SOCIOGRAMS
A sociogram is a teacher-made device that is used to provide additional information regarding a student and how s/he interacts with peers. It is a valuable tool for determining how a student is viewed by his/her classmates. Students respond to a teacher-provided direction such as "List the two classmates with whom you would most like to sit", "Write the name of the person with whom you would enjoy working on a project.", "If you were going on a vacation, which of your classmates would be nice to have along, and why?"
You might also assess interaction and social perceptions using negatively worded statements or questions such as "Who would you not want to play with during recess?"(Although this variation has been shown to have no long term effects in preschoolers, it would probably result in hurt feelings for older kids. Besides, why not do a positive version?)
The results are then tabulated to determine how many times each student was chosen and by whom. This information is graphically plotted to identify social isolates, popular students, disliked youngsters, and changes in interaction patterns over time. The sociogram can be useful in a number of ways: Allowing a student to work with a chosen peer may be a motivational tool. Social isolates (those not selected by others) could be placed in interaction situations with accepting peers or could be made the center of attention in positions such as charades leader or team captain. Those who are negative perceived by others could be provided training in social skills. By developing good rapport with class leaders, you could be more influential in convincing them (and by extension, their followers) to comply with directions. Additionally, interaction and friendship changes, and a student's progress in becoming more acceptable to others can be monitored via frequent administration of the sociogram technique. Caution and professionalism are vital when using this technique. We do not want to harm any youngster's self esteem.
The question might arise: "Why bother doing this type of evaluation?" Yes, perceptive teachers will already know most of the interaction patterns and preferences of their students. However, some useful information might be gained. This procedure can also provide documentation (though somewhat "fuzzy") that can be useful in program planning, setting of IEP goals, etc.
How to Use Sociograms:
1. Devise a question. State it in simple, easy-to-understand language. Word your question to be consistent with the information you desire to obtain (e.g., who to assign as field trip partners; who is unpopular and in need of social skills instruction).
2.Have students write their answers to your question or statement. Allow and encourage your students to make their choices privately. Clearly explain any limitations on choices (e.g., number of choices, classmates only).
3.On a listing of the names of your students, write next to each student's name the number of times s/he was selected by another (tally the responses).
4.Make a large diagram of concentric rings so that it looks like an archery target. Have one more ring than the greatest number of times any student was chosen. Start outside the last ring and number the spaces from the outside toward the inside starting with "zero".
5.Write each student's name inside the ring space corresponding to the number of times s/he was chosen.
6.Draw arrows from each student to the student selected by them.
7. Survey the diagram to assess popularity and interaction preferences. This information should remain confidential.
Activities and Discussion Questions:
1.Find two containers. Choose any 10 names and write each name on two separate pieces of paper. Place one set of names in each container. Container #1 represents the person making the choice. Container #2 represents the person chosen. Select a name from Container #1. Then pick a name from Container #2. Tally the responses and return the second name to Container #2. Do not return the first name to Container #1 (throw it in the trash or set it aside). Repeat until Container #1 is empty. Make a target sociogram with arrows indicating choices.
2.Complete a mock sociogram using friends, classmates, or other adults (Be careful of hurting the feelings of those who are not selected by others...this "game" may not be suitable for most groups of friends). Provide the directions for them, tally the number of times each person was selected and make a target sociogram with arrows indicating choices. Discuss the implications of the results.
Recommended Reading
A. F. Newcomb, W.M. Bukowski, & L. Pattee (1993). Chidren's peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular, rejeted, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, volume 113 (issue 1), 99-128. Provides an overview of the findings of many studies using sociograms.
SOCIOGRAM
Draw a sociogram that depicts your social environment. Include significant persons and their relationships to you. Place yourself in the center of the paper and draw others as close or far away as they are "psychologically" to you. Include symbols that depict your relationships. Barriers between you and others may be included by use of "blocks" and dynamics of moving away or closer to may be drawn with "arrows". Be nonverbally creative in expressing your emotional relationships to other significant persons in your life through your drawing that depicts the feelings and relationships in your social world.
· Imagine yourself in real life in the center of your sociogram looking around at your psychosocial world.
· How do you feel about your relationships? (1 - 10 scale)
Warm, surrounded by love 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cold, distant, lack of love
Harmony, support 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dissention, ill-will
Meaningful deep relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lack of deep meaning, superficial
Relatedness, belongingness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alienation, lack of security
Appreciated, valued 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unappreciated
Happy, positive feelings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sad, negative feelings
Secure, trusting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Insecure, Lack of trust
Social psychologists believe our social relationships give us significant feedback upon which we build our image of ourself and our self-concept. Who have been the "significant others" in your life that have strongly influenced your positive and/or negative image of yourself. How are they "nourishing" or "toxic" to your development of a secure, positive image of yourself and others. What "reflections" do they give you in your "social mirror" that affects how you see yourself?
1. What "significant others" have loved you the most and given you the most positive
feedback? How have their positive support and messages helped you develop a positive self-concept and nurturing feelings toward others? Has anyone been critical and given negative messages to you as you developed your sense of yourself in your social world? How has this impacted your image of yourself?
2. Do you have any feelings of inferiority from your psychosocial world? Where do they come from? Who says what that makes you ill at ease?
3. Do you have any feelings of insecurity from your psychodramatic world? Where do your insecurities stem from? What would make you more secure in your social world?
4. Are your needs for status and prestige met? Do you feel important to others? How?
5. Are you dependent, independent or interdependent in your different relationships? Are there any "control" or "power" issues with significant others?
6. Do you have any anxieties or fears about any relationship in your present sociogram? What is the root of the problem? What would you like to change? How might you work on changing the dynamics of the hurtful or "toxic" relationship?
7. Is there any "unfinished business" in your sociogram that is creating tension in your present? Are you "carrying around" any feelings of anxiety or lack of confidence based on past relationships? What steps could you take to free yourself and have a more spontaneous present?
8. From whom do you get your significant "strokes" (responses from people)? What kind of strokes do you receive in general (positive, negative, accepting, rejecting etc)? What strokes do you seek out from others? What happens emotionally when you don't get what you want? (fear, anxiety, anger, etc.)
9. What would you like to change about your stage of life, the players on it or the script of your psychodrama? Are there situations or people that prevent your change or make change difficult? What can you do as director of your psychodrama to create the life and social relationships you desire?
Homework: Write and reflect on the significant others in your life and the "psychodrama" that is your sociogram!
1) Write at least a two-page essay that shows self-awareness of your social world including self-assessments of the nine key questions on your sociogram handout. Discuss the "significant others" in your life and the "psychodrama" that is your sociogram.
2) Assess areas of strength as well as areas such as "unfinished business", feelings of inferiority or insecurity or unmet needs. How would you like to change your "social world"? Be specific and include self-development plans that would help you create a more fulfilling, supportive and/or joyful social world.
Interaction and Group Making in On-line Learning Communities
Marshal B Anderson, M.Ed. Workshop 2 Co-operative Project, Spring 1999
Results - Sociometric Data
Sociometric diagrams were generated from the data giving the following results. The charts are of the positive (score 2 and 3) choices made by group members.
Sociogram of Real World Group - Positive Choices
The pattern produced by the real world group's choices shows that a very complex system of working preferences has developed. There are several direct pairings (20-16, 5-8, 25-7, 10-24, 2-18, 3-4, 8-9, 15-6) which would suggest these students would feel very comfortable working together. The pattern identifies two distinct 'stars' (5 and 15) and three more possible stars, (8, 21 and 20) who, with the exception of 8, seem to be creating central points for the formation of three possible groups identified in three colours on this diagram. It should be noted that the above diagram is based on raw (un-weighted) choices; Appendix 2 contains information about weighting which shows that the identification of 'stars' is actually more problematic. Having said that, there are no 'cleavages' (clean breaks between groups) in the diagram which might suggest to us that the group mix well with each other. There are in fact only four 'isolates' (students chosen by no other student) in the group (17, 13, 14 and 22) and we might view this group as particularly well mixed.
Sociogram of On-Line Group - Positive Choices
The sociogram of the on-line group shows quite a different picture. Only 12 of the group members are actually shown in this diagram because the rest were isolates. Looking at this diagram we can identify two possible groupings amongst the members displayed (identified using colour) but these would seem to be of little value as they can not take account of the remaining 18 members. The additional arrows represent the number of positive choices relating to each displayed member. This shows a number of 'stars' emerging (28, 30, 7, 21, 11) round which groups could undoubtedly form, but there is nothing like the spread of interest we saw in the real world group.
Why might this be? One possible explanation might be that the real world group are much more likely to know each other in a more general sense and to have set up social as well as working relationships. We might certainly expect them to have a both deeper and wider knowledge of each other and to use many more factors in constructing their relationships that the on-line group is able to.
Conferencing System Data
Arrangements were made to access the conference server to examine any relationship between grouping choices and activity in the conference. Two figures were available for each group member, total number of contributions and total number of words. These data were taken early on in the study, shortly after group-making decisions were taken, but they were taken from the main conference, not from the sub conferences generated by the sub groups – i.e. they are an expression of contributions up until the point of the group deciding and splitting.
These figures generated a third figure which was the average length of each contribution. The reasoning behind this was to give some indication as to the basic nature of contributions before attempting to draw any conclusions from them. First we look at the basic distribution of each set of figures to see a normal distribution.
This first graph shows the number of contributions to the conference and seems to demonstrate a normal distribution - i.e. some students contributed many messages, some just a few, but most were in the central range.
In this second graph we look at the number of words contributed in total. Here the distribution is still largely normal, though it is skewed towards the lower end of the scale. The graph actually hides one maverick value that should be noted; student 26 submitted a total 154112 words - 50% above the next value down. This is a huge input over the time period. On investigating this it was discovered that student 26 was in the habit of contributing large amounts of text in the form of articles they thought were of interest to the group, therefore this entry is invalid and that should be noted in the following discussion.