DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 074 067 SP 006 303

AUTHOR Jeter, Jan T. ; Davis, O. L., Jr.TITLE Elementary School Teachers' Differential Classroom

Interaction with Children as a Function ofDifferential Expectations of Pupil Achievements.

PUB DATE 73NOTE 22p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, La., February 25-March 1, 1973

ERRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Achievement Need; Elementary

School Teachers; Interaction; Low AchievementFactors; *Student Teacher Relationship; *TeacherBehavior; *Verbal Communication

ABSTRACTThe purposes of this study were to determine whether

fourth grade social studies teachers verbally interacted differentlywith pupils as a function of differential expectations of pupilachievement and to determine whether fourth grade social studiesteachers verbally interacted differently with boys and girls. Datawere collected using the Brophy-Good dyadic observation system. .

Results revealed that. teachers differ.significantly in their teachingbehavior with:respect to high- and low-expectation pupils. However,teachers did not discriminate differentially between boys and girls.The findings of the study suggest that teachers prolNinly docommunicate differential performance expectations to different pupilsthrough their classroom behavicir, and the nature of this differentialtreatment is such as to encourage the pupils to respond in ways whichwould confirm teacher expectancies. (A 20-item bibliography isincluded.) (Author)

t=1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' DIFFERENTIAL CLASSROOM INTERACTION

WITH CHILDREN AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENTIALU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION EXPECTATIONS OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENTSTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.

DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL °Fria OF SOU. ByCAIION POSITION OR POLICY.

Jan T. JeterWisconsin Research and Development

Center for Cognitive Learaing

O. L. Davis, Jr.The University of Texas at Austin

A paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research AssociationFebruary 25-March 1, 1973--New Orleans

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

ioa of teachers expectations or pupil oeiiicvcinent as

sillf-fulling prophecies has been on ongogin reseArchi moblen during

several yours. R. z,ni.hal end on 1 n (10) con-

siderabl,,) attention wit it attempt to trot the self-fullfilling

prophe(1 hypotheb s in the classroom. These invostigntors reported

that Iaui il data ont ti, le end of the school year(worn__

--e sivnificantly effected by performance e eetati.ons induced in

tat the beg_iirii.ng of the year, and that the nature of the of-tea

fecto observed was consistent with the idea that teachers' expect&

functined '-fulfilling prophF cies. The methodology employed in

this study has been criticized severely ( .g., T1. idike, 1968; Snow,

1969; Elanboff and Snow, 1971). Consequently, the support provided

for the if-fulfilling prophecy hypothesis remains tenuous even though

the idea pars very attractive.

Several studies (Czinn and others, 1968; Claiborn, 1969; Evans and

Rosenthal, 1969; peon, 1970; Fleming and Anttonen, 19T1 and Jose, 1971)

have used the experimental method introduced by Rosenthal and Jacobson

in which teachers expectations are manipulated through some kind of.

treatment. The researchers have tested the effects of the treatment

on either the teaching behavior of the teachern or the achievement of the

pupils. Result from experimental studies involving manipulation of

-al support the differential ex-,teacher expectation ixed. 5ev

pectation (self-fulfilling) hypothnn teacher expectations eg19(x8; Meiehenbaum and others, 1969), whereas others do not (e.g.,

:1

Applwiat7L ofi for his assistance in this study is accorded Dr.

Jevo Brophy, The University of Texas at Austin.

Elementary Sehol Teachers'

Conn and o Claib-- 1960; Joao 1971).

Another line of inquiry has used teachers' cia turnlisticelly

formed expectations (e.g. Brophy and C-ood- 1970; Mendez!' and ether

1971; and Cornbleth and others 1972). In these ,tudies teachers'

expectations for their pupils have been determined and then their

interactions with pupils have been observed. Research to date has

revealed significant differences in t, treatment inter-

actions with) high- and low- expectation pupils both at early primary

and at secondary lcvela (Brophy and Good, 1970; Mendoza and others,

1911; and Cornblcth and others, 1972). However) no examination of

diff.- ntial teacher behavior related to teachers expectations or

pupils' nc-demic achlevem nt occurred at the intermediate grade

level. Too, no research of this type has been conducted in the

teaching of elementary school social studies. Consequently, this

study was designed as an investigation into a relatively unexplored area.

Procedures

; uh. e ,r,

A L)tal of ten female fourth grade teachers and 120 pupils attend-

lng thro- public elementary schools i a a suburban district contiguous

try fctiool Teo::

to a large centrel Texas city l r o v. ded dots rcr this study. P

ticipating teachers w told th L the focus the study was the

behavior of pupil Jt different achievement levels in the day-to-

day activities. This explanation w is intended to free the teacher

any responsibility to prepare specially for the days of observation.

illiaLag procedure

Teachers were asked tc rank le pupils in their class in order

of expected achievement in social studies. Rankings obtained from

the teachers were used to categorize pupils int' nigh- and low-

expectancy roups. For each clads, the three highest ranking boys

and the three highest inking girls were classified as high-expecta-

tion pupil-. the three lo 7-st ranking boys and the three lowest ranking

girls were claSsified as low-expectation pupils. Substitutes for the

target pupils were also identified and observed when the originally

designated pupils were absent. Only twelve substitutes were thus

employed during the course of the study; observation of-these twelve

pupils repr:.1sented 1 /60 of the possible opportunities to observe all

pupils. Consequently, employment of these data seem t to distort the

results.

Inkltrmont. vitd Dn C-dlecti

ClEwsr- AS were observed by the principal investigator and 12

Elementa =Y Gchr of Teachers'

trained 1servers LIOD1' the Brophy-Good dyadic observation system

(1969b). Most systems for observing teachr'r -pupil interaction code

oil teacher contacts with pupils und pupil init etions and responses

without differentiating between individual pupils. The Brophy-Good

system, on the other hand, enables an observer to record end preserve

interaction between teacher and individual pupils. Quality of

contact (what the t- cHer doe hen engaged in certain of inter-

-ith the pupil) and quantity of contact (the sheer frequencyactions

of the different ,kinds of interactions ) mamay be studied separately end

assessed.

scale scores were obtained and used-in this btudy. They

were:

1 = number public response opportunities

teacher-initiated work interactionspupil-initiated work interactions

4 . total number private teacher-student interactions5 . total teacher-pupil contacts6 = process questions

-7 . product questions8 = choice questions9 = self- reference questions

= number times pupil 'reccived praise after right answer11 = number times pupil received new questions after giving right

answer

12 = pupil answers not followed by any feedback13 = number times teaching responded with sustain feedback after

pupil failure14 = criticisms following wrong answers

Observers engnged in a three-week training period; four se ssions

totaling ten hours of training were conducted. During the first two

weeks of coding, pniro of observers worked in each classroom to cotab-

Elementary School Teachers

lisp reliability. After reliability established (interobscrver

t of .8o) th work ncd.i

Six forty-five minute observations were made in each elassroom.

The forty -five minute periods were the periods in which pupils were

engaged in regular social studios no.

ELialztaLa

Obtained data re subjected to analysis of variance procedures

employing a 10 (teachers) x 2 (pupil sex x 2 (teacher expectancy)

design using the computer program ANOVillon the CDC 6G00 computer at

The University of Texas at Austin.

Results

Table 1 displays the means of observation scale scores and ratios

according to pup.'.1 sex and expectation. The 10 x 2 x 2 analyses of

variance for each scale and ratio are reported in Table 2.

Statistically significant differences between teachers -ere re-

vealed on thirteen of the fourteen scales. Nine of these differences

exceeded p <Xi. Those nine scales were: number of public response

opportunities, teacher-initiated work interactions, pupil-initiated

work interactions, total number of pri atc pupil-teacher interactions,

number of proccso questions, nunber-of product questions, number of

choice qv ions, number of times pupil received praise after right

an 'we QC times pupil received new questions after right answers

Elt-rneaUs Schc '

and nun er of pupil. an ors not followed by any I OQCIbaek. At the p .05

level, ditferences were fc)und for two se number of self - reference

quosti ns and number of ti- received praise aft right answers.

At the p 0 level, differences were observed for two sonlos--total

teacher -pupil contact and eumber of time- teacher responded with sus-

taining feedback atte1. rupil failure. This number of significant dif-

ferences 11 of 14 .0- is itself ignificant (Pakoda,Cohen & Beall, 1)54).

According to sex of pupil, only one possibly significant difference

( p <.10 level) was noised l number of teacher-initiated work interactions.

Teac initiated mere w rk,interactions with males than with ferules.

Since only one of 14 significant differences is not itself significant

(p<'.05), the conclusion 1s obvious that these teachers did not dif-

ferentially interact with pupils as a function of pupil sex.

With ropect to teacher expect of pupil achievement, the

central concern of this study, significant differences were found for

nine of the fourteen scales and possibly significant and reportable

differences on three addition

signifi

1 scales. This number (9 of 14) is itself

t at p <.05 (Sakeds Coi and Beall, 1954). Obtained

significant differences at the p < 1 level revealed: high-expectatio-

pupils rr ived.mor, i uul ic response opportunities than did low-

expectation pupils; highs had more total teach pupil contact than

did lows; highs received both more process and product questions than

did lo ws and 1ov-expectation pupils had more answers not followed by

an; .t'ecdbnek than did highs. At the p .05--level, differences were

Elementary 3,:ho l T fl-hers'

obtained on four scelNI: hi6h-expectation Ipils initinted more rk

int eractions with tr2nchL_ did 1c w =axle ctation

ceived more choice questions ban did l wa; highs received more sus-

taining feedback after wrong :In; ers time did lows and low-expectation

pupils received more criticisits following wrong answers than did highs.

One p ssibly significant difference (p .10 level was revealed on one

scale: toach re initiated more work int ions with lows than with

highs. At the p.20 level, differences were ,d on two scales:

teachers asked highs more questions following -heir right answers then

were asked of lows, rnd teachers praised lows following right answers

more frequently than they did for highs.

Of 56 possible two and three-way interections, only five were

significant at p This number is itself not significant. Con

sequentiy, these i uteruetions are most useful in understanding the main

effects of interest. The interactions indicate that teachers in the

study differentially communicated with high- and low expectation pupils

with respect to pupil - initiated work interactions; choice questions,

number or times pupil received new questions after giving'right answers,

.and pupil answers not followed by any feedback. Teachers in the study

population did interact differentially with boys and girls on only one

scale to cher choice questions.

Discussion

ign of this tudycrnc rally are consistent with other reseaieh

conduot;. d in unior high school methcmmticS1 reading, and social

studies classes

Elemcg- Teachers'

uLh-s, L9(1), _ondary school social studies

classes (Cornbleth and others 1972)) :,yid in s,ilf-contained primary

classrooms (G od, 1970; Brophy and Good, 1970). Obtained significant.

differences favored high expectation pupils and occurred both in the

quantity of teacher-pupil contact and in the quality of teacherinter-

action, highs wore asked both mere product and process questions,

highs re- ived extended teacher feedback, and highs received

proportionally m. , praise and less criticism.

The inequality of contact for lows provides additional support for

the differential expectation hypothesis. The observed differences in

teacher behavior seem clear evidence of discrimination against pupils

for whom teachers had low expectations of academic performance. This

phlomenon'_.1--o appears to be apparent with teachers, albeit not all

tend several levels of schooling and in several curricular areas.

In this study, teachers. did not interact differentially with boys

and girls. This finding Is consistent with other classroom observation-

al research :studies.. The present findings, while adding to the de-

struction of the general belief that female teachers discriminate

against boys in their interactio- add sine-tiler dimension. They indi-

cate that teachers.probably do not interact differentially with boys'

and girls who are expected to be high and low achievers in social studies.

That is, teach in-this study appeared to be influenced in theirrs

interactions by the level of academic expectation than. the suz

of the Tupil.

groups

Elementnr;.,. School Teachers'

_cial stud Les classes An this study were c ;ducted 7 untire class

1 obably more like ,junior

high school classes thsn primary classes certainly 1 12:51

reading instruction. There were no mrall groups

if any, individual project activities

D uP.1. Litt

and little use-of varied

instrueLional media. Consequently, one might ask, do teachers' cx-

pectat' Is relate as powerfully to their differential behavior in

teaching situation. other than with class size groups and engaged in

varied instructional tasks? Such a question critically important as

classroom instruction becomes more individualized, must remain un-

answered until m(-_ appropriate research evidence is available.

While this study investigated differential teacher verbal behavior,

it did riot address ctly the issue of the relationship of teacher

verbal belay' pupil performance (achievement). Relationships

of interactions to pupil learning, if they do exist, must be the

subject oaf sutoequent research. Nevertheless, the present results add

weight to the conviction that teacher expectations are translated into

specific teaching behaviors. That these behavio s communicate, and

powerfully, to pupils must be a prominent speculation. Serious attention

should he directed to investigations which will shed additional light

his critical art..

Important also will be inquiry Into some teachers interact

both quantitatively and qnfilitatively, with their low- cxprctn-

tion ip is than-than with their highs. The teachers y be those judged

superior or "mns

level of

actually achieve

Element ry Sc of Teacher

nt some educational levels, those ¥hose

Fuller, 1969) or those o-e pupils

hen predicted.-

TAWE 1

Summary of Means on Each Observation Scale

for Each Teacher in the Study by.

Pupil Sex and Teacher Expectation of

Social Studies Achievement

Teacher

Scale 1.

Scale 2

Scale 3

Pupil Sex

MF

Expectation

Lo

Hi

Pupil Sex

MF

Expectation

Lc

Hi

Pupil Sex

11

F

Expectation

Lo

Hi

13.83

15.58

15.67

13.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

(2'.00

0.00

...

0:00

0.00

14.67

13.17

12.83

15.00

.17

17

.17

.17

.17

.17

0.001

.33

8.17

9.67

5.0

.83

3.33

1.83

3.50

1.67

1.50

2.50

.83

3.17

-.--7.00

4.50

9.00

1.17

.67

1.33

.50

.83

.83

.50

1.17

12.33

13.17

7.50

18.00

.67

1.17

1.00

.83

1.17

2.33

.67

2.83

10.67

6.50

6 00

11.17

2.67

1.83

2.50

2.00

4.67

2.33

4.50'

2.50

77.33

7.50

5.17

9 67

1.67

.83

1.83

.67

2.00

1.83

.50

3.33

12.00

14.00

5.83

20.17

.33

0.00

.17

.17

1.17

.83

.50

1.50

8.67

13.50

7.00

15.17

2.50

2.50

2.17

2.83

1.67

3.50

2.67

2.50

13.17

8.83

7.83

14.17

.33

.17

0.00

.501

.17

.17

.17

.17

T.47,11.F 1 (continued)

Scale

Scale 5

Scale 6

Teacher

Pupil Sex

Expectation

Hi

Pupil Sex

Expectation

L©

Hi

Pupil Sex

Expectation

Lc

Hi

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

13.83

15.50

15.67

13.67

.83

1.00

.50

1.33

.33

.33

.17

.50

15.00

13.50

13.00

15 00

.33

.17

0.00

.50

4.83

4.33

4.33

4.83

13.00

14.00

9.33

17.67

.67

.83

0.00

1.50

2.00

1.50

1.83

1.67

8.50

8.50

6.33

10..67

1.17

1.00

0.00

2.17

1.83

3.50

1.67

3.67

1,4.17

16.67

9.17

21.67

1.00

.83

.67

1.17

7.33

4.17

7.00

4.50

18.00

10.67

13.00

15.67

2.17

.67

1.17

1.17

3.67

2.67

2.33

4.00

11.00

10.17

7.50

13.67

0.00

.17

0.00

.17

82.33

.83

1.50

1.67

13.50

14.83

6.50

21.83

1.00

1.83

.17

2.67

4.17

6.00

4.83

5.33

12.83

19.50

11.83

20.50

3.67

5.50

2.67

6.50

.50

.33

.17

.67

13.67

9.17

8.00

14.83

3.00

2.50'

2 .50

3.00

tinu.

e.d

Tea

cher

Scale 7

Scale 8

Scale 9

Pupi

l Sex

Exp

ecta

tion

L©

Hi

Pupi

l Sex

HE

Exp

ecta

tion

La

Hi

Pupi

l Sex

M.

EE

xpec

tatio

n.L

aH

i

12.8

31:

2.50

13.5

011

.83

.17

1..6

71.

33.5

00.

00.3

3.3

30.

00

13.1

712

.33

11.8

313

.67

1.17

.83

1.17

.83

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6.00

6.83

3.83

9.00

1.33

1.17

.83

1.67

.33

.83

.33

.83

44.

835.

674.

336.

17.1

70.

000.

00.1

70.

000.

000.

000.

00

10.8

312

.00

6.33

16.5

0.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.1

70.

00'

.17

0.01

0

68.

005.

504.

170.

330.

00.3

3.1

7.1

7.5

00.

00.5

00.

00

7.00

7.17

5.00

9.17

.33

.17

.17

.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7.83

9.83

4.83

12.8

33.

002.

00.8

34.

17.1

7.3

30.

00.5

0

9'4.

177.

333.

677.

83.6

7.6

7.5

0.8

3.1

70.

00.1

70.

00

109.

336.

175.

1710

.33

.67

.17

0.00

.83

.17

0.00

.17

0 .0

0

tinued

Scale 10

Scale 11

Scale 12

leacher

Pupil Sex

Expectation

Lo

Hi

Pupil Sex

Expectation

Lo

Hi

Pupil Sex

Expectation

Lo

Hi

.06

0.00

.06

0.00'

.23

..24

.34

.14

.67

.67

1.00

.33

.06

.11

.16

.01

.07

.14

.10

.11

2.17

2.33

3.67

.83

.02

0.00

0.00

.02

.01

.07

0.00

.08

.83

.33

1.00

.17

0.00

MO

0.00

0.00

.09

.08

0.00

.17

.33

.50

.83

0.00!

.03

.01

.02

-01

.07

.09

.02

.14

1.50

.67

1..33

.83

60.00

0.00

0.00

MO

.06

.07

.03

''''...10

.50

.50

.83

.17

0.00,

0 00

0.00

0.00

.08

.10

0.00

.18

.67

.50

1.17

0.00

.01

0.00

0.00

.01

.05

.06

0.00

.11

1.33 - -2.17

2.50

1.00

90.00,

.03

Al

..02

.24

.16

.29

.11

1-33

1.67

.67

2.33

10.05

.051

.04

.06

.02

0.00

.02

0.00

1.83

.67

1.33

1.17

TA

3:2

ntin

ued)

Scal

e 13

Scal

e 14

Tea

cher

Pupi

l Sex

.E

xpec

tatio

n.L

a.R

i.

Pupi

l Sex

Exp

ecta

tion.

La

4.00

4,12

6.17

1.95

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2.53

2.87

2.27

3.13

.23

0.00

.23

0.00

1.67

1.67

0.00

3.33

0.00

,.8

3.8

30.

00

43.

332.

00.3

35.

00.8

30.

00.8

30.

00

0.00

1.67

0.00

1.67

.23

1.67

1.90

0.01

11

0.00

.83

0.00

.83

1.47

0 00

1.47

0.00

72.

222.

771.

673.

330.

000.

000.

000.

00

2.50

.83

0.00

3.33

.67

.28

.95

0.00

1.10

.83

.83

1,.1

00.

00'

0' 0

00.

000

. 00

101.

670.

000.

001.

67.5

5.8

31.

380.

00

TABLE 2.

Summary. of Analyses of Variance. of

Observation. Scale Scores

Between

Between

Var

iabl

eTeachers

Pupil Sex

(df=1)

(df=9)

Between

Expectations

(d.f=1)

Teachers

X

Pupil Sex

(d1=9)

Teachers

X

Expectations

(df=9)

Pupil. Sex.

X

Expectations

(df=1)

Teachers

X.

Pupil Sex

Expectations

Within.

(df=9)

(df=80)

92.98

.68

1134.68

23.84

60.51

66.01

37.99

310.72

p.3.03****

F=36.94****

F=1.97**

F=2.15*.

12.33

4.03

3.33

.978

1.16

4.03

1.98

1.10

F=11.21****

F=3.67**

F=3.

03**

17=

1.60

*F=

3.67

(F=1.80**

16.06

,41

15.41

3.72

6.21.

3.01

2.73

2.54

F=6.32****

F=6.06***

.F=1.46*

F=2;44***

51.63

3 ,. 33

2.70

6.28

4.35

17.63

5.69

5.18

F=9.96****

1=3.40**

68.39

.30

1280.53

44.37

76.64

140.83

51.87

44.38

1=1.54*

F=28.86****

F=1.73**

F=3.17**

21.33

.13

50.70

2.2'2

4.24

.53

2.48.

2.57

1=8.31*k**

1=19.75****

F=1.67*

96.17

.53

580 80

11.24

32.69

53.33

33.52

20.63

F=4.66****

F=281.15* **

I=1.58*

F=2.58*

1=1.62*

2 (continued)

10

12

13

14

Between

P-_;pil Sex

(df=1)

Between

Expectations

(df=1)

Teachers

X

Pupil Sex

(df=9Y

Teachers

X

s

Pupil. Sex.

X

Expectations

(df=1)

Teachers.

X

Pupil Sex

X

Expectations

Within

(df=9)

(d =80)

6..31

.08

6.08

1.26

3.82.

.41

3.08

F-6.52

F-6.28***

F=3.95****

F=3.16****

.39

.00

.03

.24

.31

..53

18

F=2.10***

F-1-70*

F-2.-91**

.01

.00

.01

.00

.01

.01

F=1.29***

F=1.80*

F=1.95**

.06

.00

.03

.01

.05

.00

.01

F=4.43**

F=2.43*

Fo.4.00****

4.61

.41

16.88

1.02.

3.78

.26

F=4,99****

F=18.24**

F=4.09****

15.52

.62

59.64

3.70

17.27

19.85

7.11

F=1.46*

F=5.60***

F=1.6,2*

F=1.86*

1.4'

.04

17.33

1.95

1.42

.04

1.95

F=7.27***

.97

.18

.00,

.01.

.93

10.65

.20

p.10

p.05

p.01

Key: variables

1=number public response opportunities

2=teacher-initiated work interactions

3=pupil-initiated work interactions

4=total number private teacher-student interactions

5=total teacher-pupil contact

6=process questions

7=product questions

8=choice questions

9=self-reference questicns

10=number times pupil received praise after

1..."

1141

111

Ir

right answer

11=number ties pupil received new

questions after giving reight answer

12=pupil answers. not followed by any

feedback

13=number times teacher responded, with

sustain. feedback after pupil failure,

14=criticisms following wrong answers

18

R ERENCES

Beez, W.V. Influence of biased pnychDlogical reports on teacher be-havior and pupil perfomonce. Setting.In M. W. Nileo and W.W. charte a, jr. (ids. ) Boston:

Allyn and Bacan, Inc., 1970.

Brophy, J. E. and Good, T. L. Do boys and-giris receive equal op-portunity in first grade reading instruction? Report Series

no. 24. The Research and Development Center- for TeacherEducation, The University of Texas at AUstin, 1969. (a)

Bropl J. E. and.Good, T. L. ehildd,odic interaction:mnnualfor co4i1rA Classroom hehavOr. The Research andDcvelpment Center for Teacher Educetionl The Universityof Texoo at Austin, 1969. (b)

Brophy, J. E._ owl Goad, T. L. Teachers' communication of differentialexpectations- for children's clossroom performance: Some

behovioral data'. Journal ii Eciu"ti'iT212212a, 1970,6 365-374.

Cloiborn w= L. Expectancy effects in the classroom: A failure toreplic?te. Journal E c tional PsyLh2120_, 1969, 6o, .

377-383.

Conn, L., Edwards, C., Rosenthal, R., and Crowne, D. Emotion percep--ton and response to teacher expectancy in elementary schoolchildren. ilat212EJ01112x2r1(1, 1968, 22, 2( -34.

Cornbleth, Davis, 0. L., Jr., and Button, C. Teacher-pupil inter-action and teacher expectation for pupil achievement insecondary social studies classes. Social Education, in press.

Davis, L., Jr., and Slobodian, J. J. Teacher behavior toward heycand girls during first grade reading instructIon. Americal ducritic rrnl Research J)urnal, 1967, 4, n61-269.

Elaohoff, J. D. and Snow, R.E. Pygmalion Reconsid d. Worthington,Ohio:1 Charles A. J31100 Publishing Co., 19

Evans, J. T. and Ro,cnthal, R. rpersonal self-fulfilling prophecFurther extrapolation from the laboratory to the classroom.Proeoodlnep of the TOM Annual Convention nf the Amf%ricnn1' sycl10.12LiesJ Annocistion, 1969, ITTETEITTYTTIL-TJT:

Fleming, E. S. and __ttonen, R. G. Teacher expectancy as related tothe academic and personal growth of primary-age children.

Monop-- ,hs oi- for Research in Cold Development,

er_al1911,

Fuller, F. F. Concerns o1 teachors: A.developmentol conceptualization.

American EducatiOnal Researci __al 1969, 7, 207-226.

Good,. T. L. Which pupils dotcachers cull on?Journal, .1970 70, 190-19g.

Elementary School

Jose, J. Teacher-pupil interaction as it relates to attempted changesin teacher expectancy of academic ability and achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 1971, g, 39-49.

Meichenbaum, D. H.; Rowers, K. S.; and Ross, R. R. A behavioral

analysis of teacher expectancy affect. Journal of Per: enalif

and Social Psychology, 1969, 306-316.

Mendoza, S. M.; Good, T. L.; and Brophy, J. E. Who talks in junior

high school classrooms? Expanded version of a paper entitledThe Communication of teacher expectations in a junior high

school," presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research- Association, New York, New York, 1971.

Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the- Classroom. New York:

Holt- Rinehart and Winston, 196g.

coda, J. W.; Cohen, H.: and Meall, G. Tests of significance for a

series of statistical tests. Pscholletin, 1954,21, 172-175.

Snow, R. E. Unfinished pygmalion. Contemporary Psycholplib 1969 14

197-199.

Thorndike, R. L. Review of Rosenthal,he Classroom. Arne ican Eiluention Researc ournal, 1968,

70g-711.

and Jacobson, L., EyseliiApn

Jr, -n 13,-7,sinrch :;clooLisL, linearoh CrmtcrCoy Corhitiveb1:arnin6, UnlvomiLy of WHeonHn,-Modison,Wir;(2-.)nsin. 53562. L. i. IN Ellue:Jtion, TLxas TcchUniversity; Ph.D., The Univrsity or To.alo at Austin.ArL:an 01 npocializatio: social, tunics oducation, -

dividuully puidud education, elomntary school instrueti ialpracLicos. ABBA Divisions: B, G.

Davis U. L., Jr. Pr-iVessor of Curl. -Ium and Instruotion, CollegeoV KluotaJon, Tiro University oV Texas ab Austin, Austin,TI--xml y8712. B.A., N.M., Wirth Texas Stste Univorsity;Ph.D., George Peabody Collogc for Tcnohoro. Areas orspecialiation: eurriculum theory, anolYsis of Geaching,30einl oLudies education.- AMA-Divisions: B, C.

;'i

.11KITIMQ11

The purposeb ofthe study were: to whether fourth-gladesocial studies tenchers verbnliy interactcd diffurentlyn function of differential (!xpeetobiens of pupil achievement Lind todetermino vhother fourth-grade socini studies teachers verbally inter-acted differently with boy cnd ciris._

Pa to were colircted using the Drophy-GoOd, dyadic observntionRc:-ulto rev,:t001 tLachers-to differ significantly in thr:ir tmnchig

behnvior with fespoot to high- and 10w-expectation pupils. linwelp)r,

teachers did not discriminate differentially: bc:Lwc(In boys and girls.

Th,! findinrs the study suggest that teachers probably dooommuniente diffcronLinl performance expectations to different pupilsthrough ,,hcir cln:Iftrnom behavior, and the nature of this differentinitreatwolo, is_ruch W..: to cneourapo thu pupils to respond in ways whichwould confirm ixach,r uxpectanoies.