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

– Method8

– 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 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• HR1 The inadvertent selective attention

of a male professor of 6 male students over 22 female students while teaching statistics, during two class sessions, will greatly increase male students’ interactions while significantly decreasing female students’ interaction s with the teacher.

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 tio 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 tio n S e le c t io n P o s t In te r v e n tio 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 9

INTERA CTIO N S

G IRL S : 7INTERA CTIO N S

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS• Statement of the Hypothesis (revised)• Classroom Observation• Student map• Professor – Student Interactions• Results Observation 1• Intervention • Survey• Results Observation 2

26

Statement of the Hypothesis

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN• HR1 The inadvertent selective attention

of a male professor of 6 male students over 22 female students while teaching statistics, during two class sessions, will greatly increase male students’ interactions while significantly decreasing female students’ interaction s with the teacher.

Classroom Observation• A college statistics class was

observed three times.• A grid was created to document

interactions between professor and students–Grid mapped out seat location & student gender

–

28

Portion of Map of Students

29

Gender of student M F F

Seat number1 A1 A2 A3

• Documented each interaction–Coded seats and gender recorded

–Recorded type of interaction

Documenting Professor –Student Interactions

30

Ques. No. Gender Seat Comments

21 M C6 Raises hand. After initial response, professor tells

him to 'go on'….

22 M C6 Answers a question directed at him

23 F A3 Raises hand to respond

24 M C6 Professor asks C6 if he 'gets that' (as to what A3 said).

C6 responds 'yes'

25 F B6 Calls out answer

Classroom Observation 1Interaction by Gender

31

Classroom Observation 1

Frequency of Interactions

32

Percentage of Interactions by Gender

Observation I

33

Gender Number of Students in the

Class Nov. 2, 2010

Percentage of student body

Number of interactions

Percentage interactions

Male 6 21.43% 22 40.74%

Female 22 78.57% 27 50.00%

Choral n/a 5 9.26%

100.0% 100.0%

Ratio of Interactions by Gender Observation I

34

Ratio of Male students to interactions

OR

6 Males : 22 Interactions1 Male : 3.67 Interactions

Ratio of Female students to interactionsOR

22 Females : 27 Interactions1 Female : 1.23 Interactions

Intervention or Exposure to Treatment (X1)

35

• Professor completes action researcher-prepared questionnaire–Attempts to determine teaching style–Gender preferences (if any)

• Discuss action research project on favoritism/selective attention– Professor believes his interaction is

50/50 between genders.

Sample Questions from Likert Scale w/responses

36

Strongly Agree Agree

Disagree

Stongly Disagree

1. I prefer a relaxed class environment where students can all out answers √2. I prefer a more regimented class environment where students raise their hands to be called on to answer my questions

√3. If students are not responding I will call on them directly

√4. If students are not responding I will use eye contact to prompt a response √5. The men respond more than women because they are more vocal

√6. The women tend to be less comfortable with the subject matter than the men. √

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree

Stongly Disagree

1. I prefer a relaxed class environment where students can all out answers √2. I prefer a more regimented class environment where students raise their hands to be called on to answer my questions √

3. If students are not responding I will call on them directly √4. If students are not responding I will use eye contact to prompt a response √5. The men respond more than women because they are more vocal

√6. The women tend to be less comfortable with the subject matter than the men. √

Professor / Student Interaction -Observation II

Post Intervention

37

Classroom Obervation II Frequency of Interactions

38

Percentage of Interactions by Gender

Observation II

39

Gender Number of Students in the Class Nov. 9, 2010

Percentage of student body

Number of interactions Percentage interactions

Male 6 21.43% 14 37%

Female 22 78.57% 22 58%

Choral n/a 2 5%

100.0% 100.0%

Ratio of Interactions by Gender Observation II

40

Ratio of Male students to interactions

OR

6 Males : 14 Interactions

1 Male : 2.33 Interactions

Ratio of Female students to interactions

OR

22 Females : 22 Interactions

1 Female : 1 Interaction