Supportive Talk Among Peers in Small Groups

• In Event: Student Coregulation in Small-Group Learning

Abstract

Introduction
Research has demonstrated strong associations between peer relationships and academic performance (e.g., Ladd, 1990; Taylor, 1989). Taking this information into consideration, this study focuses on the use of positive comments and feedback among students working in small groups in an attempt to examine the supportive interactions among peers within the classroom.
A review of previous research on the implementation and effects of peer-peer encouragement and supportive feedback suggests there is much to learn. However, Krampen’s (1987) investigation of teacher comments, provides an interesting look at three types of feedback and their relationship with improved performance. Krampen (1987) focused on (a) socially oriented comments, those based on interindividual achievement comparisons, (b) subject-matter oriented comments, those focused on absolute standards, and (c) individually oriented comments, those based on intraindividual comparisons of achievement. Krampen’s research findings suggest that the more productive form of supportive talk for students to use would be subject-matter oriented or, demonstrating even more benefits, the individually oriented comments.
With a focus on Krampen’s comment categorization, this analysis seeks to examine the different kinds of supportive talk students provide one another within small learning groups. It is hypothesized that students will seldom provide supportive talk to their groupmates, and when they do provide supportive talk, it will take the form of individually oriented comments.
Method
The sample consists of four (fifth-grade) small groups, four members each. Each of the groups were coded by trained coders using the Group Behaviors Checklist. “Put-ups,” as defined in the GBC manual, include “words that draw attention to a positive feature of one or more individuals...[this] may be in reference to the individual’s appearance, contribution to the group work, or personal characteristic (i.e. his or her personality, intelligence and/or other traits)” (McCaslin, Vega, Anderson, Calderon, & Labistre, 2011). Put-ups were indicated as present when students could “be heard encouraging, supporting, and complimenting others’ contributions” (Vega, 2011). After sessions containing put-ups were identified, they were then double-checked by a small group of trained coders to confirm that the put-ups met the qualifications set by the GBC Manual. The confirmed put-ups were then categorized using Krampen’s method of commentary distinction to determine the themes students use for their supportive talk.
Results
The initial investigation revealed little to no supportive talk between students throughout the mathematical task sessions. Of a coded 6 hours 10 minutes and 37 seconds (745 intervals) of small group interaction, it was observed that a total of only 14 instances of put-ups occured. Of these 14 put-ups, all 14 roughly fit into Krampen’s three categories. The classification of the put-ups revealed that only 1 (7.14%) met the criterion for socially oriented comments; 4 (28.57%) were subject-matter oriented; and 9 (64.29%) were individually oriented. However, unlike Krampen’s socially and individually oriented teacher comments, the put-ups were non-historical in nature and did not reference prior performance. The groups averaged 3.50 put-ups per group; and collectively 2.333 put-ups per lesson. This shows that although students provide the most beneficial support, this form of support rarely occurs.

Authors

• Lauren Ballard, The University of Arizona

• Erin Elizabeth Anderson, University of Arizona

• Christine Nicole Calderon, The University of Arizona

• Angela M. Labistre, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

• Ruby Inez Vega, The University of Arizona

• Mary M. McCaslin, The University of Arizona