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 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), 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