N IS FOR NORMS

I. What Norms Are

Norms are rules of social interaction that guide conduct within a culture or setting. They are culture-specific and can vary by intellectual tradition. Norms regulate what people do in learning and interaction, and violat­ing norms invites social sanctions. Goffman argued that people are compelled to “fit in” across situations because society needs predictable interaction. Distinguishing values from norms helps: values are beliefs about what is important, while norms are prescriptions of conduct. For example, in Stanford’s teacher-preparation program, large words like Safe Place, Equity, and Person refer to values; the norms listed under those values specify appropriate conduct (e.g., for Safe Place, “Challenge the idea, not the person”). Norms differ across classrooms and topics, and teaching often involves helping novices adopt norms appropriate to a given domain. A math class example: a teacher substitutes a social norm of discussion (Donna should name herself and articulate reasoning) for a student’s prior norm of authority-driven response, aligning with intellectual autonomy in mathematics.

II. How Norms Work

Regularity is essential to human tolerance of the social world. Social rules create regularity, much as physical laws do in the natural world. Norms can be violated, but they are reinforced by incentives for compliance and sanctions for noncompliance; when codified, norms become laws. Most norms are not laws, yet they still carry consequences (e.g., a glare for riding a bike on a busy sidewalk). Norms can shape learning and even reflect social inequality: Anyon argued that working-class classroom norms emphasize obedience, efficiency, and silence, which can transfer to adult work life; elite schools emphasize synthesis, communication, and autonomous thinking. Norms can be invisible until breached, prompting repair. The “broken windows” theory shows that visible deviance can undermine perceived norms and reduce compliance. A practical takeaway: to introduce learning norms, ensure that everyone follows them, including leaders.

II.A. Implementing Norms to Enhance Learning

Culture is woven from norms; education should introduce norms for successful learning. Norms are learned through participation: observe others, imitate conduct, receive rewards/punishments, and analogize across situations. Misperceptions about norms (e.g., alcohol use on campus) can undermine belonging; explicit steps to reveal and align norms help. When introducing a new norm, use motivation and modeling: explain the reasoning behind a policy and show upper-management exemplars adopting it (e.g., extended paternity leave). For newcomers, focus on relationship-building and socialization to learn “how things work here.” In classrooms, make norms visible (posters, explicit expectations) and maintain consistency until norms take hold. An example from Armadillo Technical Institute shows students cleaning the school; norms emerge when students police each other’s behavior.

II.B. Discourse Norms and Classroom Talk

Discourse norms are crucial in classrooms. The initiate–response–evaluate (IRE) pattern gives the teacher control over the conversation. Alternatives emphasize student-initiated questions and peer evaluation, fostering intellectual autonomy and producing “producers” of knowledge. A simple revision is IRE-F (follow-up), where students reflect on initial responses and pose their own questions. Open conversation norms depend on deliberate establishment and enforcement early on.

II.C. Identifying and Building Norms

Norms of acceptable conduct (e.g., no insults) exist, but often go unseen until breached. Early establishment of classroom norms (rules created by teacher and students) increases buy-in and belonging. Discipline-specific norms—productive disciplinary engagement—vary by field (e.g., defend conclusions with evidence in science; defend with deduction in logic). Disciplinary standards often surface in formal guidelines (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards), which list eight practices as norms of disciplinary behavior: 1.1. Asking questions and defining problems; 2.2. Developing and using models; 3.3. Planning and carrying out investigations; 4.4. Analyzing and interpreting data; 5.5. Using mathematics and computational thinking; 6.6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions; 7.7. Engaging in argument from evidence; 8.8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. These practices may differ from students’ prior experiences and may require adaptation.

III. Outcomes of Using Norms Successfully

When norms align, learning becomes smoother: shared goals and interaction methods reduce the need for constant rule enforcement. Psychologically, norms can become values (e.g., checking claims against evidence becomes a belief about epistemic standards), create belonging, and contribute to identity development by aligning individuals with a cultural or disciplinary stance. Conversely, adopting or resisting norms can shape one’s identity within or against a group.

IV. Can People Learn to Teach Themselves Norms?

Awareness is the first step: many people follow default norms without realizing it. When in a new environment, ask what the norms are, why people follow them, and whether you want to follow them. Seek mentors or training to learn subtle norms, including cross-cultural ones in international contexts.

V. Risks of Norms

Not all norms support learning. Norms can conflict across cultures, especially in diverse classrooms. Misinterpretation of norms can lead to inappropriate discipline and unequal outcomes. Culturally responsive approaches advocate culturally appropriate, culturally relevant, or culturally sustaining norms, and the use of “funds of knowledge” to bridge home and classroom discourse. For example, Native Hawaiian “talk story” discourse can differ from IRE; teachers can weave talk story into IRE to support literacy while respecting students’ traditions. Power dynamics also complicate norms; dominant cultures may impose norms on minority groups. A balanced approach integrates minority norms with dominant norms to support equitable access to academic criteria.

VI. Examples of Good and Bad Use

Good: In public speaking, having students introduce themselves in one sentence before a speech aligns class norms with real-world practice, helping prepare students for authentic audiences. Bad: Stating that critical thinking is valued while assessments reward memorization undermines norm adoption.

VII. References and Additional Readings

  • Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67-92.
  • Au, K. H. P. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91–115.
  • Bicchieri, C., & Chavez, A. (2010). Behaving as expected: Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(2), 161-178.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
  • Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann.
  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
  • Goffman, E. (1966). Behavior in public places. Free Press.
  • Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge University Press.
  • Korte, R. F. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization. HRD Quarterly, 20(3), 285-306.
  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
  • Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
  • National Research Council. (2012). Dimension 1: Scientific and engineering practices. In A framework for K-12 science education. (NGSS).
  • Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.