Workshop 1 - University of Auckland

January 14, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Social Science, Psychology, Social Psychology
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download Workshop 1 - University of Auckland...

Description

An intervention study



Introductions ◦ Teachers ◦ Researchers



Outline of the project ◦ Questions ◦ Understandings/expectations



 

 

9.45 – Research background:

◦ Rosenthal ◦ Teacher behaviours ◦ Student characteristics: Gender, social class, ethnicity

10.30 – Morning tea 11.00 – Characteristics:

◦ Student characteristics: ethnicity ◦ Teacher characteristics: Babad, Weinstein, Rubie-Davies

12.15 – Lunch 1.15 – Whole class expectations:

◦ The evidence ◦ View/analyse own videos ◦ Areas for development: grouping and learning experiences, motivation and evaluation, class climate and student responsibility for learning ◦ Identification of areas for growth



Rosenthal and Jacobson ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦

Rosenthal and rats Experimenter effects Expectations in classrooms Pygmalion in the classroom Conclusions Controversy

Socioemotional Environment

Formation of Class Expectations

Teacher Beliefs

Opportunities to Learn

Instructional Environment

Instructional Practices

Student Outcomes: Social/Academic

  

 

Formation of expectations Personality correlates of teachers Transmission of differential expectations Student perceptions Educational and social outcomes

Greater influences

    

Portfolio information Gender Ethnicity Social class Diagnostic labels

Lesser influences

 

  



Attractiveness Siblings Names Language style Personality and social skills Teacher/ student background

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Wait time less for lows Give lows the answer/ ask someone else Inappropriate reinforcement Criticising lows for failure Praise lows less for success Fail to provide feedback to public response of lows Pay less attention to/ interact less with lows Call on lows less frequently Seat lows farther from the teacher Demand less from lows

11.

12. 13.

14. 15.

16.

17.

Teachers interact more in private with lows; monitor and structure activities closely Differential grading of tests Less friendly interaction with lows Less informative feedback to lows Lows receive less eye contact and nonverbal communication Less intrusive instruction of highs Less use of effective instructional methods with lows

Good and Weinstein (1986) teachers provided less capable students with:

Brophy (1985) behaviours towards low expectancy students 



   

not helping enough to improve students’ answers praising incorrect answers or inappropriate behaviours demanding less of them shorter and less informative feedback less intrusive instruction less use of timeconsuming instructional methods

   



less opportunity to perform publicly less opportunity to think and analyse less choice on assignments/ tasks less autonomy and more frequent monitoring more gratuitous and less contingent feedback





Development of research into teacher differential behaviour Positives and negatives related to teacher differential behaviour



Climate



Feedback



Input



Output







Stronger effects for affective climate and instructional input A smaller effect for output A practically negligible effect for differential feedback behaviours

1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

What are the specific types of differential behaviours? What is the ideological legitimacy and educational desirability of each type of differential behaviour? Which group of students receives an advantage from each type of teacher differential behaviour? What is the teachers’ natural tendency and how would they wish to deal with particular students and different groups of students? To what extent are teachers able to control their specific verbal and non-verbal behaviours?



The components of the theory clash



Affective displays and actual feelings



Controlling affective displays: verbal and non-verbal



Do students perceive teacher differential behaviour?



Interpreting behaviours differently



Perceptions of teacher interactions





Is there agreement in relation to degrees of learning support? Is there agreement in relation to degrees of emotional support?



Effects on students



Classroom climate and morale



Fairness and equity



Social comparison process is powerful and prevalent in schools



Adams (1965) ◦ Balance between what we put in and what we get out ◦ Influenced by others



Sense of justice



Student characteristics ◦ Ethnicity



Teacher characteristics ◦ High bias and low bias teachers: Babad ◦ High differentiating and low differentiating teachers: Weinstein ◦ High expectation and low expectation teachers: Rubie-Davies

   

Gender Ethnicity Social class Diagnostic labels

    



Physical attractiveness Language style Personality and social skills Teacher/student background Names Other siblings

   

  

Primary school girls Secondary school boys – maths, science Ability/effort Teacher interactions PE Reading and language Social behaviour



 



Middle class students are expected to perform at higher levels than lower social class Low social class are vulnerable to teacher expectations Some evidence teachers’ assessments for lower class are accurate but over-rate middle class But what about NZ?





Expectations vary according to whether or not a child has a label, e.g. ADHD Stinnett (2001): 144 preservice teachers ◦ ADHD, no label; Ritalin, in Special Ed ◦ Description of child; vignette

Rubie-Davies



  

 

Physical attractiveness Language style Personality and social skills Teacher/student background Names Siblings

Rubie-Davies



   

African American/ White students Hispanic/ White students Vulnerability UK But what about NZ?

◦ St George (1983) academic ◦ Stoddart (1998) social skills ◦ Rubie-Davies, Hattie, Hamilton (2006)

Rubie-Davies





Rubie-Davies (2006) British Journal of Educational Psychology 21 teachers ◦ 540 students    

261 NZ European 88 Maori 91 PI 94 Asian

Rubie-Davies



Expectation survey ◦ 1-7 Likert scale

 

Teacher judgement of student achievement Running records

Rubie-Davies

Expectation and achievem ent by ethnicity

5

Expectation and achievment

4.5 4 3.5 3 Expectation

2.5

Achievement 1

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 NZ European

Maori

Pacific Island

Asian

Student ethnicity

Rubie-Davies

Teacher judgem ent and student achievem ent by ethnicity

Teacher judgement and student achievement

6

5

4 Judgement

3

Achievement 2

2

1

0 NZ European

Maori

Pacific Island

Asian

Ethnicity

Rubie-Davies

Effect Size Gain by Ethnicity in Reading 0.5 0.45

Student Effect Size Achievement Gain

0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

0.15

4

4.2

4.4

0.1

4.6

4.8

NZ European Maori

0.05

Pacific Island

0

Asian

Teacher Expectation

Rubie-Davies

  

Teacher expectations

◦ Ethnicity or social class?

Societal stereotypes Lowered expectations ◦ Effect on pedagogy

 Lesson pace  Structured environment  Ability



Self-fulfilling prophecy effect/ sustaining expectation effect

Rubie-Davies



Prejudice (bias) is a negative attitude



A stereotype is a generalisation, a belief



http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/

  

  

A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people Stereotypes are sometimes over-generalised, inaccurate and resistant to new information Stereotypes are shortcuts Stereotypes are biased Problems with the use of stereotypes Prejudice: A set of negative stereotypes loaded with aggression and strong emotions carrying the idea that ‘we’ are better than ‘them’



  

 

Often based on commonly held stereotypes What is teacher bias? Objectivity appears to be difficult Experimental vs naturalistic studies? Reversed bias Reducing bias



Babad (1998) Draw-a-Person Intelligence test ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦

One-sixth of teachers objective One half mildly biased One-quarter highly biased A small proportion reverse biased



In theory



In practice



Personality questionnaire



Classroom behaviour



Elisha Babad



Rhona Weinstein



Christine Rubie-Davies





Preferential affect is at the heart of the teacher expectation issue Identified high and low bias teachers



Video clips



Ten-second exposure



Babad’s studies in elementary and secondary schools and at university



Babad et al, 1989; 1991; Babad & Taylor, 1992 ◦ Adult judges of teacher non-verbal behaviour ◦ What young students perceived in teachers’ nonverbal behaviour ◦ Students from different grade levels ◦ In Israel and New Zealand ◦ Students made guesses about the student the teacher was talking to or about ◦ Results





Students live different lives in one classroom Student perceptions of differential treatment in the classroom

High achievers 





Favoured in teacher interactions Higher expectations More opportunity and more choice

Low achievers 



Receive more frequent negative feedback More teacher-directed treatment



 





Teacher is the defining agent of ability not themselves, peers or parents Public incidents Importance of nonverbal cues Children relate smartness to conforming behaviour and fast completion of work Effects on children’s feelings

   

 

Ways in which students are grouped for instruction Materials and activities through which the curriculum is taught Evaluation system that teachers use to assess learning Motivational system used to engage students Responsibility that students have in directing and evaluating learning Climate of relationships within the class, with parents and with the school

     

Ability grouping Highly differentiated curriculum Intelligence is fixed Learning for external reward Teacher as director Teacher as academic instructor

  

  

Variety of grouping Challenging learning experiences Intelligence is malleable Learning for personal growth Teacher as facilitator Teacher as socialiser



The question is not, what is it about students that mean teachers have high or low expectations for them; the question we should be asking is, what is it about teachers that means some have high or low expectations for all their students?





What do we portray in our verbal and nonverbal behaviour? Lie to Me video clip



What kinds of messages are you delivering to students? Verbally/ non-verbally?



Is there any evidence of bias?



What is it like for students to be in your class?



What does your body language tell students?

Teacher Expectation and Student Achievement

7

6

5

4 Mean expectation and achievement

Reading exp Reading ach 1

3

2

1

0 1

2

3

4

5 Teacher number

6

7

8

9

Effect Size Gain vs Expectation in Reading 1.6

Student Effect Size Achievement Gain

1.4

1.2

1

0.8 HiEx Group LoEx Group 0.6

0.4 0

1

2

3

4 0.2

0

-0.2

Teacher Expectation

5

6

7

S t ude nt S e l f P e r c e pt i ons i n R e a di ng a nd M a t hs

34

33

B egi nni ng year E nd year

32

31

30

29

28

Readi ng Hi E x

Readi ng LoE x

M at hs Hi E x

St u d e n t s e l f p e r c e p t i o n s b y t e a c h e r t y p e

M at hs LoE x

Student Perception of Teacher Opinion of their Performance

8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8

Beginning of Year End of Year

Means 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 High

Low Teacher Expectation of Students





Luke: “A lot of repetition, every day…until

they can start recalling their basic number facts.” Hannah: “They need activities that are challenging so they are motivated. If I don’t make them independent as well [as the high ability students] they won’t learn to run by themselves. They’ll always need the teacher.”



Teaching statements: orienting students to the lesson, introducing and explaining new concepts, using student prior knowledge



Feedback to students



Open and closed questions



Positive and negative behaviour management



Procedural statements





High expectation teachers: a facilitative approach Low expectation teachers: a directive approach

   

     

Mixed ability groupings Worked with a variety of peers Well-defined learning goals Responsibility for learning Choices in learning experiences Intrinsically motivated Frequent feedback Answering open questions that challenged thinking Extended explanations of new concepts Positive social climate

   

     

Teacher defined activities Extrinsically motivated Worked in ability groups Little mixed ability interaction Less ownership of learning Unsure of learning direction Answering closed questions Limited explanations of concepts Plenty of procedural directions Negative social climate



  

 

Grouping Learning activities Classroom climate Student responsibility Motivation Evaluation



Teacher journals ◦ Comments on the day – how are you feeling?     

Did you learn anything? Did anything surprise you? Did you enjoy the day? What will you take back to your class? Anything you are thinking about changing?

◦ Possible areas for development?

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF