One intervention that can have a po

One intervention that can have a powerful effect, but should be used sparingly and avoided if possible, is to withhold the privilege of the cooperative context if a whole class does not approach it with the necessary sense of care, responsibility, and appreciation. Consider a scenario in which we develop a cooperative inductive science lesson incorporating group investigation. If it is early in the year and the majority of the students in our class approach the lesson with a careless, entitled, and/or irresponsible attitude, we might make the decision to withhold the lesson until they could approach it with the sense of value it warrants. After assessing the situation and deciding to take remedial action, we might want say to the class: “I can see that some of us were taking this assignment seriously, but many were not approaching the task responsibly. We can learn science in a number of ways. This way takes a lot of time to prepare and design and involves materials that need to be treated with care. I did not see evidence that we were ready for this kind of activity at this time. So I want you to put away these materials, move your seats back into their rows and take out your textbooks. I am sure that we will be ready for an activity like this in the future; today we weren’t.”



An intervention such as this will likely succeed at building the cause-and-effect between the level of freedom given and the level of responsibility shown. However, make a substantial attempt to build the foundation of functional behavior with positive recognitions and skill practice before you take such a dramatic step.





Chapter Reflection 12.n: Put yourself in the position of a student who was being careless in the scenario above. How do you feel after the teacher takes away the materials? Who do you hold responsible? How will your behavior change in the future?





Intervening with Poorly Functioning Groups

Very often we find that all groups but one or two are on task and functioning effectively. It will be useful to keep in mind that there are three important things going on at that moment: 1) on-task groups who need reinforcement from the teacher as encouragement; 2) a group or two who are off-task and need help; and 3) an entire class who is watching and learning how you deal with both the groups who are off-task as well as those on task. Sometimes a group’s problems are cause by a dysfunctional group dynamic; other times the problem will be primarily initiated by a single group member. Below we examine an intervention sequence for each scenario.



Problem Scenario #1: When the problem is the whole group dynamic

If a whole group is having trouble working together, keep the ownership of the problem on students, and provide interventions that provide choices and consequences. All the while keep your intervention anger-free and constructive.



Intervention 1 -- What is the problem? (clarify any misunderstanding)

Our first intervention should assume that the students can succeed if they just have a better sense of what they are doing. It may be helpful to begin each interaction with a sense of the result we need to achieve before we walk away.



What do they need? -- Support to help them accomplish their task.



What do we need as a result? -- Recognition from them that they have what they need to accomplish the task with an implicit commitment that they can do it now.



What we need to do:

· Support the process – e.g., “What do you need? What can I help you understand?”

· Communicate the score at this point -- i.e., “I must not have done a good job explaining the directions, let me try again, and help me if you still do not understand.”



Do not hover. Send the message that we trust that students can find a way to function more effectively, and then we put our energy into the students who are on task and investing in the process. We give the group time to fix “their problem.”



If we look over at the group again and notice that they are still experiencing dysfunction and their efforts have not produced sufficient change we need to intervene once again.



Intervention 2 -- What are you going to do fix your problem? (troubleshoot and gain commitment)

What do they need? -- Strategies that they must agree to that will support their collective functioning. Also, they need to be concrete and specific about what should happen and who is going to do what to make the situation better. They need to acknowledge a clear understanding of the consequence if they do not achieve this.

What do we need as a result? -- An assumption that the group has the strategies needed to solve their problems; the group’s commitment to work together on the task and to overcome the dysfunctional dynamics. We need an explicit assurance that they can do it. And a clear sense that the group understands the consequences for not demonstrating that they can function, e.g., “When I come back what will I be seeing from this group?”



Again we send the message that we believe in the group (no matter their history) and we assume that it is just a matter of time before they will get on track. So move away from them, let them solve their problem or at least own their problem, and put our energy into the other groups. It is really important to keep our energy supportive and positive and not let our disappointment sour our interactions with each of the groups. Those who are high functioning need the mirror of positive energy and enthusiasm to take them to the next level. Those who are struggling need our trust, supportive attitude, and absence of negativity. Our negativity will only magnify any negativity in the group.



In nearly all cases, these first two interventions will have helped resolve any problems; over time even these interventions will become less necessary as our process becomes more familiar and more functional, and as a result more satisfying. What happens when we look over at that group and observe that they still can not get past their dysfunctional dynamics?





Chapter Reflection 12-o: -- What is your instinct telling you to do at this point? What does common sense tell us to do? What does the social learning model tell us to do?





Questions to ask ourselves at this point.

What can I do in an intervention to make tomorrow better as a result of what I do today?
What have the members of the group agreed to, to this point? What expectations have been put in place? What are the logical consequences?



Intervention 3 -- Follow-through and promoting accountability

What do the students need? Acknowledgement of their choices and accountability for their actions.

What do we need as a result? Evidence that we have followed through and held the students accountable for their actions and the implementation of a consequence that will make tomorrow better as a result.



Given that the students have expressed commitment to having a clear understanding of the task (Intervention 1) and a have received a second opportunity to get it together (Intervention 2), we can assume that the problematic behavior was a function of their collective choice to perpetuate the dysfunction. As a result, we are in the position of following through with a consequence. We need to send the message to the rest of the class that when a group chooses to hold on to their self-centered attitude rather than do what is best for others and themselves, they need a concrete reminder that it will not work in the future. We can send this message in a number of ways. One consequence would be to withdraw the group’s opportunity to further take part in the activity. In addition, group members might be asked to write down ideas for how they are going to keep this kind of problem from happening in future situations. It is critical to implement a consequence that is active but keeps all judgment and shame out of the equation. The loss of the right to participate should be left on its own to teach the lesson. Moreover, our interactions with this group need to be private. The hint that we are disparaging the members of this group to others will have a profoundly negative effect on our relationship with them, and likely undermine any value our disciplinary action might have. Optionally, if we notice that after a few minutes the group seems to show evidence that they have learned their lesson, we may want to give them a second chance.



At some point in this process, our inclination might have been to split up the group. The effect of this choice will usually be that we feel better and it will stop the conflict. But examined from the perspective of the social learning model, it will become apparent why it may not be a good idea. If the students learn that we bail out groups by splitting them up when they don’t get along, we will get more groups asking us with their words and/or actions to split them up and free them from a group of students they did not want to work with in the first place.



Problem Scenario #2: When it is only one student who is instigating the problem

Often we have a student or two who struggle within the group context. It is likely that they have struggled in the past and have gotten used to being “the problem student.” We examine students who have developed a pattern of negative identity in Chapter 16. As we address what to do when one student causes problems for a cooperative group, you should find that the intervention strategies discussed here will work for students with genuine negative identity patterns and those who misbehave for less deeply conditioned reasons.



Intervention #1 -- we can do this, how can I help?

What do they need? -- Information and clarity of the task. But it will be even more critical in this situation to clarify each student’s role. The student experiencing the problem needs to hear a clear and positive message: “I know you can do this, I expect you to do this, yo