Sociometrics
Allen Yee
EDP 621
27 April 2005
Sociometrics:
Class 82 is made up of eight, nine, and ten year-old students in grades 3, 4, and 5.
Each student was given four different questions and asked to respond by giving up to
three answers. Their answers were in terms of other students and represented by assigned
numbers. The first three questions were based on positive characteristics. However, the
forth and final question dealt with the negative version of a previous positive question.
Using Walsh’s (2000) sociometric program the student’s nominations were easily
organized and placed into figures and diagrams helpful in understanding the
cohesiveness, feelings, and structures of this classroom.
Question 1 asked each class member to choose the three students who they would
most like to sit by during a lunch period. It was immediately apparent that the male and
female students in the class were extremely separated in their choices. There were only
two choices, both by females, which crossed the gender barrier. In these gender crossing
choices one female was an 8 year-old choosing another 8 year-old and the other was a 9
year-old selecting a younger 8 year-old male (Figure 1). I did not expect to see this type
of choice going down in age, thinking that most multi-aged classrooms would have a
higher amount of selections going up the age scale.
It was also apparent that the females had many more cliques than the males;
whereas the males had quite a lot of scattered selections to a few certain “popular”
students. The distribution of choices was not random what so ever in terms of age for
either gender. Many of the older students choose students of the same age, thus
determining an even more non diverse clique. This was especially evident with the oldest
and youngest age groups.
In the second question, which read, “Who would you most like to see a movie
with?” I found many of the same tendencies (Figure 2). The female selections were
nearly identical to the first question, same cliques, same age groups, and so on. Here
however there were more choices across the gender barrier yet again by the females.
There were four choices of males and only one from the males to the females. All the
female selections across the gender barrier were to either younger or same age males. The
male selections were not as mixed as in question one and more cliques are visible. Three
8 year-old students (15, 22, 26) along with a 10 year-old (05) have formed a strong group
connection. On the other hand, students 12 and 20 have had no nominations for the
second question in a row. One interesting similarity among the males is that each age
group has a certain student or students getting a high amount of those age groups
nominations: student 13 for the 10 year-olds, students 03 and 06 for the 9 year-olds, and
student 22 and 26 for the 8 year-olds.
The last positive question deals with which students one would like to work with
academically. Again I observed almost an exact replica of the other positive questions
(Figure 3). Female student 17 again chose a boy at least once now selection male student
22 for the second time. It did not seem that the changing of questions had much
difference to the student’s selections we see the same cliques in both genders. This
question has the highest number of students having mutual choices with 85.7%. I would
associate this with the idea that they may have worked in groups previously and know
one another’s educational level, work ethic, etc. Students 12 and 20, both male, again do
not receive any selections and have been choosing the same students for all of their
nominations. I would expect these students are “outsiders,” looking for acceptance into a
group. It was also noticeable that both these students selected either students of the same
age or older; especially students who were already receiving nominations, possibly the
leaders or influential members of the class.
The negative question, seen in Figure 4, asks which student each would not like to
work with academically. This is simply a mess in respect to similarities, except for the
obvious similarity that 18 of the 28 total students did not want to work with female, 9
year-old student 23. Class wide the choices were very spread out with no connection to
grade level, age, or gender. All but one 10 year-old got little to no nominations and on the
whole males were selected much more than females, not including student 23.
I believe this classroom is set up very similar to how schools all over the country
are. It is just natural for males to be drawn to other males and the same for females at this
point in their development. It would be difficult to conclude that the classroom is
successful or not but we still can learn much from the data we received. For example,
student 23 may have a difficult time learning or possibly be a behavior problem, some of
the females (07, 17, 24) in the class may have “crushes” on various boys, and possibly
students 12 and 20 have trouble socially. All of these things are useful in identifying and
predicting characteristics and personalities but are not necessarily true. Without the
understanding that these are all assumptions we as educators become those who dwell on
social norms, gender biasness, and racism.
Works Cited
Schmuck, P. and R. (2001). Group processes in the classroom.
McGraw Hill, New York.
Shapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world. Allyn &
Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Sherman, L. (2005). EDP 621A. Miami University, Department of Educational
Psychology. Retrieved March 27, 2005 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw/edp621aS05_syl.html
Walsh, R. (2000). Walsh’s classroom sociometrics. Retrieved March 25, 2005 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.classroomsociometrics.com/