FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME?

1. FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHERCALL ON ME? Lauri A. Schmid-Snoeck Education 702.22-Spring 2010 Professor O’Connor-Petruso

2. 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

3. 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…

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. Statement of the HypothesisEXPERIMENTAL 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. PROPOSED DATATEACHER INTERACTION / SELECTIONPosttest (Observation) • Teacherinteracts with Boys 54% of the time during lesson • Teacher interacts with Girls 46% of the time during lesson

24. PROPOSED DATA PRETEST (Observation) Frequency Chart • Ratio of interactions Prestest is 3:1

25. PROPOSED DATA POSTTEST (Observation) Frequency Chart • Ratio of interactions Posttest is 1.85:1

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

27. Statement of the HypothesisEXPERIMENTAL 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.

28. 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

29. Portion of Map of Students • Documented each interaction • Coded seats and gender recorded • Recorded type of interaction

30. Documenting Professor –Student Interactions

31. Classroom Observation 1Interaction by Gender

32. Classroom Observation 1 Frequency of Interactions

33. Percentage of Interactions by Gender Observation I

34. Ratio of Interactions by Gender Observation I

35. Intervention or Exposure to Treatment (X1) • 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.

36. Sample Questions from Likert Scale w/responses

37. Professor / Student Interaction -Observation II Post Intervention

38. Classroom Obervation II Frequency of Interactions

39. Percentage of Interactions by Gender Observation II

40. Ratio of Interactions by Gender Observation II