Men Without Words (January 2012)

Men  Without  Words:    Missing  the  Language  of  Learning,  Loving  and  Living  Well    

Damian  A  Vraniak,  PhD  and  Brook  Bock,  MBA    

  Alone  or  to  the  world,  the  individual  monologue  is  ‘I  want  to  grow  up  and  be  like  my  [dad,  mom,  uncle,  favorite  ball  player,  or  be  happy,  rich]’.  So  at  home  and  in  the  woods  I  play  –  laughing,  I  begin  to  learn.  The  interpersonal  dialogue  of  relationship  with  each  adult  who  guides  and  coaches  me  is  ‘Develop  the  skills  in  this  way  …  no,  this  way  before  that,  and  that  not  at  all  …’.  So  at  school  and  in  the  community  I  learn  and  then  begin  to  learn  to  care  and  to  love,  more  or  less  well.  The  story  is  a  social  narrative  that  matures  in  each  group  I  participate  and  it  goes  ‘We  welcome  the  contributions  of  your  unique  gifts  to  us  all,  but  not  this  one  or  that  one  …’.  So  at  home,  at  work  and  in  the  community  I  learn  and  love  to  live  as  best  I  can  with  others  who  are  different.  Yet  there  are  shadows  as  I  grow  and  develop  and  mature,  and  I  discover  that  my  solitary  monologue  often  does  not  fit  the  social  story  well  enough,  unless  and  until  I  discover  how  each  dialogue  in  each  relationship  might  be  worked  out  seamlessly  to  create  a  story  worth  sharing  and  living  among  the  many.  This  is  my,  and  our,  most  pressing  challenge  –  can  we  insert  relationship  back  into  the  critical  place  between  the  person  and  the  group,  the  individual  and  the  collective?  This  is  especially  important  for  our  children  in  school  and  our  families  in  community.  

    As  a  result  of  the  economic  downturn,  schools  are  struggling  with  budget  shortfalls,  often  resulting  in  laying  off  teachers  and/or  raising  class  sizes.  Providers  for  families  have  lost  jobs,  meaning  financial  stress  and  serious  struggle  to  pay  home  mortgages,  fuel  and  food  bills.  This  has  exacerbated  an  already  dire  situation  for  boys  in  schools  and  young  men  in  the  community  …  males  are  increasingly  losing  the  path  to  healthy  success  in  both  places.  More  men  are  living  alone.  Fewer  young  men  are  marrying.  Half  of  the  most  important  relationships  for  men  (marriage)  fail.  Men’s  ability  to  provide  (income)  has  steadily  declined,  more  men  are  out  of  work  (the  ‘unemployed  fifth’)  and  more  are  on  disability.  Fewer  males  are  going  on  to  college.  Why?      

Over  the  past  few  decades  direct  interactive  time  between  adults  and  boys,  between  boys  and  their  same  and  opposite  gender  peers,  has  markedly  declined,  while  time  spent  using  media  in  virtual  reality  has  become  more  than  the  average  amount  of  time  spent  in  school  on  a  weekly  basis.  Indeed,  pervasive  use  of  virtual  media  has  exacerbated  the  developmental  skills  gap  among  girls  and  boys,  worsened  a  well-­‐researched  tendency  of  boys  to  withdraw  from  one-­‐to-­‐one  interpersonal  situations  (girls  tend  to  withdraw  from  group  situations),  thereby  increasing  the  independence,  autonomy  and  isolation  of  males  in  our  society.  It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  the  proportion  of  the  brightest  boys  demonstrating  advanced  language  proficiency  skills  steadily  declines  between  4th  and  10th  grades.    It  is  not  surprising  that  the  typical  developmental  gap  between  the  language  and  communication  skills  of  young  girls  (who  mature  faster)  and  that  of  boys  has  

widened  to  the  extent  that  fewer  young  men  get  married,  more  men  are  single  parents,  and  more  are  living  alone,  than  ever  before.  The  boys  are  now  home  alone,  virtually  free,  yet  socially  lost.  Men  without  words  mean  women  without  men  and  children  without  models  of  how  relationships  might  go  well.  If,  as  men,  we  cannot  communicate  more  than  a  misspelled  tweet,  we  cannot  acquire  the  languages  of  learning,  loving  and  living  well,  let  alone  pass  them  alone  to  the  next  generation.  

 The  proposal  we  make  in  this  brief  article  is  that  rather  than  making  larger  

and  larger  moves  that  have  smaller  and  smaller  effects,  making  the  smallest  and  most  inexpensive  move  that  has  the  largest  effects  is  most  desirable:  In  this  case  simply  pairing  students  in  classrooms  and  shifting  who  is  paired  with  whom  over  the  course  of  the  school  year,  will  recover  and  replenish  the  interactive  time  and  experience  that  provides  these  critically  needed  language,  communication  and  relationship  skills.  Forming  such  pairs  into  small  learning  groups  of  no  more  than  3  to  5  pairs  can  optimize  the  learning  efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  a  manner  that    will  transform  educational  outcomes  and  the  well-­‐being  of  families  and  community. This  is  major  paradigm  shift  away  from  ‘individualizing’  or  ‘grouping’  -­‐  it  pairs  students  in  classrooms  and  forms  optimized  small  learning  groups  with  these  dyads.  This  dualizing  of  education  simultaneously  responds  to  current  financial  exigencies  of  schools,  communication  and  relationship  skill  improvement  needs  of  males,  and  re-­‐connects  community  adults  within  the  schools,  as  well  as  adults  with  one  another  and  children  within  families,  effectively  remediating  communication  and    relationship  skill  deficits.  

 The  Concerns  and  Challenges  in  Education  and  Community      

In  education,  for  the  first  time  in  history,  there  are  more  female  PhD’s  than  male  PhD’s.  At  the  undergraduate  level  men  study  less,  get  worse  grades,  take  longer  to  graduate  and  only  make  up  a  little  over  40%  of  the  nation’s  college  students,  creating  a  gender  imbalance  of  considerable  concern.  For  the  class  of  2009  nationally,  for  every  100  men,  142  women  graduated  with  bachelor’s,  159  women  completed  a  master’s  and  107  women  got  doctoral  degrees.  Like  national  data,  in  our  small  rural  community  high  school  boys  tend  to  score  higher  on  the  ACT’s  and  SAT’s  in  math  and  science  than  do  girls,  and  boys  scores  have  actually  increased  their  scores  recently,  although  this  is  primarily  due  to  fewer  boys  intending  to  go  on  to  college  and,  thus  fewer,  more  select  boys  taking  the  national  tests.  Finally,  in  a  longitudinal  analysis  of  two  cohorts  of  students  in  five  local  school  districts,  data  showed  that  with  regards  to  language  skills  while  roughly  40%  of  male  4th  grade  students  scored  at  the  ‘above  proficiency’  level  on  state-­‐wide  standardized  tests,  by  10th  grade  only  about  10%  did  so.  Interestingly,  while  in  math  and  science  more  girls  (and  boys)  scored  at  the  ‘above  proficiency’  level  by  10th  grade  compared  to  4th  grade,  more  also  performed  at  the  ‘below  proficiency’  level,  meaning  we  have  been  losing  the  students  in  the  middle  range  of  achievement,  some  going  up  and  others  going  down.    

  In  communities  across  the  nation,  nearly  60%  of  young  men  age  18  to  24  live  under  the  same  roof  as  their  parents,  a  roughly  100%  increase  in  the  past  20  years.  Men  are  marrying  later  than  ever  before  (at  age  23  in  1970  and  now  over  age  28  in  2010).  For  every  100  single  women  there  are  88  unmarried  men  available.  Income  for  young  men  age  25-­‐34  has  declined  about  12%  (between  1974  and  2004).  A  little  less  than  half  of  all  households  nationwide  are  maintained  by  a  single  person  and  increasingly  these  singles  are  living  alone,  now  more  than  31  million.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  nearly  10  million  single  mothers  and  2  million  single  fathers  living  with  children.    From  2000  to  2010  the  percentage  of  households  headed  by  a  married  couple  and  children  living  with  two  married  parents  both  significantly  declined.  Children  living  with  only  a  mother,  only  a  father,  and  with  a  parent  who  has  never  married,  have  all  increased  in  the  past  decade.         In  our  communities  the  most  important  relationship  –  the  one  we  are  most  motivated  to  make  successful  –  marriage  -­‐  fails  about  one-­‐half  of  the  time,  and  in  the  past  two  years  in  our  small  rural  community  there  has  been  a  sudden  major  increase  in  women  with  children  divorcing  their  husbands.  Indeed,  in  a  meta-­‐analysis  of  72  different  studies  of  American  college  students,  significant  decreases  in  empathy  and  perspective  taking  were  found,  especially  after  2000.  To  a  large  extent,  the  success  or  failure  of  a  student  in  secondary  school  or  college  directly  hinges  on  mastery  of  the  language.  A  student  must  be  able  to  read,  to  write,  to  speak,  and  to  listen  effectively.  Being  ineffective  in  even  one  of  these  language  abilities  can  lead  to  academic  difficulty.  The  same  is  true  for  marriages.    

 Our  ability  to  form  and  maintain  a  healthy,  interpersonal  relationship  has  

seriously  declined.  So  the  opportunity  for  children  to  see  and  learn  what  skills  are  necessary  and  sufficient  in  order  to  form  and  sustain  healthy,  interpersonal  relationships  with  fellow  students,  teachers,  co-­‐workers  and  spouses  is  rarely  available,  and  less  available  than  it  has  been  in  the  past.  The  language  and  communication  skills  important  to  healthy  partnering  is  especially  and  increasingly  challenging  for  boys  and  young  men  in  their  roles  as  students  and  as  spouses.  How  can  this  challenge  be  better  met?  

 Contributing Factors

What are some of our educational responses to this situation? Studies indicate that movement, especially for young boys in the motor stage of development, helps students learn. But in order to make extra time to meet state proficiency requirements, most schools have drastically reduced time for recess. Zero-tolerance, zero-conflict, zero-noise policies that severely punish (mostly male) behaviors that used to be dismissed with a stern warning. According to a University of Michigan Study, the number of boys who said they disliked school rose 71% between 1980 and 2001.

Yet it is the pervasiveness of virtual media that the greatest concern arises:

Excessive screen time puts young children at risk. Forty percent of 3-month-old infants are regular viewers of screen media, and 19% of babies 1 year and under have a TV in

their bedroom. Screen time can be habit-forming: the more time children engage with screens, the harder time they have turning them off as older children. Screen time for children under 3 is linked to irregular sleep patterns and delayed language acquisition. The more time preschool children and babies spend with screens, the less time they spend interacting with their parents. Even when parents co-view, they spend less time talking to their children than when they’re engaged in other activities. Toddler screen time is also associated with problems in later childhood, including lower math and school achievement, reduced physical activity, victimization by classmates, and increased BMI. Direct exposure to TV and overall household viewing are associated with increased early childhood aggression. The more time preschool children spend with screens, the less time they spend engaged in creative play – the foundation of learning, constructive problem solving, and creativity. On average, preschool children see nearly 25,000 television commercials, a figure that does not include product placement.

Including multitasking, children ages 8 -18 spend average of 4 1⁄2 hours per day

watching television, 1 1⁄2 hours using computers, and more than an hour playing video games; Black and Hispanic youth spend even more time with screen media than their White peers. Time spent with screens is associated with childhood obesity, sleep disturbances, attention span issues. Children with 2 or more hours of daily screen time are more likely to have increased psychological difficulties, including hyperactivity, emotional and conduct problems, as well as difficulties with peers. Adolescents who watch 3 or more hours of television daily are at especially high risk for poor homework completion, negative attitudes toward school, poor grades, and long-term academic failure. Adolescents with a television in their bedroom spend more time watching TV and report less physical activity, less healthy dietary habits, worse school performance, and fewer family meals. Children with a television in their bedroom are more likely to be overweight. Especially high rates of bedroom televisions (70-74%) have been seen among racial/ethnic minority children aged 2 to 13 years. In Great Britain, a typical working parent spends just 19 minutes a day looking after their children and in the U.S. adults living in households where the youngest child was between the ages of 6 and 17 spent 47 minutes per day providing primary childcare to household children. Consequences of such declining adult-child interactive time are evident in the 2003 study by Drs. Betty Hart and Todd Risley that found that:

… by age 3, children from privileged families have heard 30 million more words than children from underprivileged families. Children turned out to be like their parents in stature, activity level, vocabulary resources, and language and interaction styles. Follow-up data indicated that the 3-year-old measures of accomplishment predicted third grade school achievement. They found...that vocabulary growth differed sharply by class and that the gap between the classes opened early. By age 3, children whose parents were professionals had vocabularies of about 1,100 words, and children whose parents were on Welfare

had vocabularies of about 525 words. The children’s I.Q.s correlated closely to their vocabularies. When Hart and Risley addressed the question of just what caused those variations,

the answer they arrived at was startling. By comparing the vocabulary scores with their observations of each child’s home life, they were able to conclude that the size of each child’s vocabulary correlated most closely to one simple factor: the number of words the parents spoke to the child. In the professional homes, parents directed an average of 487 “utterances” per hour—anything from a one-word command to a full soliloquy—to their children. In welfare homes, the children heard 178 utterances per hour. What’s more, the kinds of words and statements that children heard varied by class. The most basic difference was in the number of “discouragements” a child heard—prohibitions and words of disapproval—compared to the number of encouragements—words of praise and approval. By age 3, the average child of a professional heard about 500,000 encouragements and 80,000 discouragements. For the welfare children, the situation was reversed: they heard, on average, about 75,000 encouragements and 200,000 discouragements. Hart and Risley found that as the number of words a child heard increased, the complexity of that language increased as well. As conversation moved beyond simple instructions, it blossomed into discussions of the past and future, of feelings, of abstractions, of the way one thing causes another—all of which stimulated intellectual development. Hart and Risley showed that language exposure in early childhood correlated strongly with I.Q. and academic success later on in a child’s life. Hearing fewer words, along with a lot of prohibitions and discouragements, had a negative effect on I.Q.; hearing lots of words, along with more affirmations and complex sentences, had a positive effect on I.Q. The professional parents were giving their children an advantage with every word they spoke, and the advantage just kept building up.

How can we reverse this living in virtual reality and lack of interactive time?

Second to the time spent watching TV, talking and texting on cell phones and playing video games, children spend most of their time in school. As a captive and institutionalized group, this is the most likely place we might most easily make a difference in their lives. Could it be that it is in education we might also best meet our challenge of improving relationship skills in community?

 Simple, Low-Cost Solution: Dualize Education

In America we have long vacillated between concerns with individual

rights/prerogatives and group authority/control (taxation without representation, eminent domain), individual versus corporate responsibility (pollution, climate warming). This alternating focus and tension between the individualistic and the collectivistic also has been evident in education, particularly in relation to assessing the relevance of individual and group differences (in IQ, abilities, ethnicity, language, culture) to learning, as well as in developing effective approaches to meet individual and group learning needs (special education, gifted and talented, language differences, gender-based efforts). For a very long time educational approaches have bounced back and forth between tailoring

educational approaches to the individual (individualized education) and grouping students by some characteristic, need, ability or interest (single-gender classes, magnet and charter schools). However, this long-running alternation between the individual and the group is approaching the limits of evidenced-based exploration and cost-benefit return. Recently, in widely separated disciplines, a new focus, and one of the first truly innovative approaches to optimizing learning to occur over the past several decades, is producing relatively unnoticed and unheralded success. Researchers report that the most significant increases (25-100%) in teaching, training and learning efficiency and educational outcomes are being demonstrated in programs wherein the military trains pilots and navigators in pairs, computer programmers are trained and function in pairs, medical students learning human anatomy study in pairs, elementary school students learn math and reading in pairs, high school students perform abstract reasoning tasks in pairs, and supportive (counseling) groups are run by a pair of co-facilitators and made up of paired-participants, among many others. The relevant core constructs in this approach I have termed paired-learning, paired-cognition, and dyadic-intelligence, all embedded in a pairing-into-partnering process of forming highly efficient small student learning groups within classrooms, created by linking three to five pairs of students, and systematically shifting which students are paired together over time.

Dr. Wayne Shebilske’s ongoing research with the Air Force have consistently demonstrated that dyadic modeling (AIM) achieves a 100% increase in training efficiency over a standard individual protocol with pilots and navigators. Despite half as much hands-on practice, dyadic trainees did not differ from individuals on tests of skill acquisition or loss after an 8-week non-practice interval, and reacquisition of a complex skill. Drs. Cockburn and William found that for a development-time cost of about 15%, pair programming improves design quality, reduces defects, enhances technical skills, improves team communications, and is considered more enjoyable by the programmers at a statistically significant level. The significant benefits of pair programming are that many mistakes get caught as they are being typed rather than in a question –answer test or in the field; the designs are better and code length is shorter due to ongoing brainstorming and pair relaying. The pair solves problems faster; the people learn significantly more about the system; people learn to work together and talk more often giving better information flow and team dynamics. At Vanderbilt University Dr. Daniel Schwartz (1995) studied the emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving in three experiments that examined whether group cognitions generate a product that is not easily ascribed to the cognitions that similar individuals have working alone. In each study, secondary school students solved novel problems either working as individuals or dyads. An examination of their problem-solving representations demonstrated that the dyads constructed abstractions well above the rate one would expect given a “most competent member” model of group performance applied to the empirical rate of individual abstractions. And at Vanderbilt University Drs. Lynn and Doug Fuchs have published one the most cited research articles concerning pair-assisted learning, validated in an extensive array of follow-up research showing buddy systems increasing math and reading knowledge and skill acquisition in regular and special

education students when compared to more typical teaching strategies at the elementary school level. Yet, embedding a paired-learning system within a small learning and working group context places this innovation in larger realm of understanding. Going back through all recorded history in Eastern and Western civilizations, Randall Collins’ masterpiece, the Sociology of Philosophies, showed that, except for the work of three individuals, all the other great advances, including Freud, Hegel, de Medici, Smith, Hutchinson, Watson and Crick, and Darwin, came about by individuals who were a part of a network of relationships in which many individuals worked as part of teams. However, Hare (1995) found that as group size increased individuals became less self-conscious, there was less inter-member interaction and less satisfaction, members may have used less effort with less cooperation, and fewer members took part in decision-making. Ringelmann found that individuals in a two-person group worked at 93% of their potential, individuals in a three-person group worked at 85% of their potential, individuals in a four-person group worked at 77% of their potential, and finally individuals in an eight-person group worked at 49% of their potential (as cited in Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). Woolley et. al. (2010) found converging evidence of a general collective intelligence factor that explains a group's performance on a wide variety of tasks. This “c factor” was not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members but with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group. It was interesting to note her “groups” had from two to five members.

The process of configuring classrooms into subgroups of optimal size and of pairing students within the small groups, accomplishes much, including providing an effective response to declining language skills among male students and preventing the loss of average performing students, both male and female, to below proficiency levels with regards to language, math and science achievement, in the following manner:

1. Based upon field study, having students involved in a significant amount of paired-

learning during an hour-and-a-half time period increases active thinking, time in interactive language use, and writing practice by at least 100%, compared to ‘one-serving-the-many’ mode of teacher instructing a passively listening class, students studying alone, or students trying to learn in minimally supervised bunches;

2. Systematically shifting pairing enables maximizing male student exposure to female language use and female exposure to male math and science skill proficiencies;

3. Composing small groups with reference to gender distribution facilitates

maximizing the positive influence research shows that female students have on language use, positive self-regulation (e.g. turn-taking), enhancing skill

development in lower functioning students, and improved collective cognition (group intelligence “c”).

In effect, dualizing classroom instruction by pairing students significantly increases

active learning time and opportunity in a manner that enhances each individual student’s ability to self-regulate, increases and enhances interactive language usage and relationship skills, and improves students’ functioning in small learning and work groups, as well as providing teachers and adult aides or volunteers with greater opportunities to notice and attend to high quality examples of individual balance, interpersonal harmony and group synchrony, thereby providing ample models for imitation and shared learning by all students. Our experience with field-testing of paired-learning processes over the past 10-12 has been that it quickly brings positive administrative and colleague attention, as students pairing and partnering across much of their school day begin to look and perform quite differently than other students. Time and Funding Cost-Benefit Analysis Greater Efficiency of Paired-Learning Process

A. Typical class format involving 10 students for 30 minutes Number of Persons Talking Expressive Minutes Receptive Minutes (x Number Listening)

1 10” 90” 1 10” 90” 5 @ 2” each 10” 90” ________ ___ ____

Total 7 (1 time) 30” 270”

B. Paired-Learning format involving 10 people for 30 minutes Number of Persons Talking Expressive Minutes Receptive Minutes (x Number Listening) 10 @ 1” each 10” 90”

5 pairs @ 5” each 25” 25” 5 @ 1” each 5” 40”

10 @ 1” each 10” 90” ________ ___ ____

Total 10 (3-4 times each) 50” 245”

Because of the simultaneous involvement of pairs there is a 67% gain in expressive engagement and a 9.3% decrease in receptive involvement relating to the paired-learning process in each small learning group, as compared to a more typical

lecture, show and tell, question and answer format. If there are three such small learning groups going on simultaneously (10 students + 10 + 10 = a class of 30 students), then the numbers above could look like this:

A. Typical class format involving 30 students for 30 minutes Number of Persons Talking Expressive Minutes Receptive Minutes (x Number Listening)

1 10” 290” 1 10” 290” 5 @ 2” each 10” 290” ________ ___ ____

Total 7 (1 time) 30” 870” B. Paired-Learning format involving 10 people x three groups (Tot 30) for 30 minutes Number of Persons Talking Expressive Minutes Receptive Minutes (x Number Listening) 10 @ 1” each (per group) 10” 90” 15 pairs @ 5” each 75” 75” 15 @ 1” each 15” 210” 30 @ 1” each 30” 290”

________ ___ ____ Total 30 (3-4 times each) 130” 665”

In addition, in this process format there is complete and multiple participations by

all members of the small group and class, most of it quite active, and there is clarity in terms of what each student (and pair) is going away with (has internalized) in terms of new information, learning, and future intentions (plan of action or incorporation of ideas), and more relationship experience. Comparing this process to a more typical classroom process, the percentage gain actually increases as the gathering/meeting time increases (400% of expressive minutes … 30” è 130”).

Funding Cost-Benefits

In our school district we are planning an effort that begins with one classroom in four schools (primary, elementary, middle and high schools) that each have about 30 students. We will break each class into three small learning groups of ten students each, arranged in five pairs. To the classroom pair of a teacher and an aide we will add four volunteer adults. Each of these three pairs of adults will facilitate one small learning

group. This means an effective adult:student ratio of 5:1. Over the course of the year adult pairings and student pairings will shift so that everyone eventually gets to pair with everyone else. Two psychologists trained in pair-modeling and pair-mentoring will each meet separately with each team of classroom paired adults once a week, meaning 8 hours a week in total psychologist time (pro bono). Having students paired, with adult pairs facilitating small learning groups does not necessarily mean any changes in curriculum, although simultaneous facilitation of self-regulation skills by buddies and adults, mentoring and modeling of harmonious paired-cognition, and the three learning groups sharing acquired skill and knowledge may well improve efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge acquisition. The four classes participating in the pilot will meet together three times over the course of the school year, once every twelve weeks. At the end of the year, two other classes in each school will be offered the opportunity to participate in the now demonstration project, with some of the first year participants in those new classes and using the previous year’s adults as mentors for the new adult participants. [financial modeling]

Low-cost Solution to Significantly Increase Student Learning and Achievement,

Self-Regulation and Relationship Skills in School and Community 1. What is the primary research finding regarding how to increase student achievement? Answer: Reduce class size by increasing ratio of adults to children to no more than 5 children for every 1 adult. 2. How can adult/child ratios be increased at no cost? Answer: Break a 30 student class into three small learning groups of ten students each and arrange to have two adults guide each group. Besides a teacher and an aide, then, this requires the availability of four additional adults for each of the forty weeks of the school year. At the beginning of the year if each family of the 30 students is responsible for supplying four volunteering adults for one and a half weeks during the school year, this resource is supplied (with the schools helping those families who have difficulty doing this to accomplish it). Sports teams have done this for decades. 3. What is the primary innovation regarding how to significantly increase student learning? Answer: Pairing students accomplishes three outcomes – increases the ability of students to self-regulate, enhances skills students have to harmonize interpersonal relationships, and extends student capacities to function well in small learning/work groups … and increases interactive learning time in the form of paired-cognition – by at least 50-100%. 4. What is a simple way to demonstrate to school board members, administration, school staff, parents and students that creating small learning groups within a class, adding four volunteer adults to the classroom each day and pairing students

will accomplish the desirable goal of optimizing (increasing) student learning and achievement? Answer: Offer the opportunity for one set of teachers and volunteers (in one classroom) in each primary, intermediate, middle and high school, to be mentored and facilitated by a previously trained community group in this paired-learning paradigm during a first year. Then in a second year allow one or two additional classrooms in each school to be added to the demonstration effort. A student-adult ratio of 5:1 and combining student dyads into small learning groups will accomplish a major transformation by effectively dualizing education. Two new publications outlining the above transformational process are now available at http://stores.lulu.com/whitewolfpress : A Teacher’s Guide for Optimizing Individual Student Self-regulation, Student Paired-Learning, and Small Group Learning Process (2011).   Here  is  another  example  of  a  very  similar  pairing  process  used  in  group  learning:  Group  Work  Ineffective?  Try  Pairing  Students  for  Better  Accountability,  Learning  

By:  Denise  D.  Knight  in  Effective  Teaching  Strategies  (2009)    

Although  group  work  can  provide  a  welcome  change  to  the  regular  classroom  routine,  the  results  are  rarely  all  positive.  Invariably,  one  or  two  students  in  each  group,  because  they  are  shy  or  lack  self-­‐confidence,  are  reluctant  to  share  their  input.  These  are  often  the  same  students  who  have  to  be  coaxed  to  participate  in  large  class  discussions.  Because  of  group  dynamics,  the  student  who  usually  emerges  as  the  group  leader,  either  by  default  or  proclamation,  is  often  not  sensitive  to  the  need  to  engage  the  quieter  students  in  the  conversation.  As  a  result,  the  more  outspoken  students  may  unwittingly  extinguish  the  very  dialogue  that  the  small  group  is  intended  to  promote.  

I  have  found  that  paired  collaboration  consistently  produces  better  results  than  small  group  discussions  do.  Having  students  engage  a  question  in  a  one-­‐on-­‐one  exchange  encourages  stronger  participation  by  both  parties.  Rarely  do  small  groups  generate  equal  contributions  to  the  dialogue  or  problem  solving,  while  pairing  creates  an  intellectual  partnership  that  encourages  teamwork.  

Paired  collaboration  can  easily  be  modified  to  work  in  a  number  of  

disciplines.  In  my  literature  classroom,  the  following  model,  which  I  use  about  once  every  three  weeks,  seems  to  be  particularly  effective.  At  the  beginning  of  class,  I  ask  each  student  to  place  his  or  her  name  on  a  sheet  of  paper  and  to  write  a  question  about  the  work  that  we  will  be  discussing  that  day.  I  then  collect  all  of  the  questions  and  redistribute  them  so  that  each  student  has  someone  else’s  question.  Students  then  break  into  pairs  and  together  formulate  a  response  to  one  or  both  of  the  questions,  depending  on  the  time  allotted  for  the  exercise.  They  are  required  to  cite  textual  evidence  in  support  of  their  arguments.  

After  a  period  of  time,  usually  15  or  20  minutes,  each  pair  reports  its  findings  to  the  larger  group.  Even  if  some  of  the  pairs  end  up  answering  similar  questions,  they  rarely  have  similar  answers.  And,  if  by  chance  each  member  of  the  pair  has  radically  different  interpretations,  they  are  invited  to  share  their  individual  responses.  The  exercise  can  actually  be  helpful  in  illustrating  the  variety  of  critical  readings  that  one  literary  work  can  engender.  And,  depending  on  the  direction  that  discussion  takes,  it  can  provide  the  foundation  for  discourse  on  a  number  of  theoretical  approaches  to  the  text.  

Experience  has  convinced  me  that  the  benefits  of  pairing  are  numerous.  Working  together  provides  an  opportunity  for  problem-­‐solving  on  a  more  intimate  scale  than  small  groups  allow.  Students  tend  to  form  an  alliance  as  they  work  together  to  compare—and  share—their  interpretations.  They  are  more  likely  to  come  to  class  prepared  to  engage  the  reading,  as  they  know  that  they  might  be  called  upon  at  any  time  to  share  their  knowledge.  Finally,  a  paired  model  not  only  allows  shy  students  to  find—and  use—their  voices,  but  it  also  teaches  mutual  respect  and  cooperation.  Paired  collaboration  is  a  small  adjustment  to  the  typical  group  discussion  that  can  yield  big  results.  

Denise  D.  Knight,  PhD.  is  a  Distinguished  Teaching  Professor  of  English  at  State  University  of  New  York  College  at  Cortland.  

   In  yet  another  example,  Márquez  and  Sherman  (2008)  use  what  they  call  

“dyad  pedagogy”  as a powerful method for acquiring and integrating anatomical knowledge, effectively used in anatomy at SUNY Downstate Medical  Center,  reporting  a positive effect on student performance  in  2006  and  2007.  Used in an anatomy course on cadaveric dissection comprising PA and PT students, dyads were arranged by the instructor, with specific activities thematically and serially organized in accordance with the course objectives. The traditional course was upgraded with new components: written summaries, pre- and post-tests, dissection projects and clinical set-ups designed to broaden the scope of learning in three dimensions all at once: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Evaluation metrics showed dyads functioning at the higher cognitive, affective and psychomotor levels of the Blooms Taxonomies of Learning - most impressive being the levels of student workplace skills: working together, data-gathering, integration and synthesis, problem-solving: all behaviors essential to the workplace.  And  

Noronha, Ahsan, Sherman and Marquez  (2010)  found  that  dyad  pedagogy  combined  with  technology  enhanced student learning in first-year Anatomy courses for medical students at SUNY Downstate. Two students working together (dyads) solve and/or explore a problem - maximizing feedback between the two over all other approaches - and thus optimizing learning in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains,  again, as defined in Bloom’s taxonomies of learning. The dyads created  a  project  that  applied the principles of gross anatomy to clinical pathologies in a presentation to be captured on HD video. They defined muscles and innervations of a particular region of the body and explained issues associated with injury to these structures.  The  project  integrated all learning modalities: textbook, lectures, gross anatomy labs,  and  the  internet  and  involved three stages of dyad problem-solving: Students  became experts in the anatomy of their region  of  study;   they developed a skit to aid in the communication of the clinical relevance  of  muscle-­‐nerve  damage;  and they presented the project to  the  class.  The  presentation  was  then  videotaped and posted on the Intranet for their classmates to use during review and study. These dyad-created anatomy videos augmented the learning of  gross  anatomy  principles  and  were adjudged clear and engaging presentations  of  muscle  action.  The value and impact of this learning method on the entire class was measured in terms of online use.       Murphy,    Douglas  and  Eddy (1995)  studied  the  use  of  the  dyad  concept  in  residence  hall  student  development,  examining how dyads of 2 college students or 2 college staff members worked to establish a method of interaction to achieve predetermined goals and objectives. Dyads worked in a residence life setting, with 64 resident assistants and 128 students out of a student body of 1,150. A dyad program evaluation survey  was  completed  by  76  students; 88% agreed that the residence life area was improving through the dyad program efforts. Results of the clinical observations included improved relations, morale, and development of persons. Fewer conflicts and problems were evident to the paraprofessional staff compared to past years. Students exhibited enhanced personal growth and development, personal adjustment, fewer roommate conflicts, and willingness to seek professional help when dealing with deep psychological issues.  

    Classwide Peer Tutoring has  been  a  method  for students to get one-on-one help and enough time to practice and learn. When using Classwide Peer Tutoring, every student in the class is paired with another. The teacher writes lessons that one student uses to teach or tutor another. During the tutoring, one  student  explains the work to another student, asks the student to answer  questions,  and  tells  the  student if his or her answers are correct. Classwide Peer Tutoring has been shown to work  for  students with all kinds  of  special  learning  and  behavioral  needs.  Classwide Peer Tutoring helps teachers make sure that students have:  Someone  who  sits  next  to  them  to  personally explain the work in a way that is just right for them  - not too slow and not too fast;  more opportunities to talk about what they are learning, to practice what they are learning, to read aloud, and to write;  more opportunities to ask questions when they are confused without fear of being embarrassed in front of the whole class;  someone who can tell them right away if their answers are right or wrong; and someone to help and encourage them to  finish assignments.  Classwide Peer Tutoring is helpful to students in reading, spelling,

math, and writing. It’s used in all grade levels from preschool to high school, and in both regular  and  special  education  classrooms. But most of the studies have been done in elementary school.  Whorton  and  Delquadri  found that students who read only 24 words correctly were able to read 48 words correctly after their teachers started using Classwide Peer Tutoring. Delquadri and other researchers found that students  with  learning  disabilities read more quickly and correctly after their teacher started  using  Classwide  Peer  Tutoring.  Joseph Delquadri and others found that students who scored the lowest on weekly spelling tests (getting 8 or more words wrong), started scoring as well as other students in the class, (getting fewer than 3 words wrong) after their teacher started  using  Classwide  Peer  Tutoring.  Fantuzzo  and  Heller found that Classwide Peer Tutoring helped African American 4th and 5th grade students in math. Most of the students in this study came from homes with low incomes.  Other studies in the 1980s and 1990s showed that Classwide Peer Tutoring increases the amount of class work students finish.  For  example, in one study by Charles Maher students who didn’t have Classwide Peer Tutoring finished only 3 of their 10 assignments,  but when their teachers started using Classwide Peer Tutoring, they finished 8 of their 10 assignments.    

Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) is a 25- to 35- minute math or reading activity implemented two to four times a week and is designed to complement, not replace, existing reading and math curricula. PALS combines peer tutoring with instructional principles and practices. Teachers identify and pair children who require help with specific skills ("players") with children who are the most appropriate to help other children learn those skills ("coaches"). The pairs of students are changed regularly, and over a period of time students work on a variety of skills so that all students have the opportunity to be "coaches" and "players". Approximately 13 to 15 pairs of students are created in the classroom, and each of these pairs is geared to each individual student's needs (as opposed to a single, teacher-directed activity that may not address the specific problems that children face). The PALS peer-tutoring strategy enables teachers to circulate around the classroom and observe students, providing feedback and remedial lessons where necessary.  Originally, PALS was designed for use in second- through sixth-grade classrooms. More recently, both upward and downward extensions of PALS have been developed, resulting in Preschool PALS, Kindergarten PALS (K-PALS), First-Grade PALS, and High-School PALS.  (See  Appendix  A.  for  review  of  13  studies  empirically  supporting  use  of  PALS.)  

Adult-child ratios in classrooms can be reduced effectively to 5:1 (a learning group is made up of ten students with two guiding adults), as available and trained community adults are infused into school systems applying the innovative paradigm described. This means that the long-running vacillation between ‘individualized’ approaches and ‘grouping’ approaches to configuring educational systems for students will be translated into dualized form. Such a transformative system of forming learning contexts replaces outdated approaches to classroom management by applying the latest and most refined knowledge regarding composing, configuring, managing and sustaining small groups (classes, teams, work-groups).

The author suggests that within ten years most educational, institutional and

corporate systems will be dualized in a fashion similar to that described in this short book. Educators and trainers will break up class, team and work groups into small learning or performance groups of 3-5 pairs, place students (or employees) into dyads that regularly shift who is paired with whom, carefully consider the gender apportionment and sequence of pairing students, systematically facilitate skill development regarding individual balance, pair harmony, and group synchrony while maintaining content focus within instruction, concentrate and enhance paired-cognition (dyadic intelligence) as a method to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of student learning, utilize adult volunteers and other staff to insure that two mature/trained adults are always guiding each small learning group of 6-10 learners/workers/trainees (3-5 dyads), focus learning facilitator-pairs (teachers) on modeling for and mentoring paired-learners, optimize small group knowledge and skill acquisition within a small learning group through pair-sharing, and engage inter-group sessions to extend and expand skill acquisition and application, knowledge storage and retrieval (transactive memory, socially distributed cognition) across all participants.

Research  in  the  U.S.  showed  that  short  initial  interaction  in  dyads  accurately  

predicted  future  relation  development  in  a  group:  In  a  business  setting  potential  team  members  had  short  initial  contacts  (popularly  known  as  ‘speed  dating’)  and  the  information  on  interpersonal  evaluations  was  used  to  create  teams  by  maximizing  the  number  of  reciprocal  relational  preferences  within  a  team  …  team-­‐dating  teams  showed  better  teamwork  quality  and  developed  more  complex  collective  knowledge  structures  compared  with  attribute-­‐based  teams.  Educational  research  in  Europe  found  that  groups  with  more  girls  learned  more  quickly  and  achieved  at  higher  levels,  and  studies  in  the  U.S.  within  the  intelligence  community  showed  that  groups  with  more  females  had  a  higher  ‘group  IQ’.  With  the  use  of  data  from  Adolescent  Health  and  Academic  Achievement  and  the  National  Longitudinal  Study  of  Adolescent  Heath,  studies  indicated  that  same-­‐sex  friends’  academic  performance  significantly  predicted  course  taking  in  all  subjects  for  girls,  but  not  for  boys.  Furthermore,  for  math  and  science  only,  the  effects  of  friends’  performance  were  greater  in  the  context  of  a  predominantly  female  friendship  group,  which  suggested  that  such  groups  provide  a  counterpoint  to  the  gendered  stereotypes  and  identities  of  those  subjects.  In  addition,  an  adolescent  may  be  influenced  by  the  cluster  of  students  with  whom  she  or  he  takes  courses,  termed  the  “local  position”.  The  key  to  testing  the  effects  of  peer  norms  is  to  conceptualize  the  social  organization  of  the  school  in  terms  of  local  positions,  clusters  of  students  who  take  courses  together.  Authors  of  one  major  study  found  that  girls  were  more  likely  to  advance  in  math  in  1995–96  the  higher  the  level  of  math  taken  in  1994–95  by  other  girls  in  their  local  position.  The  strong  effect  of  the  local  position  norm  suggests  that  local  positions  are  quite  salient  as  a  social  context,  at  least  for  girls.  Another  study  showed  that  

taking  courses  with  children  of  college-­‐educated  parents  increased  the  likelihood  of  four-­‐year  college  enrollment  even  after  controlling  for  family  background,  achievement,  and  placement.  The  family  background  characteristics  of  coursemates  may  influence  college  enrollment  because  coursemates  provide  access  to  educational  resources,  such  as  information  about  college,  and  encourage  students  to  apply  to  college  by  serving  as  a  reference  group.  The  favorable  educational  attainment  of  students  with  college-­‐educated  parents  is  partially  due  to  the  greater  likelihood  that  they  will  take  courses  with  other  children  of  college-­‐educated  parents.  Yet  another  study  showed  that  for  all  adolescents,  math  course  taking  was  associated  with  the  achievement  of  their  close  friends  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  their  coursemates.  These  associations  tended  to  be  stronger  toward  the  end  of  high  school  and  weaker  among  adolescents  with  a  prior  record  of  failure  in  school.  Each  of  these  patterns  was  somewhat  more  consistent  among  girls.    

  In  her  study  of  sports  dyads,  Tamara  Wickwire  (2003)  noted  that  “  …  while McCann offered suggestions to coaches of dyadic sport teams in general, other authors (Smith & Lutz, 1975; Singleton, 1989; Hare, 1981) have made sport-­‐specific observations regarding dyadic relationships. Smith and Lutz (1975) suggested that for tennis "the real key to effective teamwork in doubles lies in achieving a balance between the technical skills of the two players, and a reasonable harmony in the emotional relationships" (p. 101). As far as technical skills, the most effective team combined partners who complemented, not duplicated, each other's skills. Smith and Lutz (1975) asserted that a tennis team with two players of average skill would usually beat a team consisting of one player of above-average and one of below-average skill. Singleton (1989) also suggested it was important for partners to be compatible in tennis. Hare (1981), a beach volleyball expert, said that it was imperative to "choose a partner who is most compatible with you on the court, and whose abilities complement yours". As far as technical skill, a balanced combination was highly valued by players and coaches in these two sports. When it came to the emotional relationship, Singleton (1989) also felt that dyadic relationships were like a marriage. The key to success was effective communication, both on and off of the court. Singleton called it a "meeting of the minds" in which every aspect of the partnership was discussed and must come together for success. It was also suggested that focusing on the team and using "we" instead of "you" or "I" was helpful to make communication encouraging and motivating and to keep the partner on the receiving end from becoming defensive. Smith and Lutz (1975) suggested that there should be a floating leadership role on the team as different occasions, especially on a fast-paced court, would require quick decisions. Who took the lead in a particular instance may have depended on a technical aspect of the game or may just have been based on who happened to be a bit more on their game that day. Smith and Lutz (1975) emphasized flexibility between partners to accept the changes and to make the most of their role in every given situation. In beach volleyball, Hare (1981) stressed that communication was at the heart of a team. Communication contributed to consistency, intensity, mutual respect, confidence, and allowed a team to reach its potential. It was

also noted that it took time for members of a new partnership to "click;" it did not happen right away. In the end, the evidence offered by these tennis and beach volleyball experts suggested that a balanced team and communication between members were the most significant aspects of sports partnerships.”  (p.  39)

Tamara  Wickwire  (2003)  concludes:  “A dyad possesses characteristics that differentiate it from larger teams in sport, as well as from individual sports. Finding the right partner is difficult as there are many factors that cause a team to split up. Part of growing as a dyadic sport athlete is learning from past partnerships. Dyadic teams competing at elite levels of their sport spend a large amount of their time together; this time is equal to or even greater than the time they spend with the other significant relationships in their life (i.e., spouse, family, etc.).  The current results suggest that dyads are different from larger teams. The dyadic relationship is characterized by less complexity and greater intensity than larger groups. There are only two individuals interacting but they spend a considerable amount of time one-on-one and are highly dependent on each others' actions and reactions. Creating a sense of balance and equilibrium in partnerships is crucial to functioning and development. This is established by accepting partner differences and weaknesses, compromising, accommodating, and making concessions in the partnership. Communication is crucial to dyad functioning and requires a great deal of concerted attention and focus from both members of the partnership to maintain and develop. Cohesion and communication are both key elements of the dyadic relationship. The relationship between communication and cohesion is codependent; one cannot exist without the other and they are both critical to dyad functioning and development. Being on the same page in all aspects of the partnership, including commitment, goals, and team vision, is central to dyad functioning and development. A dyad's structure and composition is dependent on the sport environment, which is the context in which dyadic interaction occurs. The dyadic interaction process then builds on the dyad structure and composition.   Many partnerships break down at the dyad structure and composition level. The most successfully functioning dyads are able to establish a stable structure for their

partnership within the sport environment, and then move to a higher level of functioning. This is when elements of the dyadic interaction process are focused on and developed, culminating in success for the partnership on and off the court.”   Should we be surprised, then,  given the level of commitment and cohesion generated by participation in sports teams, that student-athletes are among the best academic performers in a school system. While such outcomes have been attributed to a variety of factors including learning discipline, contingencies placed upon continued sports participation, greater parental attention and support, I would like to suggest to you that it a major contribution to good scholastic performance among student-athletes may be from learning how to pair and partner into more coherent and cohesive small groups and its associated optimizing skills set.  

According to British author Antony Jay, there are centuries of evidence to support the idea that small groups are the most efficient. In “The Corporation Man,” he talks about how humans have worked in small groups, usually five to fifteen people, as hunters and farmers for hundreds of generations. The ideal group size is a ten-group:

Antony Jay (The Corporation Man) draws attention to units of around this size in many fields beyond the corporation. A committee works best with about ten members; if it grows much beyond that size the extra people do not take a fully active part. Nearly all team games use a group of about ten on each side. Juries have 12 members and the Jewish minyan 10. In an army, organization often decides life and death, and under this pressure armies, too, adopt a basic unit of about ten; the British army, the US army, the ancient Roman army and that of Genghiz Khan, in fact every long-standing successful army, has built up its larger formations from squads or sections of about this size. “The basic unit is [a group] which varies from three to twelve or fifteen in number, and perhaps optimizes somewhere around ten;

References:

Laughlin, P., Hatch, E., Silver, J., & Boh, L. (2006) Groups Perform Better Than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-Numbers Problems: Effects of Group Size, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 4. American Psychological Association. (2006) “Groups Perform Better Than the Best Individuals at Solving Complex Problems,” APA Press Release. Further Reading on Group Problem Solving Bonner, B. L. (2004). Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,and Practice, 4, 277–290. Bray, R. M., Kerr, N. L., & Atkin, R. S. (1978). Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1224–1240. Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N _ 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539. Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). “Social sharedness” as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 123–140.