Judging the Book By Its Cover? Teacher Judgments of Students’ Motivation and Competence For more information, please contact Alexandria Boatwright at [email protected] Alexandria R. Boatwright, Akia S. Jones, Lindsey R. Powell, Amanda R. Butz, MA, & Ellen L. Usher, PhD Method Procedure and Measures At three points (fall 2010, winter 2010, and spring 2011), teachers were asked to rate each student’s competence and motivation in math and reading, as follows. Analyses An independent samples t test was used to examine mean differences by gender and by SES. Analysis of variances (ANOVA) was used to examine mean differences by race. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine relationships between teacher ratings and student achievement. University of Kentucky College of Education References Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 242-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.4.243-246 Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Student and teacher self-efficacy and the connection to reading and writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 65-98. Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., Harris, A. D. (2012) Changes in teacher student relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 690-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02058.x Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313. Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jsp.2006.04.004 Parks, F. R., & Kennedy, J. H. (2007) The impact of race, physical attractiveness and gender on education majors' and teachers' perceptions of student competence. Journal of Black Studies. 37, 936-943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021934705285955 Rosenthal, R. (1998). The pygmalion effect and its mediating mechanisms. Psychology Teacher Network 8, 25-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ B978-012064455-1/50005-1 Results Table 3. Teacher Rating by Student Lunch Status . Figure 2. Teacher Ratings by Student Lunch Status Table 1. Teacher Ratings by Student Gender Figure 1. Teacher Ratings by Student Gender Table 2. Teacher Rating by Student Race Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine patterns in teachers’ ratings of student motivation and competence in reading and mathematics. Specifically, we asked: 1. Do teachers rate their students’ academic competence and motivation differently as a function of students’ gender, race, or SES? 2. How do teachers’ ratings change over the course of the school year? 3. How are teachers’ ratings related to students’ actual academic achievement? Research on Teacher Judgments and Their Effects From the first day of school, teachers make numerous evaluations of their students. Teachers’ judgments have been shown to differ based on student characteristics: Girls are rated as better in reading and writing and boys as better in math and science (Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006) Teachers’ judgments vary by student race (Parks & Kennedy, 2007) Students with low socioeconomic status (SES) are judged as having less promising futures (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008). Teacher-student relationships tend to become more negative over the course of the school year, undermining student motivation (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, & Harris, 2012). When teachers expect their students to grow intellectually, students experience more positive academic outcomes (Rosenthal, 1998). Key Findings Teachers rated girls higher than they did boys in reading and mathematics motivation. African American students received the lowest teacher ratings and Asian American students received the highest teacher ratings in all categories. Students classified as lower SES were rated significantly lower than were higher SES students in motivation and competence in both domains. Teacher ratings slightly decreased half way through the year, but increased to original levels by late spring. Teachers’ competence ratings significantly predicted report card grades. Discussion and Implications High ratings for Asian American students could be accounted for by the lower number of students in this group (n = 62). Teachers may not know a student’s economic status but may nevertheless be implicitly taking social status into account when judging students’ competence and motivation. Further research should explore the link between teacher knowledge of SES, perceptions of student abilities, and educational outcomes. Negative perceptions by teachers could have a harmful effect on students’ motivation and achievement, which may perpetuate or widen the achievement gap between students in traditionally “at-risk” groups and those in mainstream. The scope for this research should be widened to see if our results are able to be generalized. A broader sampling could offer a better picture of differences in ratings by student subgroups. Participants • Participants were mathematics and language arts teachers (N = 92) from four middle schools in the southeastern U.S. • Their students (N = 2,486; 49% girls) were 53.7% White, 30.7% African American, 8.8% Hispanic, 2.5% Asian, and 4.0% other, with 0.5% unreported. • Fifty-four percent of students qualified for free or reduced-priced lunch (FRED), which was used as a proxy for SES. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Math Teacher Rated Competence MathTeacher Rated Motivation Read Teacher Rated Competence Read Teacher Rated Motivation Teacher's Ratings (1-6) Math and Reading Competence and Motivation Boys Girls 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Math Teacher Rated Competence MathTeacher Rated Motivation Read Teacher Rated Competence Read Teacher Rated Motivation Teacher's Ratings (1-6) Full Pay Free/Reduced Note: TR = Teacher Rating. Significant at .05 level. Note: Significant at .05 level. Gender Girls (n = 1155) M (SD) Boys (n = 1192) M (SD) t p Math TR Competence 4.35 (1.29) 4.25 (1.28) 1.89 .058** Math TR Motivation 4.42 (1.34) 3.84 (1.43) 10.12 <.001** Read TR Competence 4.74 (1.15) 4.40 (1.19) 6.96 <.001** Read TR Motivation 4.36 (1.41) 3.66 (1.53) 11.36 <.001** Variable df F p Math TR Competence 4, 2338 32.68 <.001** Math TR Motivation 4, 2337 29.89 <.001** Read TR Competence 4, 2311 28.18 <.001** Read TR Motivation 4, 2309 37.89 <.001** Lunch Status Full Pay (n =1085) M (SD) Free/Reduced (n =1239 M (SD) t p Math TR Competence 4.71 (1.14) 3.94 (1.30) 15.06 <.001** Math TR Motivation 4.62 (1.23) 3.69 (1.42) 16.82 <.001** Read TR Competence 4.93 (1.02) 4.26 (1.23) 14.07 <.001** Read TR Motivation 4.53 (1.34) 3.56 (1.51) 16.22 <.001** Note: TR = Teacher Rating. Significant at .05 level.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Judging the Book By Its Cover? Teacher Judgments of Students’ Motivation and Competence
For more information, please contact Alexandria Boatwright at [email protected]
Alexandria R. Boatwright, Akia S. Jones, Lindsey R. Powell, Amanda R. Butz, MA, & Ellen L. Usher, PhD
Method Procedure and Measures At three points (fall 2010, winter 2010, and spring 2011), teachers were asked to rate each student’s competence and motivation in math and reading, as follows. Analyses An independent samples t test was used to examine mean differences by gender and by SES. Analysis of variances (ANOVA) was used to examine mean differences by race. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine relationships between teacher ratings and student achievement.
University of Kentucky College of Education
References Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. Journal of
Educational Research, 101, 242-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.4.243-246 Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Student and teacher self-efficacy and the connection to reading and writing. Canadian Journal of
Education, 34, 65-98. Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., Harris, A. D. (2012) Changes in teacher student relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
690-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02058.x Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension
growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313. Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsp.2006.04.004 Parks, F. R., & Kennedy, J. H. (2007) The impact of race, physical attractiveness and gender on education majors' and teachers' perceptions
of student competence. Journal of Black Studies. 37, 936-943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021934705285955 Rosenthal, R. (1998). The pygmalion effect and its mediating mechanisms. Psychology Teacher Network 8, 25-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-012064455-1/50005-1
Results
Table 3. Teacher Rating by Student Lunch Status
.
Figure 2. Teacher Ratings by Student Lunch Status
Table 1. Teacher Ratings by Student Gender
Figure 1. Teacher Ratings by Student Gender
Table 2. Teacher Rating by Student Race
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine patterns in teachers’ ratings of student motivation and competence in reading and mathematics. Specifically, we asked:
1. Do teachers rate their students’ academic competence and motivation differently as a function of students’ gender, race, or SES?
2. How do teachers’ ratings change over the course of the school year?
3. How are teachers’ ratings related to students’ actual academic achievement?
Research on Teacher Judgments and Their Effects
From the first day of school, teachers make numerous evaluations of their students. Teachers’ judgments have been shown to differ based on student characteristics:
Girls are rated as better in reading and writing and boys as better in math and science (Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006)
Teachers’ judgments vary by student race (Parks & Kennedy, 2007)
Students with low socioeconomic status (SES) are judged as having less promising futures (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008).
Teacher-student relationships tend to become more negative over the course of the school year, undermining student motivation (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, & Harris, 2012).
When teachers expect their students to grow intellectually, students experience more positive academic outcomes (Rosenthal, 1998).
Key Findings Teachers rated girls higher than they did boys in reading and mathematics motivation.
African American students received the lowest teacher ratings and Asian American students received the highest teacher ratings in all categories.
Students classified as lower SES were rated significantly lower than were higher SES students in motivation and competence in both domains.
Teacher ratings slightly decreased half way through the year, but increased to original levels by late spring.
Teachers’ competence ratings significantly predicted report card grades.
Discussion and Implications
High ratings for Asian American students could be accounted for by the lower number of students in this group (n = 62).
Teachers may not know a student’s economic status but may nevertheless be implicitly taking social status into account when judging students’ competence and motivation. Further research should explore the link between teacher knowledge of SES, perceptions of student abilities, and educational outcomes.
Negative perceptions by teachers could have a harmful effect on students’ motivation and achievement, which may perpetuate or widen the achievement gap between students in traditionally “at-risk” groups and those in mainstream.
The scope for this research should be widened to see if our results are able to be generalized. A broader sampling could offer a better picture of differences in ratings by student subgroups.
Participants • Participants were mathematics and language arts teachers (N =
92) from four middle schools in the southeastern U.S. • Their students (N = 2,486; 49% girls) were 53.7% White, 30.7%
African American, 8.8% Hispanic, 2.5% Asian, and 4.0% other, with 0.5% unreported.
• Fifty-four percent of students qualified for free or reduced-priced lunch (FRED), which was used as a proxy for SES.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Math Teacher Rated
Competence
MathTeacher Rated Motivation
Read Teacher Rated
Competence
Read Teacher Rated Motivation
Teac
her'
s Rat
ings
(1-6
)
Math and Reading Competence and Motivation
Boys Girls
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Math Teacher Rated Competence
MathTeacher Rated Motivation
Read Teacher Rated Competence
Read Teacher Rated Motivation
Teac
her'
s Rat
ings
(1-6
)
Full Pay Free/Reduced
Note: TR = Teacher Rating. Significant at .05 level.
Note: Significant at .05 level.
Gender Girls
(n = 1155) M (SD)
Boys (n = 1192)
M (SD) t p Math TR Competence 4.35 (1.29) 4.25 (1.28) 1.89 .058**
Math TR Motivation 4.42 (1.34) 3.84 (1.43) 10.12 <.001**
Read TR Competence 4.74 (1.15) 4.40 (1.19) 6.96 <.001**
Read TR Motivation 4.36 (1.41) 3.66 (1.53) 11.36 <.001**
Variable df F p
Math TR Competence 4, 2338 32.68 <.001**
Math TR Motivation 4, 2337 29.89 <.001**
Read TR Competence 4, 2311 28.18 <.001**
Read TR Motivation 4, 2309 37.89 <.001**
Lunch Status
Full Pay
(n =1085) M (SD)
Free/Reduced
(n =1239 M (SD) t p
Math TR Competence 4.71 (1.14) 3.94 (1.30) 15.06 <.001**
Math TR Motivation 4.62 (1.23) 3.69 (1.42) 16.82 <.001**
Read TR Competence 4.93 (1.02) 4.26 (1.23) 14.07 <.001**
Read TR Motivation 4.53 (1.34) 3.56 (1.51) 16.22 <.001**
Note: TR = Teacher Rating. Significant at .05 level.
Related Documents
