Amplifying and Attenuating Inequity in Collaborative Learning: Toward an Analytical Framework

Abstract

Research on collaborative learning has focused on its potential to foster successful problem solving. Less attention, though, has been given to issues of equity. In this article, we investigate how inequity can become amplified and attenuated within collaborative learning through small interactional moves that accumulate to produce broader patterns of equity or inequity. Our theoretical perspective utilizes Boaler’s notion of relational equity and introduces what we term participatory equity. Research was conducted in a computer science course co-taught by the authors and taken by upper-elementary students. Data sources include audio recordings of students’ collaborative interactions, ethnographic field notes, student work, and student surveys. This article focuses on a single student, Jason, and his dyadic interactions, and builds upon our previous analyses of his interactions with four higher-performing partners. Findings reveal how the interplay between classroom structures and student enactments shaped two types of inequity during collaborative learning. We conclude by discussing implications for theorizing and analyzing equity and inequity, as well as pedagogical considerations for structuring collaborative learning to attenuate inequity.

Acknowledgment

We thank our research and teaching assistants on this project: Roxane Caires, Nasar Khan, Amirah Qureshi, Danielle Ehsanipour, and Noopur Gupta. We are also grateful to our student participants, especially for their humor and creativity.

Notes

1 As we explain, we view classrooms as spaces where students enter into networks of power relations with their classmates, the teacher, and the subject matter itself (Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004; Esmonde & Langer-Osuna, 2013; Shah & Leonardo, 2016; Walshaw, 2013). As such, we expect inequities to emerge within collaboration, which puts inequity at the center of our research. Thus, the forthcoming analysis is framed in terms of the amplification and attenuation of inequity, rather than equity.

2 Of course, this might not happen immediately in collaborative interaction. In a study of upper-elementary students working in dyads to learn computer programming, Fields and Enyedy (2013) found that students initially resisted and marginalized peers with greater content knowledge. These peers only gradually came to be positioned as authorities over time.

3 In our previous research (Lewis & Shah, 2015; Shah et al., 2014) we expected equitable collaborations to exist where students’ behavior and learning opportunities in each of the two pair-programming roles were not equal. However, in an equitable collaboration, students would spend equal time in each role and have equal opportunities within each role. Within a related project, we documented Black students receiving a larger share of the opportunities to contribute to classroom discussion, which we characterized as an equitable inequality (Reinholz & Shah, 2018).

4 We defined command-and-clarify as a discursive sequence where one student issues commands to their partner, who is relegated to the marginal role of only asking clarifying questions and before executing those commands.

5 “Cleaning” is a specific command in Scratch that clears the entire stage.

6 The first Scratch block in this script (“when green flag clicked”) initiates the power-up program. At first, the power-up sprite is programmed to not appear on the screen (the purple “hide” block). Next, after waiting for a random amount of time (between 15 and 60 s), the power-up appears (the purple “show” block). The next set of blocks continually (“forever”) checks if one of the sprites (e.g., the cat) has touched the power-up, in which case that sprite would add 1 point to its game score and the power-up would disappear (the second purple “hide” block).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Grant No. DUE 1044106. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.