elementary Education at The University of
Georgia and a principal investigator at the National Reading Research Center. Her research
focuses on student motivation for literacy learning, and constructivism in teaching and
learning.
Notes:
First names of fifth and sixth-graders were used at their request; pseudonyms are used
for third-grade students due to wording of participation consent form. Both teachers' actual
names are used.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the help of JoBeth Allen, Linda DeGroff, and Lee Galda and
other reviewers for their comments on drafts of this manuscript. We are also indebted to
Sally Thomas, Dorothy Rice, and their students whose thoughts and experiences are the basis
of this research. Preparation of this article was partially funded through the National
Reading Research Center of The University of Georgia and The University of Maryland,
which is supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers program
(PR/Award No. 117A20007) of the Office of Educational Research and Improvements, U.S.
Department of Education. Opinions reflected herein are solely those of the authors and the
students whose voices are represented.