From: Jesse Thyne
Email: jpt@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psych 100K: Development of Thought and Language
College: University Of California Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene MAtusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100K
ChildrenObservations: Yes
Date: 21 Mar 1997
Time: 14:10:53
Remote Name: octal-lab-mac03.ucsc.edu
In this paper, I look at a “problem child” and trace the roots of stereotypes and assumptions made of him, by a group of undergraduate students who were involved as mentors in an after school program. The data for this observation comes from fieldnotes and written discussion messages, posted by the undergraduates on a private class web page. I consider the possibility that comments made of the child early in the quarter influenced the other student’s opinions and reactions to him. This research is useful to anybody who works with “problem children”.
Methods:
For ten weeks, 19 undergraduate psychology students (of which I was one) at UC Santa Cruz and approximately 30 kids (grades 2-6, mostly lower income, some of Mexican descent, some Caucasian, and some ESL.), enrolled by their own choosing in an local afternoon project called Tele Araña Mágica, in Downtown Santa Cruz. The goal of the project was to teach kids, computer skills (PC computers using Windows software and various CDs) through informal interaction with different basic programs (word processing, paintshops, etc.) and games, both specifically educational in purpose, and games intended for just having fun. The University students were placed in the program as mostly computer illiterate, and untrained mentors and roll models. The students informally guided, played with, and watched the kids (sometimes one on one, and sometimes in groups) 2 hours a day, two times a week, for ten weeks, and wrote field notes and held discussions about their experiences. Many kids did not show up each week for various reasons, so the usual number of kids each day was between 5 and 15, which made flexibility in the students a necessity.
The method for field note writing was to take a situation where some type of cognitive learning or language development took place, and describe the event that happened, some reflections on the event, and some further inquiries. All the notes, and discussions and responses were posted on the classes’ private World Wide Web page “http://www.ematusov.com/psych100K” Persons not in the class can access the demo version, just add “.demo”at the end of the URL address). All students were privy to all postings, and most of them read the majority of the postings. For this paper, I cited off the page from both my own entries, and those of my fellow students.
To protect the people involved it this study, I have changed the names of both the students, and the kids.
Results:
Although there were many kids enrolled in the program, one seemed to be the most infamous. David, a nine year old male, had a strong reputation of being “difficult”. On the second to last day of the quarter, my class was involved in a discussion about an aggressive act committed by a student in the program (he was playing a game and began yelling “kill purple, kill purple” at the purple monsters). One student made the assumption that David had committed the act just by the nature of the act. Other students began to talk about how aggressive and rude David is, also assuming that he must have committed the aggressive act. It took a full minute before anyone mentioned that it was not David who had committed the act. Even when the class was set straight, we still talked/vented about our experiences with David.
One student said that he was bothered by David one day and said to him something like, “You won’t have many friends if you act this way”, and then left in anger. (JA, class seminar, 3/10/97). Another student told a story about David calling him names and really bothering him (CV, class seminar, 3/10/97). One student defended David saying that he really needed attention, and we should try to channel his energy. (AG, class seminar, 3/10/97). It appeared to me that the class as a whole seemed to understand that this kid was difficult to get along with, and that he needed attention.
I decided to write a survey and post it on the classes’ web page to see just what the students thought of this child. I also had a suspicion that the ideas and feelings students had about David were formed on very little personal contact with him, and in fact were based on rumors, and exposure to other student’s fieldnotes about him. The survey looked like this,
“Just a quick survey. You can e-mail your response to me, jpt@cats, or just respond here. Any length of response to the questions will be fine
Please be as honest as possible.
1. How would describe David?
2. How much do you like him? not at all? a little? some? a lot? no feelings?
3. How much time have you spent with him personally? none? a little? some? a lot?
4. Any additional comments about him...
I only received 8 out of the other 18 student’s responses. Although I recognize that 8 people cannot speak for the whole class, I did see some interesting trends. The responses showed mixed feelings towards liking David. Some of the students liked him a lot, some liked him a little, one person had no feelings, and nobody didn’t like him at all. The responses showed mixed amounts of time spent with him, some a lot, and some a little.
The one thing that the student’s responses were unified on was that David is difficult to handle. Students said that he was aggressive, hyper, demanding, in need of attention, a name caller, etc. The students also had some positive things to say about David, that he was intelligent, good hearted, funny, outgoing, sweet, and he added life to the program. The paradox that he was so good and yet so bad, seemed to add to the difficulty that people had with David. A majority of the students who responded, said in one way or another, that they felt that David was in need of attention, and that there must be some good reason.
I was surprised by how students that had spent little time with David had the same impression as those who had spent much time with him. I also noticed that how much a person liked David did not affect the impression of him. I decided to look back on the quarter and try to trace the event that may have led to a group consensus that David was in need of attention, and that he was difficult to get along with, despite his good qualities.
It appears that David’s reputation started from day one. In the first month of fieldnotes, students said of David, “David is a hyper kid, very high energy.” (MB, unknown date), and “At this point, he started using words like ‘shit, and goddammit’. He also flipped the computer off at one point... he was not interested” (GB, 1/16/97), and “He is somewhat energetic, aggressive, and loud. He would push hard on the keyboard, say ‘Damm it’, and be talking loud enough...it is pretty challenging working with him” (JA, 1/21/97). These quotes show that the students noticed right off that David was aggressive, prone to swearing, and very energetic, but, the same students who noticed David’s bad qualities also said, “He actually is a really intelligent kid...he has the kind of intelligence that usually comes with age.” (MG, unknown age), “Some things I noticed about his method of playing the game were quite smart” (GB, 1/16/97), and “He is a nice kid...he showed concern...I took a liking to him...I had a lot of fun.” (JA, 1/21/97). The same fieldnotes that said David as difficult, also described him as smart, fun, and easy to like. Generally, the notes were positive or neutral towards David.
After experiencing a child with such inconsistent qualities, the students began attempting explanations of David’s poor behavior. One student said, “The style of learning that he goes through everyday at school is not [conducive] to him, so he is labeled the ‘trouble maker’ or the ‘wild child’.” (MB, unknown date). This student thought that David had been labeled as a “trouble maker”, but was really a good kid in a bad environment for him.
Another student had a different idea about David’s behavior, after having a difficult time getting David to listen to his explanation of a game he said, “Maybe David had a different purpose in mind with the game... Maybe he could not convey his message to me that I was playing the game wrong.” (JT, 1/10/97) This student felt that the difficulties with David perhaps stemmed from miscommunication.
A third explanation for David’s behavior came from another student, “I think that maybe [David] was looking for attention” (JA, 1/21/97) This student felt that the negative and often shocking things David did were because he needed more attention from the undergraduates.
By the next month, it seemed that in class and on the web, many of students had talked or read about David and his supposed hyper- activity. A student who had a good experience with David wrote,
“David can be a very difficult child to work with, but I enjoy talking to him and realize that he is a bright child that needs lots of stimulation and to be kept busy. I have read other discussions about him and hope that we don’t make a self-fulfilling prophecy with him as the difficult child” (GB, 2/11/97).
Although David had been described as a smart and fun child, the students only mentioned his bad qualities when talking about him. I realized in class that David had become sort of a class inside joke. Whenever the idea of a difficult kid came up in class, David was the name mentioned. He had been labeled as the problem child, and even the students who had very little contact with him knew that he was difficult.
Soon after this fieldnote, a student wrote a message on the web titled “How to deal with David?” The message read as follows:
"I've noticed that many of us have had a problem with David’s' attitude in behavior. This is an issue that has come up a lot in our debriefing sessions at Tele Araña Mágica. I would like to hear other people's input and or advice on how they deal with David and/or how they have dealt with children similar to David. Were the methods that you used effective? Why? What might have made them ineffective. This whole issue is beginning to trouble me because so many of us are forming very negative opinions of David and I think that this can be remedied if we learn how to deal with David in a more effective manner." (TV 2/15/97).
This message was well read, and discussed in class. Even though the message had intended to lesson the stereotypes formed about David and lesson the negative feelings, to a fair degree, it did quite the opposite.
The responses to the message of how to deal with David were, I think, not intended to harm him, but they did. One student said,
“Children may be ‘acting out behavior’. For example, a kid who is loud, and calls attention to himself, may want to get exactly that, since he does not get attention from his parents at home.” (JA 2/15/97).
This student was trying to be fair to David, by explaining that his behavior is not his fault, but the student did not deny that the behavior existed, and he also added to the growing stereotype in the class that David needs attention, and that is why he “acts out”.
Another student who responded to the message said,
“To be perfectly honest, I don’t feel that I am qualified to ‘deal’ with David. He really frustrates me... I know my limitations” (LB, 2/15/97).
This student did not mean David any harm, since she was just being honest. Nonetheless, the sentiment that David was a trouble child was clear.
Even the good responses about David were obliquely negative. One student said,
“I have no problem with David... I really like the boy... I try to give him just enough [attention] that he will not need to continue being obnoxious.” (JT 2/18/97).
This student tried to show that David was not all bad, but even he said it in a way that could have led other undergraduates to avoid him and his “obnoxious” behavior.
After this message, and later in the month, the fieldnotes and descriptions of David became increasingly negative. Examples of what students said were, “David’s competitive nature doesn’t allow him to gallantly accept defeat.” (MZ, 2/21/97), and “I told [David] that I was going to play on another computer, while he tried to find the game. He said ‘good I’m happy for you.’” (TV, 2/19/97). Another student added, “David told me that [the site coordinator] didn’t know anything...in his charming way... He said it in a sarcastic tone of voice.” (LB, 2/20/97).
As the feelings and experiences with David became increasingly negative, the students began to perpetuate his reputation by responding to each other’s fieldnotes with further criticisms. One student said,
“He definitely needs personal attention. Almost every day I go to [the center], he is there and steals something from my backpack.” (VB, 2/21/97).
Another student wrote,
“He does require a lot of attention and is very demanding. In fact, he ripped off my name tag and threw it away.” (SS, 2/21/97).
A third student wrote,
“I’ve worked with David before, and I have seen him use much more profane language than damn.” (JT, 2/2/97).
These student were simply responding empathetically to negative fieldnotes, but they added negative feedback about David, and consequently, perpetuated the stereotype. A fourth student responded to a positive fieldnote with,
“Congratulations on having such a positive experience working with David. I personally haven’t had too much interaction with him, but from fieldnotes I have read and de-briefings, I pick up that he is somewhat difficult and often very controlling.” (AW, 2/19/97).
The positive experience that was described in the fieldnote was still not enough at this point to change this student’s perception of David, even though she had not had much experience with him. I don’t think that any of the students meant any harm to David, but they helped to make his reputation worse.
From working at the site myself, and reading the messages posted by other students in the class, I think that over the quarter, David’s reputation as the “problem child” became so well known, that it was set in stone and very difficult to alter. By overemphasizing David’s bad qualities, the students made a self-fulfilling prophecy as foreseen by some of the students at the beginning. The fieldnotes and responses to them at the end of the quarter rarely mentioned the good side that had been seen at the beginning, even though my survey showed that the students knew about David’s good qualities. The bad side had overcome, and ultimately caused even those who had limited experience with David to think of him as difficult, and in need of more attention than they could give.
Discussion:
I think that it is important to note a few things about my observations of the evolution of David’s reputation. I have had a lot of personal experience with him, and I perceive him as aggressive and hyper. The situation at the Tele Araña Mágica program was far from controlled. I feel that I have been altered by the strong negative messages put out by both the students and myself, but it is wholly possible that David would have been perceived as the problem child by most of the students even if they had not read each other’s feedback about him.