Interrace Interactions
The Effects of Group Project Dynamics on Interrace Interactions in Princeton Elementary Students
Ananya Joshi and Ariella Cohen
Princeton University
Introduction
Princeton Department of Human Services (PDHS) has become aware of tensions between Princeton’s Black and Latino communities (Neira, 2016). In response, PDHS is investigating how different racial groups interact, specifically attempting to reduce the observed tensions between Princeton’s Latino and Black communities (Neira, 2016).
PDHS has several youth development programs, but none about elementary students’ perceptions of other racial groups (Human Services, 2016). This motivates our intervention, which studies Princeton elementary students’ perceptions of students of different races. This will help PDHS understand first, how elementary students interact with racially different peers, second, if the tension between Black and Latino adults is mirrored in children, and finally if a collaborative intervention increases positive interactions between students of different races.
This intervention is …show more content…
a collaborative project, similar to the Jigsaw classroom (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). We study if this intervention can be used to improve interactions between children of different races in Princeton elementary schools. We hypothesize that the implementation of collaborative projects in classrooms, such as planning a carnival, will create an ingroup identity among students that improves positive interaction between students of different races, particularly Black and Latino.
Prior studies about collaboration and group theory serve as guides for this intervention. Our target audience is 3-5th grade students. Vezali (2015) studied this age group for his successful work on intergroup contact. Further, children 9-10 years old will challenge inequality norms more than 13-14 year olds (Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014). This is useful for our intervention because we wish to challenge norms. We would also like to strengthen a superordinate identity of the students, in this case, as children of Princeton, over race identities. Guerra (et al., 2010) shows that making the superordinate identity salient reduces bias towards racially outgroup members in schools, with effects lasting for 3 weeks afterwards.
Aspects for the collaborative condition are adopted from Aaronson, Vezali and Wright. From Aaronson, we adopt 3 things: the presence of a facilitator (here, the PDHS volunteer), the need to work collaboratively, and the opportunity for students to learn about each other (Aronson et. al, 1978). We provide unlimited resources so students will not engage in realistic group conflict. Further, although intergroup competition fosters greater group identity, competition amongst minimal groups, such inter classroom competition, could be harmful too (Aaronson et al, 1978, pg 43). Thus every class must succeed for the carnival to occur. Through lesson plans based on the Jigsaw study, we have full participation. The intervention occurs over 12 weeks to mitigate competitive habits, which are hard to break (Aaronson et. al, 1978, pg 21). Finally, we have a larger group of students than the Aaronson study. To ensure participation, we will monitor a blog that students will use for collaborative class exercises.
We also adopt elements from the Wright study on bilingual instruction (Wright & Tropp, 2005). First, including bilingual elements in the collaborative intervention can empower bilingual students and increases group interdependence (Wright et al., 2005). Many Princeton students were brought up in bilingual households (Neira, 2016), so the positive results from the Wright study could be replicated . We also adopt supplementary measures from teachers to aid with discussion and statistical ANOVA analysis (Wright et al., 2005).
Finally, Vezali (2015) points out the importance of the contact hypothesis. Contact is essential in reducing tensions. Group members in the collaborative condition will have more contact than those in the individual condition. Still it is important to note that both group and individual conditions will have contact as students will be still will be in the same room.
We add to existing psychological research by applying the principles from the Jigsaw Classroom and Robbers cave to a novel environment (elementary school & using technology). We also involve the Princeton community. Further, this intervention will occur over an extended period of time (12 weeks). We will finally use thin slices from the Winerman review for an analysis on nonverbal communication (Winerman, 2005). This combination not found in the literature review and can shed light on the overall effect of these parameters on results.
Method
Participants: In recent years, Princeton’s Latino population has increased nearly uniformly, resulting in a demographic of 5-8% Black and ~20% Latino population (Statistical Forecasting, 2014).
This increase was also seen in the Community Park Elementary School, where we will hold the intervention. Community Park has students from a large geographic area, a 10 students per class, and demographic makeup representative of Princeton (Niche, 2016). We assume the school will remain as racially diverse during this intervention to observe Latino and Black student interactions. We also assume that students in each classroom are randomly assigned, so that races are random within each class. Finally, we do not expect every family to sign the waiver allowing their child to be filmed. This waiver is required for the data analysis. Thus, we estimate 180 participants (n=180) of the appx. 200 students (Niche,
2016).
Students of each class will either work collaboratively to design a carnival booth, or make posters for the fair individually (IV #1: collaborative carnival booth or individual posters). Students are also in different grades (IV #2: 3-5). These variables are operationalized by analyzing student interactions before and after the treatment and scoring them accordingly.
Method and Materials: We will randomly choose which classes will work individually and work in groups by using a number generator(even = collaborative, odd = individual). After students return signed waivers, each class will first be brought to a special party room. There will be entertainment and information about a carnival. Unknown to the students or the teacher, there will be 4 hidden cameras in the room. The teacher will instruct the students to have fun and then leave the room for 10 minutes. The teacher will then retrieve the students. One week after the filming, the treatment begins. Weekly, for 12 weeks, a PDHS volunteer teach using a lesson plan (see appendix B) for the individual or collaborative classrooms. Then, the students will spend one day in Princeton either setting up the carnival or putting up posters. The carnival occurs the next day. One week later, the students will be brought back to the party room and be recorded again with the same setup as previously described.
Data/Measures: Scientists split video from the cameras into muted thin slices of three minutes each, as in the Winerman review (2005). They note the race of the students in the clips. Each coder will then be presented with 100 thin slices, 6 of which are tester clips pre-evaluated by social psychologists randomly placed in the 100 thin slices. To ensure proper coding, coders must first score above an 80% on an emotions pre-test (see appendix D) and also evaluate 4 of 6 tester clips accurately. Each interaction will be evaluated by 2 coders individually using the rubric (see appendix C). The results from the coders will be translated into a positive interaction score (PIS). We will then analyze the data using ANOVA testing for the overall effect of the IV 1, overall effect of the IV 2, overall difference in PIS for interaction within the same race vs with different race, and overall difference in PIS for Black/Latino students for Black, Latino, and different race. Categories include grade, collaborative or independent condition, and race.
Anticipated Results and Discussion
Please see Appendix A for anticipated results. First, we expect there to be no difference PIS at the beginning of the treatment between individual and collaborative groups. We do expect students in the collaborative condition to score higher than those in the individual condition after treatment (Appendix A: Gr. 1). We do not expect these results to change with the grades of the students (Appendix A: Gr 2). Additionally, the expectation is students in the collaborative condition will have more favorable interactions with all groups after the intervention, but especially with other racial groups (Appendix A: Gr 3/4). Further, based on the survey results, we expect that Black and Latino students will initially have low interactions with each other. However, after the collaboration treatment, we expect that the Black and Latino students will interact with each other as equally as the interact with other races (Appendix A: Gr 5/6), increasing the difference seen.
A future direction is to generalize this intervention to the whole Princeton school district. This would require changes. We assume students want to build a carnival. If students do not want to, they are unlikely to participate. A better intervention would first gauge interest for different school events. Further, the needs and demographic challenges of each school are different. Some schools may not be able to afford necessary supplies to run group activities. Instead, a community project, such as a making creative garden, could also follow the principles of this intervention Another limitation to this intervention is that in school districts with low diversity, it would be hard to get data on interaction. These are considerations when framing future studies.
Ananya Joshi and Ariella Cohen
Princeton University
Introduction
Princeton Department of Human Services (PDHS) has become aware of tensions between Princeton’s Black and Latino communities (Neira, 2016). In response, PDHS is investigating how different racial groups interact, specifically attempting to reduce the observed tensions between Princeton’s Latino and Black communities (Neira, 2016).
PDHS has several youth development programs, but none about elementary students’ perceptions of other racial groups (Human Services, 2016). This motivates our intervention, which studies Princeton elementary students’ perceptions of students of different races. This will help PDHS understand first, how elementary students interact with racially different peers, second, if the tension between Black and Latino adults is mirrored in children, and finally if a collaborative intervention increases positive interactions between students of different races.
This intervention is …show more content…
a collaborative project, similar to the Jigsaw classroom (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). We study if this intervention can be used to improve interactions between children of different races in Princeton elementary schools. We hypothesize that the implementation of collaborative projects in classrooms, such as planning a carnival, will create an ingroup identity among students that improves positive interaction between students of different races, particularly Black and Latino.
Prior studies about collaboration and group theory serve as guides for this intervention. Our target audience is 3-5th grade students. Vezali (2015) studied this age group for his successful work on intergroup contact. Further, children 9-10 years old will challenge inequality norms more than 13-14 year olds (Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014). This is useful for our intervention because we wish to challenge norms. We would also like to strengthen a superordinate identity of the students, in this case, as children of Princeton, over race identities. Guerra (et al., 2010) shows that making the superordinate identity salient reduces bias towards racially outgroup members in schools, with effects lasting for 3 weeks afterwards.
Aspects for the collaborative condition are adopted from Aaronson, Vezali and Wright. From Aaronson, we adopt 3 things: the presence of a facilitator (here, the PDHS volunteer), the need to work collaboratively, and the opportunity for students to learn about each other (Aronson et. al, 1978). We provide unlimited resources so students will not engage in realistic group conflict. Further, although intergroup competition fosters greater group identity, competition amongst minimal groups, such inter classroom competition, could be harmful too (Aaronson et al, 1978, pg 43). Thus every class must succeed for the carnival to occur. Through lesson plans based on the Jigsaw study, we have full participation. The intervention occurs over 12 weeks to mitigate competitive habits, which are hard to break (Aaronson et. al, 1978, pg 21). Finally, we have a larger group of students than the Aaronson study. To ensure participation, we will monitor a blog that students will use for collaborative class exercises.
We also adopt elements from the Wright study on bilingual instruction (Wright & Tropp, 2005). First, including bilingual elements in the collaborative intervention can empower bilingual students and increases group interdependence (Wright et al., 2005). Many Princeton students were brought up in bilingual households (Neira, 2016), so the positive results from the Wright study could be replicated . We also adopt supplementary measures from teachers to aid with discussion and statistical ANOVA analysis (Wright et al., 2005).
Finally, Vezali (2015) points out the importance of the contact hypothesis. Contact is essential in reducing tensions. Group members in the collaborative condition will have more contact than those in the individual condition. Still it is important to note that both group and individual conditions will have contact as students will be still will be in the same room.
We add to existing psychological research by applying the principles from the Jigsaw Classroom and Robbers cave to a novel environment (elementary school & using technology). We also involve the Princeton community. Further, this intervention will occur over an extended period of time (12 weeks). We will finally use thin slices from the Winerman review for an analysis on nonverbal communication (Winerman, 2005). This combination not found in the literature review and can shed light on the overall effect of these parameters on results.
Method
Participants: In recent years, Princeton’s Latino population has increased nearly uniformly, resulting in a demographic of 5-8% Black and ~20% Latino population (Statistical Forecasting, 2014).
This increase was also seen in the Community Park Elementary School, where we will hold the intervention. Community Park has students from a large geographic area, a 10 students per class, and demographic makeup representative of Princeton (Niche, 2016). We assume the school will remain as racially diverse during this intervention to observe Latino and Black student interactions. We also assume that students in each classroom are randomly assigned, so that races are random within each class. Finally, we do not expect every family to sign the waiver allowing their child to be filmed. This waiver is required for the data analysis. Thus, we estimate 180 participants (n=180) of the appx. 200 students (Niche,
2016).
Students of each class will either work collaboratively to design a carnival booth, or make posters for the fair individually (IV #1: collaborative carnival booth or individual posters). Students are also in different grades (IV #2: 3-5). These variables are operationalized by analyzing student interactions before and after the treatment and scoring them accordingly.
Method and Materials: We will randomly choose which classes will work individually and work in groups by using a number generator(even = collaborative, odd = individual). After students return signed waivers, each class will first be brought to a special party room. There will be entertainment and information about a carnival. Unknown to the students or the teacher, there will be 4 hidden cameras in the room. The teacher will instruct the students to have fun and then leave the room for 10 minutes. The teacher will then retrieve the students. One week after the filming, the treatment begins. Weekly, for 12 weeks, a PDHS volunteer teach using a lesson plan (see appendix B) for the individual or collaborative classrooms. Then, the students will spend one day in Princeton either setting up the carnival or putting up posters. The carnival occurs the next day. One week later, the students will be brought back to the party room and be recorded again with the same setup as previously described.
Data/Measures: Scientists split video from the cameras into muted thin slices of three minutes each, as in the Winerman review (2005). They note the race of the students in the clips. Each coder will then be presented with 100 thin slices, 6 of which are tester clips pre-evaluated by social psychologists randomly placed in the 100 thin slices. To ensure proper coding, coders must first score above an 80% on an emotions pre-test (see appendix D) and also evaluate 4 of 6 tester clips accurately. Each interaction will be evaluated by 2 coders individually using the rubric (see appendix C). The results from the coders will be translated into a positive interaction score (PIS). We will then analyze the data using ANOVA testing for the overall effect of the IV 1, overall effect of the IV 2, overall difference in PIS for interaction within the same race vs with different race, and overall difference in PIS for Black/Latino students for Black, Latino, and different race. Categories include grade, collaborative or independent condition, and race.
Anticipated Results and Discussion
Please see Appendix A for anticipated results. First, we expect there to be no difference PIS at the beginning of the treatment between individual and collaborative groups. We do expect students in the collaborative condition to score higher than those in the individual condition after treatment (Appendix A: Gr. 1). We do not expect these results to change with the grades of the students (Appendix A: Gr 2). Additionally, the expectation is students in the collaborative condition will have more favorable interactions with all groups after the intervention, but especially with other racial groups (Appendix A: Gr 3/4). Further, based on the survey results, we expect that Black and Latino students will initially have low interactions with each other. However, after the collaboration treatment, we expect that the Black and Latino students will interact with each other as equally as the interact with other races (Appendix A: Gr 5/6), increasing the difference seen.
A future direction is to generalize this intervention to the whole Princeton school district. This would require changes. We assume students want to build a carnival. If students do not want to, they are unlikely to participate. A better intervention would first gauge interest for different school events. Further, the needs and demographic challenges of each school are different. Some schools may not be able to afford necessary supplies to run group activities. Instead, a community project, such as a making creative garden, could also follow the principles of this intervention Another limitation to this intervention is that in school districts with low diversity, it would be hard to get data on interaction. These are considerations when framing future studies.