Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom

Author(s): Elizabeth G. Cohen and Rachel A. Lotan

Source: American Educational Research Journal , Spring, 1995, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring,
1995), pp. 99-120
Published by: American Educational Research Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1163215

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1163215?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Educational Research Journal

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 American Educational Research Journal
Spring 1995, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 99-120

Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the

Heterogeneous Classroom
Elizabeth G. Cohen
Rachel A. Lotan
Stanford University

Emphasis on tracking and ability grouping as sources of inequality a

as goals for reform ignores processes of stratification within heterogeneou
classrooms. Research literature on effects of classroom status inequalit
reviewed. The articlepresents a test of two interventions derivedfrom exp
tion states theory and designed to counteract the process of stratifica
in classrooms using academically heterogeneous small groups. The de
focuses on variation in the frequency with which teachers carried out statu
treatments in 13 elementary school classrooms, all of which were using
same curriculum and the same system of classroom management. Th
was good support for the hypotheses that the use of status treatments wo
be associated with higher rates of participation of low-status students
would have no effect on the participation of high-status students. Ana
at the classroom level revealed that more frequent use of these treatm
was associated with more equal-status interaction.

ELIZABETH G. COHEN is Professor of Education and Sociology, Center for Edu

tional Research 207N, School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94
3084. She specializes in sociology of education, classroom social structure, and or
zation of teaching.
RACHEL A. LOTAN is Senior Research Scholar, Center for Educational Rese
207N, School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-3084. She spe
izes in sociology of the classroom and social organization of schools and group w

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

Sociological
structuralresearch onschools
features of sources
andof inequality
classrooms suchinaseducation hasability
tracking and emphasized
grouping (Oakes & Lipton, 1990; Gamoran, 1987; Vanfossen, Jones, & Spade,
1987; Useem, 1992). Classroom studies of low-track and low-ability groups
reveal the mechanisms and processes by which these organizational features
of segregation are translated into depressed academic performance (Eder,
1981; Gamoran, Berends, & Nystrand, 1990; Hallinan, 1990; Oakes, 1985).
Structural explanations lead to recommendations for reform that are also
structural-such as, untracking the secondary school and minimizing the use
of ability grouping at the elementary level (Carnegie Council on Adolescent
Development, 1989; Massachusetts Board of Education, 1990). Current reform
efforts springing from this line of research are leading more and more schools
to move toward academically heterogeneous classrooms.
Exclusive emphasis on structural sources of inequality and structural
reform, however, ignores important sociological theory and research on
processes of stratification in heterogeneous social settings. If it is the case
that processes of stratification within heterogeneous classrooms can produce
severe inequalities, then the neglect of this sociological knowledge will be
very costly. If students in heterogeneous classrooms develop new status
orders that have the effect of depressing the participation and effort of low-
status students, then the current wave of reform will simply substitute new
forms of inequality for the old. Depressed rates of participation predict
lowered achievement as early as the first three grades (Finn & Cox, 1992).
Cooperative learning is widely recommended as a method of creating
equity in heterogeneous classrooms. However, small groups will also develop
status orders based on perceived differences in academic status: high-status
students will interact more frequently than low-status students. Moreover,
these differences in interaction can lead to differences in learning outcomes--
that is, those who talk more, learn more (Cohen, 1984).
The goal of this article is to apply expectation states theory to this
problem of unequal status interaction in heterogeneous classrooms. Expecta-
tion states theory explicates stratifying processes that arise in classrooms and
produce status orders associated with academic and social characteristics
of students. We report on a controlled observational study of instructional
interventions derived from this theory. We will focus on variation in the
frequency of the use of these interventions among a set of classrooms, all
using the same curriculum and method of classroom management.

The Interventions: Derivation, Design, and Hypotheses

Expectation states theory (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, Jr., 1966, 1972) offers
an explanation for the dominance of high-status actors, even when the
differences in status are irrelevant to the task. Status generalization is the
process by which status characteristics come to affect interaction and influ-
ence so that the prestige and power order of the group reflects the initial
differences in status. (For a full description of this process, see Berger, Rosen-
holtz, & Zelditch, Jr., 1980). Status characteristics, a central concept of this

100

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

theory, are defined as socially evaluated attributes of individuals for which

it is generally believed that it is better to be in the high state than the low state.
When a status characteristic is specific (such as, occupation, skill, and
training), knowledge of the characteristic provides specific performance
expectations for individuals who are in the high and low states of the charac-
teristic. Academic status characteristics, such as those based on perceived
differences in ability in reading or math, are prime examples of specific status
characteristics in the classroom. When a status characteristic is diffuse (such
as, race, gender, or ethnicity), general expectations for competence and
incompetence will be activated by collective tasks; these expectations operate
in the same way as expectations based on specific status characteristics.

Classroom Status Inequalities and Student Interaction

When the educator assigns a collective, cooperative task to a group, status
differences based on academic ability become activated and relevant to the
new situation, even if the task does not require the academic ability on which
the group differs. Because of differences in perceived academic ability, the
high-status student will then expect to be more competent and will be
expected to be more competent by others. The net effect is a self-fulfilling
prophecy whereby those who are seen as having more ability relative to the
group in schoolwork or in reading tend to dominate those who are seen as
having less ability relative to the group in schoolwork or reading (Hoffman,
1973; Rosenholtz, 1985; Tammivaara, 1982; Webb & Kenderski, 1984).
Differences in status are always relative rather than absolute. One's own
status is relative to the status of other members of the group. For example,
the effects of perceived ability can be distinguished from actual differences
in ability. In contrast to measures of perceived ability, measures of actual
ability do not predict interaction and achievement gains (Webb & Kenderski,
1984). Dembo and McAuliffe (1987) created an artificial distinction of average
and above-average ability with a bogus test of problem-solving ability,
described as relevant to an upcoming experimental task. Higher status stu-
dents (defined as those publicly assigned above-average scoring on the
bogus test) dominated group interaction on the experimental task, were
more influential, and were more likely to be perceived as leaders than low-
status students.
Academic status characteristics are the most powerful of the status char-
acteristics in the classroom because of their obvious relevance to classroom
activities. In responding to hypothetical learning groups on a questionnaire,
students were much more likely to approve leadership behavior on the part
of a good student than on the part of Whites or males (McAuliffe, 1991).
Studies documenting the effects of diffuse status characteristics (such
as, social class and race) among schoolchildren have primarily taken place
in laboratories. Because these diffuse status characteristics tend to correlate
with states of academic characteristics (such as, ability in mathematics), it
has been difficult to document these effects separately in groups composed
of students in a single classroom (Cohen, 1982). When academic status is

101

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

uncontrolled, the effects of ethnicity in small classroom groups have been

clearly shown (Sharan & Shachar, 1988).
Although gender is a powerful basis for the organization of social behav-
ior in school, it does not appear to operate as a status characteristic until the
middle school years (Lockheed, Harris, & Nemceff, 1983). Consistent with
the conclusions of Lockheed et al., Leal (1985) found no evidence of gender as
a status characteristic in mixed sex groups working cooperatively at learning
centers. Differences in perceived attractiveness or popularity--that is, peer
status--are also the basis for status generalization (Maruyama & Miller, 1981;
Webster & Driskell, 1983).

Modifying Status Inequalities

We hypothesize that teachers can alter the status processes in a heterogeneous
classroom by altering the expectations for competence that students hold
for themselves as well as expectations they hold for one another. Of central
interest here are two interventions: the multiple ability treatment and
assigning competence to low-status students.
In an effective multiple ability treatment, the teacher and students discuss
the many different intellectual abilities required by the collective tasks (e.g.,
reasoning, creativity, and spatial problem solving). Moreover, the teacher
says, "None of us has all these abilities; each one of us has some of these
abilities." Theoretically, this intervention produces a mixed set of expecta-
tions for competence for each student rather than uniformly high or low
expectations.
Although this intervention was directly inferred from the theoretical
description of the process of status generalization, the basic idea of multiple
intellectual abilities is consistent with recent developments in the psychologi-
cal study of human intelligence. The work of psychologists such as Sternberg
(1985) and Gardner (1983) suggests multiple intelligences as a heuristic
conceptualization rather than the concept of a single intelligence represented
by the IQ score.
The multiple ability treatment proved effective in weakening status
effects in a laboratory study (Tammivaara, 1982) and in a controlled classroom
experiment (Rosenholtz, 1985). In classrooms using the same instructional
methods as this study, the multiple ability treatment reduced but did not
eliminate effects of status on interaction (Cohen, Lotan, & Catanzarite, 1988).
Both expectation states theory and source theory (Webster & Sobieszek,
1974) provide the basis for another status treatment: assigning competence
to low-status students. As a high-status person, the teacher's evaluations
have a strong influence on students' evaluations of themselves (Webster &
Sobieszek, 1974). The higher the status of an individual, the greater is the
likelihood of that individual becoming a source of important evaluations
and thus influencing one person's self-evaluations relative to another. If the
teacher, as a high-status source, positively evaluates a series of classroom
tasks by a student, that student will come to believe that his or her ability
is consistent with the teacher's evaluation. That belief will in turn affect the

102

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

student's expectations for competence in classroom tasks. In a classro

experiment designed to test this proposition, Entwisle and Webster (19
found that students who had received positive evaluations from the teac
were more likely to raise their hands to volunteer a response to the teacher
than students who had not received positive evaluations from the teach
Teachers who use this treatment watch for instances of low-status stu-
dents performing well on various intellectual abilities that are relevant to
success on classroom tasks, such as observing astutely, being precise, or
being able to use visual thinking. The teacher then provides the student with
specific, favorable, and public evaluations so that high-status members will
also hear and accept the teacher's evaluation. For example, on observing
the neglect of a low-status child who did not speak English by the other
bilingual members of the group, one teacher said:

Luis is really looking at the (activity) card when he is building this

structure and following the diagram on the card. He puts one straw
across like this to make it stronger. He's really doing that by following
the diagram. You know, that is a great ability to have because he
could be an architect. So he's a great resource here in this group
because you guys can rely on him to make your structure much
stronger. (She repeated the treatment in Spanish for Luis' benefit.)
You need to tell Luis what you want to do because he is the one who
is a resource here, but he has to understand. Otherwise he can't help
you. (Cohen, 1994)

This treatment should not be confused with unconditional teacher praise

and reinforcement often used in psychological research on teacher-student
interaction. Before assigning competence, the teacher must wait until the
student performs impressively on particular abilities. The feedback has to
be public, highly specific, and valid so that the student and other members
of the group will find the evaluation believable and understand precisely
what was done well. Furthermore, the teacher spells out the relevance of
this intellectual ability to the task at hand and/or to adult problem-solving
experience. This last step represents the formation of a relevance bond
between the newly assigned competence and the task at hand. Berger and
Fisek (1970) hypothesized that specifying relevance would raise the probabil-
ity of transfer because the participants would perceive that the new task was
similar to the task where a group member had just received a high evaluation
of his or her competence.
If the student and his or her peers accept the teacher's evaluation of
the low-status student as competent on an impressive and relevant ability,
then expectations for competence on this specific status characteristic should
combine with other expectations for competence (both high and low) held
by and for the individual. The net result of successful treatment will be higher
participation and influence on the part of the low-status group members
relative to that of the high-status group members. Research has shown the
power of these newly assigned expectations for competence to transfer to

103

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

new task situations (Berger et al., 1980; Webster & Foschi, 1988). The transf
of successfully treated expectations to new situations means that the teache
does not have to continually treat the same low-status individuals. Nor i
theoretically sound to assume that the more frequently the teacher treats t
same group, the higher will be the interaction and influence rates of
low-status members of that group.
More concretely, as Candida Graves, one of the teachers whose clas
room was part of this study reports, a single successful treatment may
sufficient to change a student's standing with his class:

One day I had a student named Juan. He was extremely quiet and
hardly ever spoke. He was not particularly academically successful
and didn't have a good school record. He had just been in the country
for two or three years and spoke just enough English to be a LEP
student. I didn't notice that he had many friends, but not many enemies
either. Not that much attention was paid to him.

We were doing an activity that involved decimal points, and I

was going around and noticed he was the only one out of his group
that had all the right answers. I was able to say, "Juan! You have
figured out all of this worksheet correctly. You understand how deci-
mals work. You really understand that kind of notation. Can you
explain it to your group? I'll be back in a minute to see how you
did." And I left. I couldn't believe it: He was actually explaining it to
all the others. I didn't have faith it was going to work, but in fact he
explained it so well that all of the others understood it and were
applying it to their worksheets. They were excited about it. So then
I made it public among the whole class, and from then on they began
calling him "the smart one." This spread to the area where he lived,
and even today kids from there will come tell me about the smart
one, Juan. I thought, All of this started with a little intervention!
(Graves & Graves, 1991)

The first two hypotheses are at the individual level, while the third is
the classroom level. At the individual level, low-status students in successfu
treated classrooms should have a higher rate of participation in mixed statu
groups as a result of higher expectations held for their competence. Furthe
more, because the teacher has presumably concentrated on assigning compe-
tence to low-status students, there should be no effect in successfully treat
classrooms on the rate of participation of high-status students in mi
status groups.
The strength of the relationship between status and interaction within
the small groups is a classroom-level phenomenon. In order to bring abo
equal-status interaction, the teacher must make the expectations for compe
tence for low- and high-status students more nearly equal. If she is successf
in doing so, this should lead to a third observable result where the unit
analysis is the classroom: when expectations for competence are more nearly
equal in a classroom, the relationship of the status of each student to t

104

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

rate of interaction of that student should be weaker than in classrooms where

there are sharp differences in expectations for competence.
This reasoning allows us to develop three hypotheses for the study:

1. The rate of participation of a low-status student in mixed status

groups will be positively related to the frequency of the use of status
treatments by that student's teacher.
2. The rate of participation of a high-status student in mixed status
groups will be unrelated to the freqency of the use of status treatments
by that student's teacher.
3. At the classroom level, the frequency with which the teachers use
status treatments will be negatively related to the strength of the
correlation between status and interaction in their classrooms.

We expect these hypotheses to hold under two conditions. One is the

use of a curriculum with tasks that require a broad range of intellectual
abilities. If the curriculum activities include a broader range of abilities and
are not restricted to conventional academic skills, it is then more likely that
students or teachers would believe that every student would have at least
one of the requisite intellectual abilities or that no student would have all
the abilities. The second is a method of classroom management that permits
and sustains a high rate of interaction between the students. Interaction is
important to the success of these interventions because it allows peers to
witness the competence of the low-status student on the task. In addition,
following the teacher's intervention, interaction on a group task allows further
opportunities for the low-status students to be recognized for their intellec-
tual contributions.
An exploratory question in this study is the effect on the low-status
student of playing an authoritative role such as that of the facilitator. As
facilitators, students have the opportunity to direct the behavior of others in
the course of group interaction. Theoretically, holding such a powerful posi-
tion with respect to peers may well raise expectations for competence for
the low-status student as well as the expectations for competence the low-
status students hold for themselves. We will examine the effect of playing
the role of a facilitator on the low-status student's participation rate.

Sample and Setting of the Study

Thirteen classrooms, Grades 2-6 in three schools in the San Francisco Bay
area, constituted the sample of the study. The number of students in these
classrooms ranged from 21 to 30, with an average of 27 students. Large
proportions of these students were from language minority and low-income
backgrounds. These were also segregated classrooms. Students in two class-
rooms were Southeast Asian immigrants with limited proficiency in English.
Nine classrooms were predominantly Hispanic, and the remaining two were
a mixture of low-SES Anglos, Asians, and Hispanics. Despite the similarity
in ethnicity and SES within most of these classrooms, there was heterogeneity

105

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

in academic skills ranging from grade level performance to an inability

read and write in any language.
In order to determine the effect of status on interaction, we selected a
subset of target students in each classroom for intensive scoring of th
participation within small groups. There were 61 low-status students and 6
high-status students in the target sample.
The 13 teachers who taught these classrooms had participated in a
week workshop at Stanford University in the summer of 1984. During
workshop and the year-long follow-up by the Stanford staff, the teach
learned about complex instruction, an instructional strategy for hetero
neous classrooms. Complex instruction requires the teacher to assign studen
to small mixed gender groups composed of students with different levels o
achievement as well as mixed proficiency in English. Teachers used Find
Out/Descubrimiento (FO/D), an English-Spanish math and science curr
lum for the elementary school grades. All teachers were instructed in
strategies for the treatment of status problems. In addition, some teach
participated in a supplementary training designed to boost the us
assigning competence to low-status students.
The nature of instruction matched the two conditions laid out above.
The tasks required problem solving and utilized manipulatives. Successful
completion of these tasks required a wide range of intellectual abilities. Aside
from reading, writing, and computing, these abilities included reasoning,
hypothesizing, visual and spatial thinking, careful observing, precision in
work, and interpersonal skills. The methods of staff development included
a classroom management system designed to ensure a high proportion of
students talking and working together (Cohen, Lotan, & Leechor, 1989).
Within the cooperative group, each student played a different role (e.g.,
facilitator, reporter, checker, clean-up monitor); these roles were rotated
regularly. There was variability in the teacher's ability to implement this
management system and so maintain a high level of interaction.

Measures

Independent Variables
The teachers' use of status treatments was indicated by two kinds of tea
talk: talking about multiple abilities and assigning competence to low
students. Trained bilingual observers, using the teacher observation
ment, gathered data on these teaching behaviors during complex instruc
For 10 minutes during each observation period, observers tallied th
quency with which teachers talked about multiple abilities and ass
competence and the frequency with which they engaged in a num
other categories of talk not relevant to this analysis. A total of 285 obser
were collected, with an average of 21.9 ten-minute observations per teac
No teacher was observed less than 17 times. Tests of reliability yiel
average of 91.48% agreement between observers.

106

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

To calculate the average rates of teachers' use of status treatments, the

total frequency of these two kinds of speech acts was divided by the number
of observations for each teacher. An analysis of variance was calculated for
the entire set of individual observations. Teachers were a significant source
of variation; for talk about multiple abilities, F = 1.88, p < .05; for assigning
competence, F = 3.58, p < .00. The frequencies of the two types of status
treatments were added together to create a general status treatment variable.
This was the statistic used in tests of hypotheses.
To answer the exploratory question, we used the measures of students
talking and behaving like a facilitator: Observers systematically scored these
behaviors on repeated occasions for 3-minute periods (see more detailed
description of the Target Student Observation Instrument in the following
section of the article). We added these together and calculated an average
rate across observations for each target child. Although low-status students
were assigned the role of the facilitator as often as other students, they did not
necessarily play the role actively. Thus, this is a measure of implementation of
the facilitator role.

Dependent Variables
The dependent variables of the first two hypotheses require an estimate of
the rate of participation of low- and high-status students. In order to measure
this participation, it was necessary to select a target sample of students who
were perceived as low and high status. Prior to any intervention, sociometric
instruments were administered to all students in English and Spanish versions
in the 13 classrooms that participated in the study. Students were asked to
circle the names of those in their class who were "best at math and science"
or their "best friends."
Because students could circle any number of names, the number of
choices indicated for each question varied among students and among class-
rooms. The distribution of choices for each question was divided into
quintiles for each classroom. Each child was then assigned a score ranging
from 1-5, depending on the fifth of the distribution in which lay the number
of times that child's name was chosen.
The two questions mentioned above made up the measure of status.
Because the status treatments took place while children were working on
math or science tasks, the specific status characteristic of ability in math and
science was the one most directly relevant to the learning tasks. The question
of best friends was used as an indicator of peer status. For a single measure
of status, the two quintile scores were added together and a costatus score
ranging from 2-10 was created (see also Cohen, Lotan, & Catanzarite, 1988).
Using the combining principle, a basic tenet of the theory well substantiated
by research, the values were added, because participants will aggregate status
information (Humphreys & Berger, 1981).
After the costatus scores were calculated for all students, we selected
target students from each classroom, seven from the upper and seven from
the lower end of the distribution of the costatus scores. All students who

107

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

had a score of 2 or 3 and all students who had a score of 9 or 10 were

selected. We then made a random selection among those scoring 4 or 8 in
order to make up the quota of 14 target students per classroom. Because o
the high transiency rates in some of these schools, we were not able to
collect a complete set of observations on all the selected students. (See Tab
1 for the number of target students per classroom.) There were at least s
observations for all 128 children in this study.
Using the target child observation instrument, the observers recorded
the frequency of task-related talk and non-task-related talk. For example, in
a group of students learning about magnification by making a water lens
Geraldo looks into his lens and says, "Look how big mine got." "What are
you going to write?" a girl in the group asks him. Geraldo looks into the
lens again and says, "It gets bigger" (Navarrete, 1980, pp. 13-14). If Gerald
were a target child, this bit of interaction would be scored as two instances
of task-related talk because his speech was interrupted by the speech of his
colleague. Procedural talk about cooperation and roles was scored as two
separate types of talk. Also scored was talking like a facilitator-for example,
"Does everybody understand?"-as well as behaving like a facilitator (point

Table 1
Indexes of Status Problems, Variability in Reading Scores, and
Classroom Level of Talk/Work by Classroom

Index of SD Class level N of

Classroom status reading rate of target
ID problems+ test talk/work + + students

1 .55* 1.04 8.92 12

2 .23 .48 10.66 10
3 .27 .78 7.13 9
4 .31 .73 10.87 8
5 .59** 1.3 4.73 10
6 .41 .78 7.71 10
8 .12 .66 10.07 9
9 .42 1.02 6.17 11
10 -.10 .81 6.88 10
11 .14 .94 5.89 10
12 .28 .80 8.20 12
13 .32 1.07 5.46 12
Overall .32 .87 7.67
Mean
SD .20 .22 1.93

*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
+Correlation of costatu
+ +Class level of talk/w
working together for a

108

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

ing or directing others how to behave). The observation instrument was

divided into six 30-second intervals, so that, if a child were talking about
the task continuously during the observation, he or she would be scored 6
times. If a child shifted from task-related talk to talking like a facilitator and
back to task-related talk within a 30-second interval, he or she could receive
more than one score for task-related talk per time interval. An instance of
talk or behavior in any of the categories was scored by a single check as
long as it was not interrupted by another student talking or by a change of
category. Interobserver agreement on the target child instrument was 92.93%.
To calculate an average rate of talking or behaving across observations,
the total frequency of these speeches and behaviors was divided by the
number of observations for each child. An analysis of variance of individual
observations showed that the child was a significant source of variation for
task-related talk: F = 7.7; p < .001. Individual participation was measured
by adding task-related talk and talk about cooperation and roles and by
averaging the set of observations for each individual in the target sample.
We combined task-related talk and talk about cooperation and roles because
the theory indicates that all performance outputs are valid measures of the
prestige and power order of the group (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, Jr., 1966).
For the same reason, non-task-related talk was omitted from the measure
of participation.
Index ofstatus problems. Operationally, the severity of status problems
in a classroom is measured by the relationship between the costatus scores
of each target student and the average of his or her observed individual rate
of interaction. The index of status problems is the correlation coefficient
(Pearson r) of target students' costatus scores and the observed average rate
of peer task-related talk during work at learning centers, in each of the 13
classrooms. Among these treated classrooms (see Table 1), there were two
with a positive coefficient between status and interaction that was statistically
significant, indicating that the higher the status of the student, the more active
he or she was within the small groups. In all the other classrooms, there
were no statistically significant relationships between status and interaction;
in several classrooms, the relationship was close to zero,' indicating no
observable status problems.

Control Variables

In the analysis of individual rates of participation, it was necessary to control

the general rate of interaction in the classroom. Teachers varied as to how
well they achieved the desired high level of interaction, as measured by the
grand mean for rate of task-related talk plus the observed rate of the child
working together with others for all target children (target child observation
instrument) in a classroom. If a student were in a classroom where the teacher
promoted a high general level of interaction, then the individual's rate of
participation was likely to be higher than in a classroom where the average
rate of interaction was lower. This statistic is given for each classroom in
Table 1 (Classroom Level of Talk/Work).

109

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

In the analysis of status problems at the classroom level, it was neces

to control on variability in academic achievement. Some of these classroom
were extremely heterogeneous in academic skills (see Table 1). T
included newcomers to the country who might have been illiterate in eith
English or in their native language. When there are dramatic differences
academic skills, the effects of status problems on interaction will be
visible. These effects will be less evident if the children are approxim
equally likely (or equally unlikely) to be able to read the activity card
fill out the worksheets that were part of the curriculum materials. This co
of variability was measured by the standard deviation of reading scores f
students in a classroom on the California Test of Basic Skills administered
in the fall.
Figure 1 summarizes each of the independent, dependent, and contro
variables for the hypotheses. In each case, the source of the variable in a
instrument is cited.

Results

The means and standard deviations for the variables of the study are pre
sented in Table 2. Turning first to the data on the children, target students
talked about the task on the average more than four times per 3 minutes
On the average, high-status students participated at a significantly highe
rate than low-status students (t = 1.81; p < .05). Although all students ha
an equal chance to play the role of facilitator, high-status students were muc
more likely to behave and talk like a facilitator (t = 2.67; p < .01).
For teachers, the average rate for using each of the status treatments was
quite low-less than one third of an instance per each 10-minute observation
period. Some teachers had scores of zero on one or both treatments. Other
did a status treatment as often as once every 10 minutes.

Concept Indicator Source of Data

Independent Variable Status Treatment Talks about Multiple Teacher Observation

Abilities + Instrument
Assigns Competence to
Low-Status Students

Facilitator Role Student Talks and Target Stdt. Obs.

Behaves like a Instrument
Facilitator

Dependent Variable Participation Task-Related Talk + Target Student Obs.

Talk about Cooperation Instrument
and Roles

Status Problems Correlation of Costatus Sociometric Qst.

with Task-Related Talk Target Stdt. Obs.
in Classroom Instrument

Controls Classroom Inter- Grand Mean of Average Target Stdt. Obs.

action Rate of Task-Related Instrument
Talk + Rate of Working
Together:Target Children

Variability in S.D. of scores on CTBS CTBS

academic skills per classroom

Figure 1. Summary of concepts, indicators, and so

110

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

Table 2
Means, Ranges, and Standard Deviations of Variables: Individual
and Classroom Level

Individual level variables

N Mean Range SD

Rate of participation
Low status 61 4.09 1.00-8.57 1.82
High status 67 4.63 1.50-8.63 1.55
All target Ss 128 4.37 1.00-8.63 1.69
Facilitator talk/
behavior
Low status 61 .69 0.00-2.86 .75
High status 67 1.08 0.00-4.13 .88
All target Ss 128 .89 0.00-4.13 .84

Classroom level variables

Teacher use of status

treatments
Mult. abil. 13 .29 0.00- .88 .31
Assign. comp. 13 .25 0.00-1.00 .31
Status
treatments 13 .53 0.00-1.88 .57

Individual Level Analysis

In order to test the hypothes
the frequency of status trea
predictor along with the aver
the child's rate of talking an
intercorrelations of all the va
Table 4 shows the results of the
rates on the rate of the teacher's talk in which he or she used status treatments.
The frequency of the teacher's use of status treatments had a statistically
significant positive effect on the participation rate of the low-status student.
The rate at which the low-status student talked or behaved like a facilitator
also had a positive effect on his or her participation rate, but, in this case,
the effect was not statistically significant. The strongest predictor of the
individual's participation rate in this equation was the average rate of interac-
tion in the classroom.
Table 5 presents the results of the test of the second hypothesis concern
ing the rate of participation of high-status students. Some people fear th
treatment of low-status students is at the expense of high-status student
Although the assigning competence treatment focused on low-status stu
dents, teachers felt free to assign competence to all students. Table 5 sho

111

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

Table 3
Intercorrelation of Variables for Individual Level of Analysis

Low-status students (N = 61)

Facil. talk/ Class Status
Participation behavior talk/work treatments

Participation 1.00
Facilitator talk/
bhvr. .369* 1.00
Classroom level
talk/work+ .580** .412** 1.00
Status treatments .006 -.187 -.277* 1.00

High status students (N = 67)

Participation 1.00
Facilitator talk/
bhvr. .343** 1.00
Classroom level
talk/work .654** .382** 1.00
Status treatments -.198 -.311** -.252* 1.00

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
+Classroom level talk/work = grand mean of average rate of task-related talk + rate of
working together for all target students.

the regression for high-status students, identical to the regression presented

in Table 4. In this regression, status treatments had no effect on participation
rate, nor did rate of talking and behaving like a facilitator. The only significant
predictor of participation of the high-status student was the average rate of
interaction in the classroom.

Classroom Level of Analysis

At the classroom level, the index of status problems becomes the dependent
variable, while the teacher's use of each status treatment becomes the inde-
pendent variable, and the variation in reading pretest scores among the
classmates serves as a control. The third hypothesis predicts that the percent-
age of teacher talk pertaining to status treatments will be negatively associated
with the index of status problems.
A scatterplot of the status treatment variables with the index of status
problems revealed one teacher as an outlier (Classroom 10, Table 1). This
teacher was never seen assigning competence and had a relatively low rate
of talking about multiple abilities. Nonetheless, her classroom provided no
evidence of status problems (r = -.103). Observers reported that this class-
room had a very special ambiance; the teacher rarely raised her voice, and
the children appeared calm and content. They consistently treated one
another with respect. It may well have been the case that the teacher did

112

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

Table 4
Regression of Participation of Low-Status Students on Frequency
of Status Treatment, Classroom Level of Talk/Work, and
Individual Rate of Facilitator Talk and Behavior

N = 61
Dependent variable = Individual rate of participation*

Predictor B Beta t p (1 tail)

Constant -.582
.000 -.67 .254
(.873)**
Facilitator talk/bhvr. .423 .175 1.54 .065
(.276)
Classroom level talk/ .526 .562 4.83 .000
work* (.109)
Status treatments .246 .194 1.80 .039
(.137)

*Does not include facilitator talk.

"**Standard error in parentheses.
R2 = .359 (adjusted).

not use status treatments because there was very little evidence of status
generalization to treat in the first place. Using a SYSTAT technique for identi-
fying outliers, the observations on this teacher were shown to have an undue
influence on the correlation (Wilkinson, 1988, p. 425). Because it was an
outlier, this classroom was omitted from this analysis.
There was a high level of intercorrelation (r = .78; p < .001) between
the use of the two status treatments. Table 6 presents the Pearson correlations
of the teacher talk regarding the two status treatments, the index of classroom
status problems, and the control variable. The rate of teachers' use of status
treatments was not significantly associated with the index of status problems,
although the relationship was in the predicted negative direction. The control
variable of variation in reading test scores was positively and significantly
related (r = .69; p < .001) to the index of status problems.
There were 11 classrooms used in the regression analysis because of
the omission of the outlier and the omission of the classroom for which we
did not have pretest scores on reading. Results, given in Table 7, show that
the status treatments were a statistically significant negative predictor of
the correlations observed between status and interaction in the classroom,
providing good support for the prediction. The variability in reading pretest
scores was a powerful positive predictor of status problems. This regression
equation accounts for more than 60% of the variance.

Discussion

Use of status treatments by teachers can significantly lessen the imp

status on small group interaction. Eleven out of 13 classrooms show

113

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

Table 5
Regression of Participation of High-Status Students on Freque
of Status Treatment, Classroom Level of Talk/Work, and
Individual Rate of Facilitator Talk and Behavior

N = 67
Dependent Variable = Individual rate of participation*

Predictor B Beta t p(1 tail)

Constant .707 .000 1.06 .295
(.670)**
Facilitator talk/bhvr. .187 .106 1.06 .316
(.185)
Classroom level talk/ .487 .610 5.90 .000
work* (.083)
Status treatments -.012 -.011 -.11 .457
(.110)

*Does not include facilitator talk.

"**Standard error in parentheses.
R2 = .413 (adjusted).

significant relationship between the measure of student status and the rate
of task-related talk. Data analysis provided support for the three hypotheses
of this study. At the individual level of analysis, the rate of teacher talk in
which he or she used the status treatments had a statistically significant
positive effect on the participation of low-status students. As predicted, these
status treatments had no effect on the rate of participation of high-status
students. At the classroom level, the teachers' use of the two status treatments
had a statistically significant negative effect on the incidence of status prob-
lems in that classroom. In other words, in classrooms where teachers used
status treatments more frequently, the high-status students did not participate
more frequently than low-status students.
Our sample included some of the most attractive and academically
successful students in the class and some of the weakest and the most socially
isolated students. Therefore, achieving equal rates of participation was espe-
cially significant in comparison to achieving equal status interaction among
classmates who have less dramatic differences in status between them. The
effectiveness of the treatments was aided by the nature of the curricular
tasks. Assuming competence expectations were altered, it was possible for
students to display intellectual competence by solving problems spatially
and visually, by communicating with the use of real objects, and by helping
others in a nonverbal fashion.
The overall frequency of teachers' use of status treatments was low.
Field experiments with status treatments have shown that it is not the number
of times but rather the fact that particular groups of students receive treatment
that counts (Cohen, Lockheed, & Lohman, 1976). One status treatment is

114

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

Table 6
Intercorrelation of Variables for Classroom Level of Analysis'

Status Status SD reading

treatments problems pretest

Status treatments 1.00

Status problems -.23 1.00
(12)
SD reading -.29 .69** 1.00
pretest (11) (11)

**p < .01.

'Numbers in parentheses indicate number of cases.

sufficient to modify competence expectations held by self and others for a

particular student in ways that will persist over a series of collective tasks.
Interviews with teachers who have used these treatments suggest that
they begin to see new evidence of their students' intellectual abilities that
they had never perceived before. In the words of one teacher:

Almost all the children in FO/D have multiple ability skills. First, I
used to have trouble defining them, but now I see, and I get it from
the children, what kind of abilities or what kind of skill you need to
work this. It is really amazing how many different skills you have to
have to do one task that seems simple on the surface.

The teachers were particularly gratified to see the changes in low-status

students to whom they had assigned competence. The quotation from Can-
dida Graves earlier in this article illustrates this surprise and satisfaction.

Table 7
Regression of Index of Classroom Status Problems on Teachers'
Fate of Status Treatment and Standard Deviations of Reading
Pretest Scores

N=11

Predictor B Beta t p(1 tail)

Constant -.082 .000 -.697 .252
(.117)*
Status treatments -.120 -.487 -2.377 .023
(.050)
SD reading .578 .828 4.043 .002
pretest (.136)

*Standard error in parenthes

R2 = .692 (adjusted).

115

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

With regard to the exploratory question, talking and behaving l

facilitator had a positive effect, but it did not quite reach the .05 le
significance. Some low-status students were never seen playing the r
facilitator although all students had equal time assigned to that role
possible that, if a teacher were to take the time to encourage and d
this role for low-status students, one might well see stronger positive ef

Status Inequalities and Achievement

Educators would not ordinarily worry about the impact of status on inte
tion unless unequal interaction had an effect on the learning process. In
landmark review of interaction in small groups and learning, Webb
selected the activity rate of the individual within the group and whethe
not individuals were able to use the group as a resource to understan
task as key predictors of learning. Similarly, Cohen (1984) found that, h
constant a student's status, the amount of interaction was a predict
learning gains.
With the instructional approach used in this study, the amount of int
tion, whether at the classroom level (Cohen, Lotan, & Leechor, 1989)
the individual level (Leechor, 1988), is a strong predictor of gains in scor
standardized achievement tests, especially for the lower achieving studen
Many of the low-status students would also be classified as low-achie
students. Thus, their access to interaction is critically important to
achievement. In this data set, where status problems have been gre
weakened, regressions at the classroom level show that status is not
dictor of learning gains (Leechor, 1988, p. 118).

Limitations of This Research

Despite the considerable number of students and observations involv
the collection of data, the small sample of classrooms is an obvious diffic
in the present analysis at the level of the classroom. Regressions carried
on a sample of 11 raise issues of reliability of the results. However, we w
able to correctly estimate effects on separate samples of low- and high-s
students using a different dependent variable, but the same indepen
variable. These analyses provide some assurance that the results at the cla
room level are not the product of some strange fluke of the data. Accord
to one reviewer of this article, the authors have "approximated the hiera
cal linear modeling approach in their statistical work, but it lacks elegan
Until HLM techniques are adapted for smaller size samples, this "approxim
tion" appears to be the best available solution.
Ideally, it would have been desirable to estimate the independent eff
of each of the status treatments separately. Given that rates for the two s
treatments were closely associated, we cannot really estimate the str
of one treatment in comparison to the other.
Testing the effects of status treatments by examining the participat
rates of all low-status students is a peculiarly sociological strategy. An ex

116

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

mental approach would call for knowing which students were treated and
for following the participation of these particular students before and after
treatment. However, the status treatments are not aimed exclusively at low-
status individuals; they treat expectations of all students for the competence
of the low-status students. Because one or two treatments are sufficient to
change these expectations, it is unlikely that one would observe that treat-
ment in a set of observations. Thus, we assume that the effect of a higher
rate of treatment will be observable in a sample of low-status students in
classrooms where expectations have been treated. A more experimental
approach has distinct advantages, especially when the factors affecting stu-
dent participation become more complex, as in the middle school.

Theoretical Implications
Elimination of status differences in interaction in heterogeneous classrooms
is of special interest because several features of the situation ordinarily lead
to the phenomenon of status generalization. Given the curriculum used, the
status characteristic of perceived excellence in math and science was highly
relevant to the collective tasks. The more relevant a status characteristic is,
the more power it has to affect the prestige and power order of the small
group. Because it is not possible to eliminate the competence expectations
based on differences in academic and peer status, the fact that status was
unrelated to interaction in most of these classrooms suggests that the treat-
ment may well have broken the bonds of relevance between the academic
status characteristic and the activities of the curriculum.
In the only previously published study in which teachers attempted
to raise student expectations for competence, teachers simply reinforced
contributions made by low-status students (Entwisle & Webster, 1974). The
child's actual ability was virtually irrelevant to the capacity to supply words
in a story skeleton. Regardless of the child's response, children in the experi-
mental group were systematically reinforced and praised for every contribu-
tion. Quite apart from the obvious undesirability of unconditional
reinforcement of students, the treatment used in this study represents a
theoretical as well as a more educationally desirable advance over this early
experimental version. In the first place, this treatment manipulates expecta-
tions of others as well as those of the low-status student. In the second place,
making competence relevant to the task makes the low-status student a
valued resource for the group.
Assigning the role of facilitator to a low-status student, because it involves
directing the behavior of others, has considerable theoretical interest as a
method of modifying expectations for competence. These behaviors act as
task cues in the interaction of the group (Berger, Wagner, & Zelditch, Jr.,
1985, p. 54). Task cues provide information that is relevant to the task
characteristic possessed by the actors in the situation. Among the most
important task cues that have been studied are speech rates, fluency, tone,
and eye gaze. Members will take these cues as indicators of competence or
a high state on a specific status characteristic. If the group members conclude

117

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

that the low-status student is in the high state on a specific status characterist
that is relevant to the success of the group, then we would expect tha
expectations for his or her competence would be higher than if the facilitato
role were not played.

Practical Implications
Administrators and teachers in schools in which tracking and ability groupin
have been eliminated are deeply concerned with feasible instruction fo
heterogeneous classes. These educators have already discovered that the
have exchanged severe problems of status differences between tracks an
ability groups for equally severe problems of status differences within class-
rooms. Many perceptive teachers have also found that cooperative learnin
techniques so widely recommended for this setting do not solve these status
problems. The finding concerning the impact of a wide range in reading
skills attests to the status problems facing teachers who use heterogeneou
cooperative groups.
In the context of a multiple ability curriculum, it is possible to produce
equal-status behavior in heterogeneous classrooms as well as significant
gains in achievement. Expectations for competence can be treated in suc
a way as to raise the participation of low-status students without depressing
the participation of high-status students. Moreover, it is possible to produce
equal-status behavior in classrooms where the presence of newcomers wh
lack English proficiency can create severely depressed expectations for com-
petence on the part of low-status students. Strategies of treating status that
are derived from expectation states theory are practical and workable in
modifying the stratification processes that take place within heterogeneous
classrooms.

Note

'The estimate of the relationship between status and interaction is probably inflated
due to the selection of extreme values from the distribution of costatus scores. However,
for the purposes of testing the hypothesis, it is the relative strength of the coefficients that
is at issue and not their absolute values. In order to interpret the index as a descriptive
statistic, it is necessary to take into account that the small sample size in each classroom
makes it difficult for the correlation to reach levels of statistical significance. Given our
detailed knowledge of these classrooms as observers and staff developers, we tend to
view correlations of .40 and above as grounds for concern-that is, there are probably
untreated status problems.

References

Berger, J. B., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1966). Status characteristics and expecta-
tion states. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Sociological theories in progres
(Vol. 1, pp. 29-46). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Berger, J. B., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and soci
interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241-255.
Berger, J. B., & Fisek, M. H. (1970). Consistent and inconsistent status characteristi
and the determination of power and prestige orders. Sociometry, 33, 287-30

118

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Interaction in the Classroom

Berger, J. B., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes.
Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479-508.
Berger, J. B., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Introduction: Expectation states
theory: Review and assessment. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status,
rewards, and influence (pp. 1-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing
American youth for the 21st century. Waldorf, MD: Author.
Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings.
Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 109-235.
Cohen, E. G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status, interaction and learning.
In P. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), Instructional groups in the
classroom: Organization and processes (pp. 171-187). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Status treatments for the classroom [Video]. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Cohen, E. G., Lockheed, M., & Lohman, M. (1976). The Center for Interracial Coopera-
tion: A field experiment. Sociology of Education, 49, 47-58.
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., & Catanzarite, L. (1988). Can expectations for competence
be treated in the classroomr In M. Webster, Jr., & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status general-
ization: New theory and research (pp. 28-54). Stanford: Stanford University
Press.

Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., & Leechor, C. (1989). Can classrooms learn? Sociology of
Education, 62, 75-94.
Dembo, M., & McAuliffe, T. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on
social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79, 415-423.
Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of
teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54, 151-162.
Entwisle, D., & Webster, M., Jr. (1974). Raising children's expectations for their own
performance: A classroom application. In J. Berger, T. L. Conner, & M. H. Fisek
(Eds.), Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program (pp. 211-243).
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Finn, J. D., & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils.
American Educational Research Journal, 29, 141-162.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology
of Education, 60, 135-155.
Gamoran, A., Berends, M., & Nystrand, M. (1990, April). Classroom instruction and
the effects of ability grouping: A structural model. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic.
Graves, N., & Graves, T. (1991). Candida Graves: Complex teamwork in action.
Cooperative Learning, 12, 12-16.
Hallinan, M. (1990). The effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A response
to Slavin's best evidence synthesis. Review ofEducationalResearch, 60, 501-504.
Hoffman, D. E. (1973). Students' expectations and performance in a simulation
game. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Humphreys, S. P., & Berger, J. (1981). Theoretical consequences of the status character-
istics formulation. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 953-983.
Leal, A. (1985). Sex inequities in classroom interaction: An evaluation of an interven-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Leechor, C. (1988). How high and low achieving students differentially benefit from
working together in cooperative small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University.

119

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cohen and Lotan

Lockheed, M. E., Harris, A., & Nemcef, W. P. (1983). Sex and social influence: Do
sex function as a status characteristic in mixed-sex groups of children? Journa
of Educational Psychology, 75, 877-866.
Maruyama, G., & Miller, N. (1981). Physical attractiveness and personality. Progre
in Experimental Personality Research, 10, 203-280.
Massachusetts Board of Education. (1990). Structuring schools for student success: A
focus on ability grouping. Boston: Department of Education.
McAuliffe, T. (1991, April). Status rules of behavior in scenarios of cooperative learni
groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educationa
Research Association, Chicago.
Navarrete, C. (1980). Finding out/descubrimiento: A developmental approach t
language and culture in a bilingual elementary classroom. Unpublished manu
script, Stanford University.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Ya
University Press.
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1990). Making the best of schools. New Haven: Yale Unive
sity Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Treating problems of academic status. In J. Berger & M.
Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, reward, and influence (pp. 445-470). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tammivaara, J. S. (1982). The effects of task structure on beliefs about competence
and participation in small groups. Sociology of Education, 55, 212-222.
Useem, E. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents' involvement in childrens'
placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263-279.
Vanfossen, B. E., Jones, J. P., & Spade, J. Z. (1987). Curriculum tracking and status
maintenance. Sociology of Education, 60, 104-122.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational
Research, 52, 421-445.
Webb, N. M., & Kenderski, C. M. (1984). Student interaction and learning in small
group and whole-class settings. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan
(Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and groupprocesses
(pp. 153-170). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Webster, M., Jr., & Driskell, J. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal ofSociology,
89, 140-165.
Webster, M., Jr., & Sobieszek, B. (1974). Sources of self-evaluation: A formal theory
of significant others. New York: Wiley.
Wilkinson, L. (1988). SYSTAT. The system for statistics. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.

Manuscript received October 1, 1993

Revision received February 19, 1994
Accepted July 27, 1994

120

This content downloaded from

130.102.13.62 on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:04:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms