Favoritism why doesn t teacher call on me
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 25

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


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME?

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 Problem4

  • Review of Related Literature5

  • Statement of Hypothesis7

    • Method8

    • Instruments9

    • Experimental Design10

  • References11


  • 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 overstudents.

    (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


  • Login