1 FAVORITISM: WHY DOESN’T TEACHER CALL ON ME? Lauri A. Schmid-Snoeck Education 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 – 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 overstudents. (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 HR 1 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), doi: / 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), doi: / 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), Abstract retrieved from 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), doi: / X Bloom, D., & Golden, C. (1982). Literacy Learning, Classroom Processes, and Race: A Microanalytic Study of Two Desegregated Classrooms. Journal of Black Studies, 13(2), doi: / Brantlinger, E. (1985). Low-Income Parents’ Perceptions of Favoritism in the Schools. Urban Education,20(1), doi: /

References Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Threats to Internal Validity. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, Seventh Ed. (pp ). Butterman, E. (2007). Playing Favorites? Instructor, 116(6), Abstract retrieved from database. (Accession No. ERIC #: EJ Daniels, H., Creese, A., Hey, V., Leonard, D., & Smith, M. (2001). Gender and Learning: Equity, Equality and Pedagogy. Support for Learning, 16(3), proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=15& sid=748495d d6f-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), pdf?vid=7&hid=15& sid=748495d d6f-88a1- 0a59bdd377b1%40sessionmgr13 Egan, T. M., Cobb, B., & Anastasia, M. (2009). Think Time. Journal of Staff Development,30(4) 40-2, 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), proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=68&hid=2&sid=476aa9d4-1ba f18-002efa5b027e%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), doi: /etc 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), doi: / Koepke, M. F., & Harkins, D. A. (2008). Conflict in the Classroom: Gender Differences in the Teacher-Child Relationship. Early Education and Development 19(6), doi: / Levinson, B. A. (1998). The Moral Construction of Student Rights: Discourse and Judgment among Mexican Secondary School Students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 27(1), doi: / Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender Differences in Reading Ability and Attitudes: Examining where These Differences Lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), doi: /j x McLaughlin, H. J. (1991). Reconciling Care and Control: Authority in Classroom Relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), doi: / Merrett, F. & Wheldall, K. (1992). Teachers’ use of praise and reprimands to boys and girls. Educational Review 44(1), proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=119&sid=9 27cbd44-efbc-4ec8-b93f-8fe a%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), doi: /j.tate 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), doi: / Sadker, M., Sadker, D. & Klein, S. (1991). Chapter 7: The Issue of Gender in Elementary and Secondary Education. Review of Research in Education, 17, doi: / X Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as Virtues: The Complexity of the Construct. Journal of Teacher Education. 60(3), doi / 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), doi: / Sunderland, J. (2000). New Understandings of Gender and Language Classroom Research: texts, teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research 4(2), doi: / Yepez, M. E. (1994). An Observation of Gender-Specific Teacher Behavior in the ESL Classroom. Sex Roles, 30(1/2), proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=119&sid=9 27cbd44-efbc-4ec8-b93f-8fe a%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 (X 1 ) 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 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 ) 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) 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 Ratio of interactions Prestest is 3:1

PROPOSED DATA POSTTEST (Observation) Frequency Chart 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 HR 1 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 studentMFF Seat number 1 A1A2A3 Documented each interaction – Coded seats and gender recorded – Recorded type of interaction

Documenting Professor – Student Interactions 30 Ques. No.GenderSeatComments 21MC6Raises hand. After initial response, professor tells him to 'go on'…. 22MC6Answers a question directed at him 23FA3Raises hand to respond 24MC6Professor asks C6 if he 'gets that' (as to what A3 said). C6 responds 'yes' 25FB6Calls out answer

Classroom Observation 1 Interaction 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 Male621.43% % Female % % Choraln/a59.26% 100.0%

Ratio of Interactions by Gender Observation I 34 Ratio of Male students to interactions OR 6 Males : 22 Interactions 1 Male : 3.67 Interactions Ratio of Female students to interactions OR 22 Females : 27 Interactions 1 Female : 1.23 Interactions

Intervention or Exposure to Treatment (X 1 ) 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 AgreeAgree Disagre e 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 AgreeAgreeDisagree 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 interactionsPercentage interactions Male621.43%1437% Female %2258% Choraln/a25% 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