[[alternative]]A Study of Group Structures and Interaction Patterns in Primary School Science Classroom

[[abstract]]A Study of Group Structures and Interaction Patterns in Primary School Science Classroom Jung-Hua Yeh Drawing upon the expectation state theory and social identity theory, this study aimed at (1) describing the patterns and changes of small science learning groups’ power and prestige order, (2) investigating the modes of interaction and its implications of science learning. Two sixth grade classes and one fifth grade class were involved in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were adopted. By integrating sociometric questionnaires (the Classroom Structure Inventory and the Group Structure Inventory) and a non-parameter statistics method (the Friedman analysis model), the first set of problem was addressed. Following the ethnography of communication analysis of classroom observation and individual interview, the second set of problem was inquired. Major findings were listed as following: (1) Patterns and transformations of power and prestige orders in science learning group 1. Three types of group structures were identified: one-stage, two-stage and three-stage. Furthermore, five modes of group interactions were observed, there are: showy demonstration mode, single leader mode, bi-leaders mode, two parties mode, and cumbersome exclusion mode. 2. Students’ relative status indexed by group structure and class structure were not exactly match. 3. Groups’ structure tended to transform from one-stage or two-stage mode into three-stage mode after one semester of science teaching. Meanwhile, most students’ relative status in their group were demoted. (2) Patterns of group interactions and their possible effects on science learning 1. Group members usually respect and follow the high prestige members’ opinions during group discussion. 2. Though high prestige and low prestige members followed the procedures of science learning activity correctly, the former might explain the reasons of such procedures simultaneously. In contrast, the latter tried to do that only when asked. 3. Talking about the candidates of new membership, the highest prestige members hoped to replace the lowest one of their own group into someone who was the highest prestige member in other groups. The lowest prestige one didn’t suggest whom should be replaced, and the new candidate they suggested was the lowest prestige member in another groups. 4. In one-stage group, participants usually criticize, question or even argue with one another during the teaching activities. This situation always lasted while been the interrupted by the teacher. 5. In two-stage groups, high prestige members had more opportunity to access lab materials. They usually occupied the role of distributing responsibilities and resolving conflicts, whereas the lower ones always participated in as assistants or observers only. 6. When there were two or more members with high prestige in a given group, these members negotiated their ideas or opinions seriously, and denied most contributions provided by the other members. 7. The lowest prestige member(s) were usually blamed as troublemakers and having no contribution in group’s success. 8. By the following “tactics”, pupils’ prestige order and group structures might be changed: (1) establishing intimacy with the highest group-mates, (2) criticizing and correcting the procedures or opinions of those who where in the same prestige level, (3) debasing the ability of other members by introducing contingent issues. Accordingly, the implications of the above finding in science teaching were discussed, and further research recommendations were suggested.