favoritism why doesn t teacher call on me
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 168 Views
  • Uploaded on

FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME?. Lauri A. Schmid-Snoeck Education 702.22-Spring 2010 Professor O’Connor-Petruso. Table of Contents. Introduction 3 Statement of the Problem 4 Review of Related Literature 5 Statement of Hypothesis 7 Method 8

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME? ' - gabby


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
favoritism why doesn t teacher call on me

FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHERCALL ON ME?

Lauri A. Schmid-Snoeck

Education 702.22-Spring 2010

Professor O’Connor-Petruso

table of contents
Table of Contents
  • Introduction 3
  • Statement of the Problem 4
  • Review of Related Literature 5
  • Statement of Hypothesis 7
        • Method 8
        • Instruments 9
        • Experimental Design 10
  • References 11
introduction
Introduction

Favoritism is part of life

Teachers hold a powerful position

Reasons for favoritism

A rose by any other name…a matter of semantics

Favoritism aka: selective attention; gender-race bias; differential teacher treatment; discrimination…

statement of the problem
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

FAVORITISM : The literature indicates that failure to create close teacher-child relationships results in

  • negative impact on growth of social skills and self-confidence
  • marginalized and differentiated teaching behaviors
  • lower academic achievement
  • greater levels of conflict and aggression in the classroom
literature review
Literature Review

WHAT IS FAVORITISM

  • Selective attention given by someone in power (i.e. teacher) to another less powerful person (i.e. student), selected from a group of two or more and where the student has a better outcome than another.
literature review1
Literature Review

What does favoritism look like?

Subtle-teachers and even students may not be aware (Bloom & Golden, 1982)

Favorites: Studies show we make up our minds about people within seven seconds of meeting them (Butterman, 2007)

Unbridled and blatant-students are aware of the teacher’s pets and their standing in the classroom (Opoku-Amankwa, 2009)

literature review2
Literature Review

POSSIBLE CAUSES OF FAVORITISM

POWER: Teachers as the ‘authoritative identity’ (Opoku-Amankwa, 2009) or “despotic” (Levinson, 1998)

UNCONSCIOUSLY RELATE: student may remind us of ourselves or someone we know

ETHNICITY & RACIAL BACKGROUND:

“We are socialized to relate to each other based on race, class, and so on” (Butterman, 2007)

“Minority group students, both male and female, receive less teacher attention than majority group students (Brophy & Good, 1974; Rubovits & Maehr, 1973; M. Sadker & Sadker, 1984)” (Sadker, Sadker & Klein, 1991).

“Culture and ethnicity are associated with differences in aspects of children’s relationships with teachers…” (Gallagher & Mayer, 2008)

literature review3
Literature Review

AVOIDING FAVORITISM

Daniels et al (2001) studied how “to treat all

children fairly”. The research suggests that

Teachers must understand and reflect upon their

*management style,

*teaching strategies,

*responsibility to grow as professionals,

*power and recognize their impact and influence over students.

(Butterman, 2007; Egan & Anastasia, 2009; Haydon et al, 2009; Newberry & Davis, 2008)

statement of the hypothesis
Statement of the Hypothesis

HR1: X number of teachers may be unaware of practices of favoritism in their classroom and the impact on x number of students during a read-aloud session.

A change in classroom management or practice may improve classroom equity and fairness and avoid the appearance of favoritism.

statement of the hypothesis method
Statement of the HypothesisMETHOD

Participants: X number of students in the X grade from P.S. X in Brooklyn, NY.

The class is composed of

x number of girls of x, y, z ethnicity or race

x number of boys of x. y, z ethnicity or race

The P.S. X students belong to from X socio-economic class

The teacher/s has X number of years experience and X number of years of postgraduate education

statement of the hypothesis instruments
Statement of the HypothesisINSTRUMENTS

NYC Department of Education report card to determine demographic and economic status of P.S. X students

Consent form for the principal of P.S. X

Form to document observation & student/teacher comments

Teacher survey

statement of the hypothesis experimental design
Statement of the HypothesisEXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Researcher to observe class responses elicited after a read-aloud.

Document the following:

Seating arrangement

How students are called upon

i.e. Arbitrary teacher choice or random system

Do they call out; are all treated the same

Student gender, ethnicity or race

references
References

Addi-Raccah, A., & Arviv-Elyashiv, R. (2008). Parent Empowerment and Teacher Professionalism: Teachers’ Perspective. Urban Education, 43(3), 394-415. doi: 10.1177/0042085907305037

Assouline, S.G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., & Forstadt, L. (2006). Attributional Choices for Academic Success and Failure by Intellectually Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 283-294. doi: 10.1177/001698620605000402

Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Teacher-Child Relationships, and Social Skill Development across Middle Childhood: A child-by-Environment Analysis of Change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1-14. Abstract retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov database. (Accession No. ERIC #: EJ869961)

Blase, J. J. (1988). The Politics of Favoritism: A Qualitative analysis of the Teachers’ Perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 152-177. doi: 10.1177/0013161X88024002005

Bloom, D., & Golden, C. (1982). Literacy Learning, Classroom Processes, and Race: A Microanalytic Study of Two Desegregated Classrooms. Journal of Black Studies, 13(2), 207-226. doi: 10.1177/002193478201300205

Brantlinger, E. (1985). Low-Income Parents’ Perceptions of Favoritism in the Schools. Urban Education,20(1), 82-102. doi: 10.1177/004208598502000106

references1
References

Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Threats to Internal Validity. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, Seventh Ed. (pp. 359-368). http://mnstate.edu/wasson/ed603lesson14htm

Butterman, E. (2007). Playing Favorites? Instructor, 116(6), 39-41. Abstract retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov database. (Accession No. ERIC #: EJ792935

Daniels, H., Creese, A., Hey, V., Leonard, D., & Smith, M. (2001). Gender and Learning: Equity, Equality and Pedagogy. Support for Learning, 16(3), 112-116. http://web.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=15&

sid=748495d8-9949-4d6f-88a1-0a59bdd377b1%40sessionmgr13

Davies, J. & Brember, I. (1999). Boys Outperforming Girls: an 8 –year cross-sectional study of attainment and self-esteem in Year 6. Educational Psychology, 19(1), 5-16 http://web.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/ pdf?vid=7&hid=15& sid=748495d8-9949-4d6f-88a1-0a59bdd377b1%40sessionmgr13

Egan, T. M., Cobb, B., & Anastasia, M. (2009). Think Time. Journal of Staff Development,30(4) 40-2, 44-5. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn cuny.edu:2048.hww.results.getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.33

Gallagher, K. C., & Mayer, K. (2008). Enhancing Development and Learning through Teacher-Child Relationships. Young Children, 63(6), 80-87. http://web.ebscohot.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=68&hid=2&sid=476aa9d4-1ba9-4838-9f18-002efa5b027e%40sessionmgr10

references2
References

Haydon, T., Mancil, G. R., & Van Loan, C. (2009). Using Opportunities to Respond in a General Education Classroom: A Case Study. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(2), 267-278. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0052

Houston, M. B., & Bettencourt, L. A. (1999). But That’s Not Fair! An Exploratory Study of Student Perceptions of Instructor Fairness. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 84-96. doi: 10.1177/0273475399212002

Koepke, M. F., & Harkins, D. A. (2008). Conflict in the Classroom: Gender Differences in the Teacher-Child Relationship. Early Education and Development 19(6), 843-864. doi: 10.1080/10409280802516108

Levinson, B. A. (1998). The Moral Construction of Student Rights: Discourse and Judgment among Mexican Secondary School Students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 27(1), 45-84. doi: 10.1177/089124198027001003

Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender Differences in Reading Ability and Attitudes: Examining where These Differences Lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199-214. doi: 10.111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x

McLaughlin, H. J. (1991). Reconciling Care and Control: Authority in Classroom Relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 182-195. doi: 10.1177/002248719104200304

Merrett, F. & Wheldall, K. (1992). Teachers’ use of praise and reprimands to boys and girls. Educational Review 44(1), 73-80. http://web.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=119&sid=927cbd44-efbc-4ec8-b93f-8fe85022209a%40sessionmgr114

references3
References

Newberry, M., & Davis, H. A. (2008). The Role of Elementary Teachers\' Conceptions of Closeness to Students on Their Differential Behaviour in the Classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(8), 1965-1985. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.015

Opoku-Amankwa, K. (2009). “Teacher Only Calls Her Pets”: Teacher’s Selective Attention and the Invisible Life of a Diverse Classroom in Ghana. Language and Education, 23(3), 249-262. doi: 10.1080/09500780802582539

Sadker, M., Sadker, D. & Klein, S. (1991). Chapter 7: The Issue of Gender in Elementary and Secondary Education. Review of Research in Education, 17, 269-334. doi: 10.3102/0091732X017001269

Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as Virtues: The Complexity of the Construct. Journal of Teacher Education. 60(3), 291-303. doi10.1177/0022487109335189

Stake, J. E. & Katz, J. F. (1982). Teacher-Pupil Relationships in the Elementary School Classroom: Teacher-Gender and Pupil-Gender Differences. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 465-471. doi:10.3102/00028312019003465

Sunderland, J. (2000). New Understandings of Gender and Language Classroom Research: texts, teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research 4(2), 149-173. doi: 10.1177/136216880000400204

Yepez, M. E. (1994). An Observation of Gender-Specific Teacher Behavior in the ESL Classroom. Sex Roles, 30(1/2), 121-133. http://web.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=119&sid=927cbd44-efbc-4ec8-b93f-8fe85022209a%40sessionmgr114

table of contents1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

RESEARCH DESIGN

THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY

THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY

PROPOSED DATA PRETEST

WITH DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

PROPOSED DATA POSTTEST

WITH DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

research design
Research Design

Pre-experimental, one group Pretest- Posttest design OXO

Individuals not randomly assigned

Single group-designated as treatment group (X1) and no control group (X).

Pretested (O)-in this case observed

Exposed to treatment (X)-findings of observation discussed with teacher

Posttested(O)-changes in teacher’s behavior re: student interaction or selection process

threats to internal validity
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY
  • INSTRUMENTATION – Possible Threat
    • During the observation period
    • After the intervention
    • During posttest
  • Change to dependent variable (students)
    • student ratio may change
threats to external validity
THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY

EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS-Possible Threat

May influence behaviors of

Independent Variable (the teacher)

Dependent Variables (the students)

REACTIVE ARRANGEMENTS / PARTICIPANTS EFFECTS-Possible Threat

i.e. Hawthorne Effect

● participants act differently aware

they are being observed as part of

an experiment.

proposed data teacher interaction selection pretest observation
PROPOSED DATATEACHER INTERACTION / SELECTIONPretest (Observation)
  • ANTICIPATE: CLASS COMPOSITON 26 STUDENTS 13 BOYS AND 13 GIRLS
  • ASSUMPTION: LESSON TO HAVE 26 QUESTIONS OR ONE QUESTION PER STUDENT
  • Teacher interacts with Boys 73% of the time during lesson
  • Teacher interacts with Girls 27% of the time during lesson
intervention or exposure to treatment x 1
Intervention or Exposure to Treatment (X1)

Review the findings of the pretest(O) with the teacher (IV).

Ask teacher to complete a questionnaire about their strategies for calling on students to prompt them to think about why they

proposed data teacher interaction selection posttest observation
PROPOSED DATATEACHER INTERACTION / SELECTIONPosttest (Observation)
  • Teacher interacts with Boys 54% of the time during lesson
  • Teacher interacts with Girls 46% of the time during lesson
proposed data pretest observation frequency chart
PROPOSED DATA PRETEST (Observation) Frequency Chart
  • Ratio of interactions Prestest is 3:1
proposed data posttest observation frequency chart
PROPOSED DATA POSTTEST (Observation) Frequency Chart
  • Ratio of interactions Posttest is 1.85:1
ad