1

FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER

CALL ON ME?

Lauri A. Schmid-SnoeckEducation 702.22-Spring

2010Professor O’Connor-Petruso

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 112

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

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

4

Literature ReviewWHAT 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.

5

Literature ReviewWhat 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 ReviewPOSSIBLE 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 ReviewAVOIDING 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)

8

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.

9

Statement of the Hypothesis

METHOD• 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• 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• 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

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

ReferencesGay, 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

ReferencesHaydon, 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

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 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• 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

• 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

•EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS-Possible ThreatMay 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 DATATEACHER INTERACTION / SELECTION

Pretest (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

P r o p o s e d T e a c h e r In te r a c t io n S e le c t io n P r io r to In te r v e n tio n

7

1 9

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

S e le c tio n b y G e n d e r

N u m b e r o f In te ra c tio n s

B o y s

G irls

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 DATATEACHER INTERACTION / SELECTION

Posttest (Observation)

• Teacher interacts with Boys 54% of the time during lesson• Teacher interacts with Girls 46% of the time during lesson

P r o p o s e d T e a c h e r In te r a c t io n S e le c t io n P o s t In te r v e n t io n

1 41 2

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

S e le c tio n b y G e n d e r

N u m b e r o f In te ra c tio n s

B o y s

G irls

PROPOSED DATA PRETEST (Observation) Frequency Chart

T e a c h e r In t e r a c t io n S e le c t io n P r io r t o In t e r v e n t io n

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0

S e le c t io n b y Ge n d e r D u r in g L e s s o n

N u m b e r a n d In te r va l o f In te r a c t io n s

B O Y S : 1 9INTERA CTIO NS

G IRL S : 7INTERA CTIO NS

Ratio of interactions Prestest is 3:1

PROPOSED DATA POSTTEST (Observation) Frequency

ChartT e a c h e r In te ra c tio n S e le c tio n P o s t In te rv e n tio n

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0

S e le c tio n b y G e n d e r D u r in g L e sso n

N u m b e r a n d In te rv a l o f In te ra c tio n

B O Y S : 1 4IN TE R A C TIO N S

G IR L : 1 2IN TE R A C TIO N S

Ratio of interactions Posttest is 1.85:1