SOCIOMETRY IN THE CLASSROOM:

HOW TO DO IT

SOCIOGRAM INTERPRETATION AND TERMINOLOGY

Giving examples of sociogram terminology is one of the easiest ways of relating how to interpret a sociogram. All of the examples which follow are taken from FIGURE 14. One might note that the basic terminology which follows can be broken down into two categories, Stars, Isolates and Ghosts (A, B and C) are terms which describe individual children or INDIVIDUAL PHENOMENA, while mutual choices, chains, islands and triangles (D, E, F and G) are attributes of social interaction within a group or GROUP PHENOMENA.

I. INDIVIDUAL PHENOMENA

A. Stars. When several children "positively" nominate the same person the many arrows all lead to that person thus emphasizing their "starness". They are the center or "hub of attraction." We call them "stars." Judy and Justin are the stars in Figure 14. In the case of a "negative nomination," we might want to note the individual with several arrows as a "negative Star".

B. Isolates. Children who have not been "positively" nominated by anyone in the group are usually defined as "isolates". Note that they have already been somewhat defined in the discussion of the Target Technique in STEP 4 (Neglected Children). Placing them on the fringes or outer edges of the sociogram visually emphasizes there "isolation" within the context of the classroom group. One could discern their status from the Bar Graph of STEP 3 or the Target Technique of STEP 4 with no need to see a sociogram, however, we would not know who their positive nor their negative nominations are unless we made a sociogram. This is useful information if any intervention is going to be attempted. This term, ISOLATE, is usually not used to describe children who receive no "negative" nominations. Children who receive no positive or negative nominations are called "Ghosts." Of course, if you do not solicit negative nomination information you will not no the difference between a "Ghost" and an "Isolate."

C. GHOSTS. As described above in "B" a Ghost is a person who is not even acknowledged as being in the classroom. Noone positively nominates them and they receive no negative nominations. However, they do make nominations. In effect, they might as well not even be in the classroom.

2. GROUP PHENOMENA

D. MUTUAL CHOICES. These consist of pairs of children who chose each other. In FIGURE 11 we can see that Mike chooses Jim and Sam chose Victor. If one is not interested in distinguishing between 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices, there may be many mutual choices in a sociogram. The more there are the more congenial the group is and thus there may be a greater positive social climate to the classroom. Obviously, mutual negative choices are dangerous situations to be avoided, corrected by intervention, or at least used as useful knowledge when grouping children with each other.

E. CHAINS. A chain is when one person nominates another who in turn nominates another child, etc. Examples from FIGURE 14 would be Garry - June - Doris - Judy - Nelda. This term is usually reserved for describing the 1st level nominations only. Chains have a tendency to lead toward a "Star".

F. ISLANDS. When pairs (mutual choices) or small groups are separated from the larger patterns, and members of this group are not nominated by anyone in other patterns, we describe them as "Islands." Examples in FIGURE 14 would be Victor - Sam - Millard, and Mike - Jim - Harry. Once again, this term is usually reserved for describing 1st level nominations.

G. TRIANGLES and CIRCLES. When a chain comes back on itself by having the last person nominate the first, we call it a TRIANGLE if it involves only three people. If there are more than three people we call it a CIRCLE. An example of a Triangle in FIGURE 14 would be Norris - Justin - Sol - Norris.

Note the two groupings which seem to have the same construction in FIGURE 14, each with a mutual choice and someone who is just hanging on: Harry - Jim - Mike and Millard - Sam - Victor. Turn now to FIGURE 16 or 17 and note the difference between the two groups. The Millard-Sam-Victor group maintains its individuality, remaining an ISLAND, while the Harry-Jim-Mike group is much more integrated with the group as a whole and is definitely no longer an ISLAND as indicated by the many nominations received by Jim from children outside the original ISLAND configuration. Victor is the only child in the other island who receives an outside nomination. The Millard-Sam-Victor combination proves to be a definite sub-group, while in the Harry-Jim-Mike combination, we see that Mike and Jim are mutual friends and Harry is an ISOLATE, not accepted even by those whom he nominates. Looking at Harry's position in FIGURE 17, we can observe that he seems to be attempting to find acceptance in widely separated groups. This is not unusual behavior for an ISOLATE who is desperately reaching out. Mike would also be designated an ISOLATE if it were not for his being chosen by Jim. Jim is definitely a STAR. Note that Jim is also accepted by Justin's friends, Sol and Norris, but not by Justin, even though Jim chose Justin. Actually Jim is the only outsider chosen by the Millard-Sam-Victor ISLAND, all of whom chose him after themselves. As is indicated by the lines leading toward his name, Justin is the person of status in this group, accepted by influential individuals, but not necessarily accepting them. Jim may very well be exerting more functional leadership with more people than Justin.

Looking at the Girl's side of FIGURE 14 note that Laura would seem to be an ISOLATE, but in FIGURE 16 and 17 she shows up as a star or co-leader in the group. Also, contrary to Jim among the boys, she is accepted by the status leaders (those who are chosen by influential individuals but do not return the compliment). We also have here an example of an ISLAND pair, Donna - Diane. As can be seen in FIGURE 16 or 17, both Donna and Diane make identical second and third choices (Laura and Judy). This pattern of similar choices is not unusual in such situations. There are also two isolates among this group of girls, Gary and Prudence. Jerri would be an ISOLATE if it were not that Dael had chosen her. At this age, non-acceptance by the group and choice of girls by boys is often an indication of immaturity. This is less likely to be true of Nelda, who also choose a boy, as she has a high degree of acceptance among the girls, who at this age may prize maturity, particularly physical maturity. Moreover, since Norris has chosen her in return, it may be that these two are more mature as 6th graders than their fellow students.

These example may serve to indicate the type of analyses possible when a sociogram has been plotted. Such analyses lead to further observation and study.

COEFFICIENT OF CLASSROOM COHESION

Vacha et al (1979) have described group cohesion as:

"...the attraction structure of the classroom and involves not only individual friendships but also the attractiveness of the whole group for individual students. In cohesive classrooms, students value their classmates, are involved with and care about one another, try to help one another, and are proud of their membership in the group. Student cohesiveness can either support or undermine educational goals depending on the impact of other group processes in the classroom. For example, if students share counter educational norms that limit student participation or undermine academic achievement, their cohesiveness can work against the academic goals of the schools by making those norms extremely difficult to change. If a classroom group develops norms that support academic achievement, high cohesiveness can enhance education by providing a strong 'we feeling' which promotes conformity to student norms." (p. 221

Vacha et al (1979) suggest three patterns of classroom social relations which they believe are typical threats to classroom cohesion. They include:

1. DIVISIVE COMPETITION AMONG INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS. Some classrooms are so divided by extreme competition among students that they are not groups at all. Rather, they are merely collections of individuals, each of whom competes against every other member for grades, the attention, praise, and approval of the teacher. Most interaction in the classroom is essentially dyadic - between only two people at a time. Student performance is often seriously undermined by individual competition. Children rarely help one another and as a result are often alienated from each other. Their self esteem and confidence may suffer resulting in their not working up to their actual potential.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENT "IN-GROUPS." When a classroom has one highly cohesive "in-group" that may consist of a majority, the minority is often excluded or ignored. The "Social Identity Categorization" process (Tajfel, 1982) may begin to operate in this situation. The very high cohesiveness of the "in-group" often hinders efforts to encourage inclusion of "out-group" members. This often results in reciprocal feelings of hostility vis-a-vie the in-/out-groups. Much energy is wasted by both groups in defending/attacking the opposition, energy which could be collaboratively directed towards academic classroom goals. The establishment of what Sherif (1966) has called "Superordinate goal structures" for the classroom can do much in reducing the tensions between in- and out-groups. For further information on Cooperative goal structures one might visit the International Association for the Study of Cooperative Learning (IASCE) web site, especially their links to "cooperative learning RESOURCES!

3. SOCIAL CLEAVAGES IN THE CLASSROOM. Another type of in-out-group structure that often occurs is not necessarily a majority/minority problem. Both groups have equal status but reciprocally are hostile and reject each other. An example would be the same-sex preferences for friendship which often occur in upper elementary school classrooms: eg, the 4th, 5th and 6th grades. Many "ungraded" classroom curriculums utilize heterogeneously (mixed) age groups. Sherman (1984) has presented evidence that social cleavages can exist between children of differing ages. Besides sex and age, ethnicity, athletic interests, rival gangs, fraternity/sorority competition and many other attributes may cause social cleavages to occur in the classroom.

Upon sociometrically surveying a classroom through the use of the "positive" and "negative" nomination techniques, one should analyze the evidence for any serious social cleavages, in-/out-group rivalries and divisive individual competition which might threaten classroom cohesion. If these cliques are not present, then the "coefficient of cohesion" ("C") may be computed. This computation is an indicator of how strong the mutual ties are among the classroom members, and is based on the obtained number of mutual choices. Vacha et al (1979) suggest that "There is no objective criterion that can be used to determine whether or not a given coefficient of cohesion indicates the existence of a problem in any particular classroom." However, their experience in administering sociometric measures in many classrooms at the 4th through 6th grade levels provides a convenient rule of thumb. The coefficient of cohesion of 19 classes ranged from a high of 15.58 to a low of 3.83. Their median coefficient was 6.12, and the mean coefficient was 7.1. Based on their experience you may wish to consider a class as having a cohesion problem if it's coefficient of cohesion is below six or seven.

The coefficient of cohesion can be calculated directly from sociometric data used to diagnose "positive nomination" data. All of the data necessary are contained in the sociogram (primarily as in FIGURE 16). To calculate the coefficient of cohesion, simply count the number of mutual positive choices made by all of the students, the total number of positive choices made by all of the students, and the number of students who completed the survey. The coefficient of cohesion can then be calculated using these totals according to the following formula:

C = Mq/Up = (15.87)/(57.13) = 13.05/7.41 = 1.76

Where:

C = the coefficient of cohesion.

M = the total number of mutual positive choices made by the students (15 in our example).

U = the number of unreciprocated positive choices (the total number of positive choices minus the number of mutual choices (M). In our example 24 students each giving three nominations (24 x 3) U = 72 - 15 = 57.

p = d/(N-1) where d is the number of positive choices allowed (in our example 3) and N is the number of students completing the survey. Thus, for a class of 24 completing a three-choice positive nomination sociometric survey, such as in our example: p = 3/(24-1) = .13

q = 1 - p = 1-.13 = .87

GO TO VARIATIONS

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

This WWW site has been constructed by Lawrence W. Sherman. I wish to acknowledge the support of the Center for Human Development, Learning and Teaching AND the Department of Educational Psychology. Please send any comments and suggestions about this home page to Lawrence W. Sherman.