No abstract

No abstract

Status hierarchies readily form in groups and, once established, limit lower-status group members' opportunities for contributing to and influencing group decisions. Recent findings, however, suggest that the type of task on which a group works may allow lower-status individuals to break through power and prestige orders in a cooperative way while conflicting with ideas of their higher-status group members. In this article, we review a research program that investigates how task structure relates to status and influence in small groups. In one experiment, using groups of three female students as participants, we found that open-structured tasks allow lower-status group members to participate, receive positive evaluations, and improve their status more than closed-structured tasks. In a second experiment, using groups of two female students and a female experimenter as participants, we found that open-structured tasks and lower-status confederates foster more divergent thinking and indirect influence than closed-structured tasks and higherstatus sources. Our findings contribute to the understanding of how immediate problem-solving environments contribute to status change and influence in small groups.

Purpose The researchers developed a model of mentoring student teachers, known as Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE), to provide opportunities for classroom teachers to build shared understanding with university field supervisors. The purpose of this paper is to compare teaching efficacy of those student teachers who matriculated through the SMILE approach with mentoring student teachers who matriculated through a traditional approach to mentoring and identifying aspects of SMILE that may have contributed to the development of teacher efficacy. Design/methodology/approach A total of 29 student teachers participated in the SMILE model of supporting student teaching, and 29 student teachers (comparison group) were provided with a traditional support structure. At the start and end of their one-year post-baccalaureate credential program, all student teachers completed a teaching efficacy questionnaire. During the last month of the teacher-credential program, all student teachers were interviewed in focus groups regarding the quality of their student-teaching mentoring. In addition, the researchers asked classroom teachers in the SMILE cohort to complete a questionnaire, identifying specific strengths and weaknesses of the SMILE model of mentoring student teachers. Findings Student teachers in the SMILE cohort improved their teaching efficacy in comparison with student teachers in a traditional model of support. SMILE student teachers appreciated critical feedback, while the comparison group participants focused on whether feedback was positive or negative. In addition, SMILE student teachers attributed their development of instructional skills to the mentoring process from classroom teachers and university supervisors, while comparison group participants attributed their development as teachers mainly to their classroom teachers who modeled effective instructional strategies. SMILE classroom teachers made reference to how particular aspects of the model (e.g. sequencing and lesson study) contributed to both student- and mentor-teacher development. Originality/value The SMILE approach to mentoring student teachers facilitated collaboration between university field supervisors and classroom teachers in joint mentoring of future teachers into their profession, a rare occurrence in teacher education programs. Joint mentoring led to improved teaching efficacy among student teachers.

Given the preponderance of research on students' resistance to multicultural courses, the authors begin to ponder this resistance by exploring students'preconceptions of social justice concepts. They present two mixed-methods studies to examine students' preconceived notions regarding two terms associated with social justice education: privilege and oppression. In Study 1, the authors conducted a qualitative investigation of students' self-definitions of whether they believe themselves to be privileged or oppressed. In Study 2, they take a quantitative look at students' reactions to hypothetical character scenarios differentiated based on two variables: (a) privilege or oppression and (b) socially conscious aspirations. The findings indicate specific ways that Whites, especially White men, view privilege and oppression differently from people of color. Findings are discussed in terms of students'resistance to multicultural education, with a focus on lack of intersubjectivity, sense of privilege, downplaying the existence of oppression, and lack of commitment to social activism.