The twin of maximum peer interaction (quantity) is maximum peer interaction (quality).

The following story illustrates what a group might look like when maximum peer interaction (quality) has been neglected.

Groups of students have the task to answer a set of questions that the class generated after reading and discussing a short text. At the pair step, students pass each other their written answers, but little discussion takes place, and students only write “very good” next to their partners’ answers. In the switch step, students read aloud their first partner’s answer to their new partner.

Much of the magic of CL takes place when students discuss with each other. A potential advantage of group activities lies in students’ receiving individual attention from peers, much more individual attention than one teacher could possibly provide. In the scenario described here, though, peer interactions take place but have little quality. Quality interactions include features such as group members’ seeking and providing help, pushing each other to think more deeply (such as by asking for reasons and examples), disagreeing with each other in a collegial manner, and evaluating each other’s work to improve it. Thus, with CL, teachers do more than look around the room and ask, “How many peer interactions are taking place?” With CL, teachers also ask, “Are these quality peer interactions?”

Reflective Break

How can students disagree politely (in a collegial manner) with a groupmate?

Sample Response

a.      Students should not say a groupmate is wrong; they should say an idea is wrong.

b.     Students can first check if they understood what the groupmate was trying to say.

c.      They can use phrases such as “I’m not sure if I completely agree” and “Another way to look at the situation is ______ .”

d.     Students can thank each other for stating their opinions, such as “Thanks for sharing you opinion. My opinion is . . .” and “I value your opinion, however I saw it differently.”