https://padlet.com/st20100192/darbrwygf6mw Made with a stroke of Liz, Ellie, Donna and Amy en-us 2018-11-09 14:21:44 UTC 2018-11-09 15:38:56 UTC hello@padlet.com st20100192 https://padlet.com/st20100192/darbrwygf6mw/wish/302567537 Foster, Glen et al (1980). Classroom Teacher and Teacher-in-training Susceptibility to Stereotypical Bias. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59(1), 27-30

Introduction
-  Difference in differences in characteristics And behaviours in children produce differentional effects on teachers expectations and interactions.
-  Brophy and Good (1974) suggested that the susceptibility to teacher expectations effects is an individual difference variable.
-  teachers expectancies affect the students academic performance.
-  teachers hold less positive expectations for unattractive pupils - meaning those who are deemed attractive hold higher expectations (also had more favourable interactions).
-  Labelling conditions generated stereotypical expectancies from teachers or those in training.
-  Schain (1972) suggested that the sophistication of the teacher may influence the bias effect.
-  The locus of control - internal vs external affect the way that teachers react to biasing influence.

Methodology
- 36 experienced classroom teachers and 36 trainee teachers were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions, normal and low expectancy. Both groups recieved identical treatments.
- PHASE 1 (expectancy phase): The normal expectancy group were asked to complete a behaviour checklist ( on individuals what they deemed to be a normal behaviour for a fourth grader). The low expectancy group were asked to complete the checklist for an emotionally disturbed fourth grader.
- PHASE 2 (halo effect): The groups were shown a video presentation of normal fourth grade boy, the normal expectancy group were told that the tape was called “normal”. The low expectancy group was told that it was disturbed. Each group was asked to complete a second referral form based on the behaviours that they observed.

Findings
- Phase 1 - children labelled emotionaly disturbed were rated significantly higher than those labelled normal. (i.e. the disturbed child was rated more negatively than the normal group). No difference between trainees and teachers ratings.
- Phase 2 - the disturbed child behaved more negatively than the normal one. Students and trainees rated the normal child more positively, however ratings of the trainees were significantly lower (more positive).
- The experienced teachers were more able to compare behaviour than the trainees. 

Summary
- It seemed that rating differences were experienced between experienced teachers and teachers in training.
- experiences teachers were less able to over come the stigma attached to the label of emotionally disturbed children.
- In general, the two groups differed in their analysis of the actual behaviour of the labelled child.
- School councillors and teachers must be cautioned against hasty decisions about children on the basis of what they are told rather than what they observe.
- However, it is obvious that interpersonal and intrapersonal variables do influence the bias effect.

]]> 2018-11-09 14:22:07 UTC https://padlet.com/st20100192/darbrwygf6mw/wish/302567537