FAVORITISM WHY DOESN TEACHER CALL ON ME

					    FAVORITISM:
WHY DOESN’T TEACHER
    CALL ON ME?

    Lauri A. Schmid-Snoeck
 Education 702.22-Spring 2010
  Professor O’Connor-Petruso
                                1
         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
                                        2
                  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 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.

                                  5
          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 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 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)                                    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
                                  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_comm
    on.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
                                  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=9
   27cbd44-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=9
   27cbd44-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 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)
• ANTICIPATE: CLASS COMPOSITON 26 STUDENTS
                 13 BOYS AND 13 GIRLS
• ASSUMPTION: LESSON TO HAVE 26 QUESTIONS OR ONE
  QUESTION PER STUDENT
                       Proposed Teacher Interaction Selection Prior to Intervention

                            25

                                                19
                            20

                            15
              Number of                                                               Boys
             Interactions                                                             Girls
                            10                                   7

                            5

                            0
                                               Selection by Gender



• 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 (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 Teacher Interaction Selection Post Intervention


                 25

                 20
                                       14
      Number of 15                                     12                  Boys
     Interactions                                                          Girls
                  10

                  5

                  0
                                      Selection by Gender



 • 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
             Teacher Interaction Selection Prior to Intervention

                   30
                   25
                   20
Number and Interval
                    15                                                         BOYS: 19
  of Interactions
                                                                               INTERACTIONS
                    10
                                                                               GIRLS: 7
                    5
                                                                               INTERACTIONS
                    0
                         0   5     10    15     20     25    30      35   40
                                 Selection by Gender During Lesson




               Ratio of interactions Prestest is 3:1
   PROPOSED DATA POSTTEST
  (Observation) Frequency Chart
                       Teacher Interaction Selection Post Intervention

             30
             25
                                                                              BOYS: 14
Number and 20
                                                                              INTERACTIONS
  Interval of 15
 Interaction 10                                                               GIRL: 12
              5                                                               INTERACTIONS

              0
                   0     5     10      15     20     25      30    35    40
                               Selection by Gender During Lesson




                             Ratio of interactions Posttest
                             is 1.85:1

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:9/4/2011
language:English
pages:25