journal of teacher education ......34 self-fulfilling prophecy effects of teacher expectations can...

http://jte.sagepub.com/Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/38/4/32The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/002248718703800406

1987 38: 32Journal of Teacher EducationThomas L. Good

Two Decades of Research on Teacher Expectations: Findings and Future Directions

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/38/4/32.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 1987Version of Record >>

at Stanford University Libraries on July 8, 2013jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jte.sagepub.com/

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/38/4/32

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.aacte.org

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/38/4/32.refs.html

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/38/4/32.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


32

RESEARCH Research Editor: Kenneth R. Howey

Two Decades of Research onTeacher Expectations: Findingsand Future Directions

Thomas L. Good

Good discusses the types of teacher expectation effects evi-denced in the classroom. Particular attention is focused on theresearch that addresses teachers’ expectations for and interac-tions with individuals believed to be of high or low potential.Good presents a model for use in understanding the dynamicsof expectation communication in the classroom and highlightsnumerous studies relating teacher expectations with studentbehavior. The differential treatment of students by teachers isdescribed by the author, with special attention given to howteachers express low expectations. The article concludes witha description of future research directions.

or about two decades, educational researchers havebeen concerned with the possibility that teacherscommunicate different performance expectations forF students they believe to have low versus high achieve-

ment potential. In planning for and interacting with entireclasses, small groups, and individuals, teachers are guidedby their beliefs about what students need and by their expec-tations about how students will respond if treated in particu-lar ways. Teacher expectations are defined here as inferencesthat teachers make about the future behavior or academicachievement of their students, based on what they knowabout these students now. Teacher expectation effects are

student outcomes that occur because of the actions that teach-ers take in response to their own expectations.

Researchers have examined two types of teacher expectationeffects (Cooper and Good, 1983): the self-fulfilling prophecyeffect in which an originally erroneous expectation leads tobehavior that causes the expectation to become true, and thesustaining expectation effect. In the latter effect, teachers expectstudents to sustain previously developed behavior patterns,to the point that teachers take these behavior patterns forgranted and fail to see and capitalize on changes in studentpotential.

Self-fulfilling prophecy effects are more powerful than sus-taining expectation effects because they introduce significantchange in student behavior instead of merely minimizingsuch change by sustaining established patterns. Self-fulfillingprophecy effects can be powerful and dramatic when theyoccur, but the more subtle sustaining expectation effects

probably occur much more often (Good and Brophy, 1987).

Teacher Expectations as Self-Fulfilling PropheciesAbout two decades ago, Robert Rosenthal and Lenore

Jacobson’s Pygmalion in the Classroom ( 1968) created wide in-terest and controversy about self- fulfilling prophecies. Theirbook described research in which they manipulated teacherexpectations for student achievement to see if these expecta-tions would be fulfilled. Their research indicated that in theearly grades teachers’ artificially high expectations (teacherswere given bogus test data) for student performance wereassociated with enhanced student performance.

At first, conclusions from this study were accepted en-thusiastically. However, secondary sources sometimes madeexaggerated claims that went far beyond those made byRosenthal and Jacobson, and critics began to attack the study(Snow, 1969; Taylor, 1970). A replication attempt failed toproduce the same results (Claiborn, 1969), leading to debates

Good is Professor, Educational Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia.



33

over the merits of the Oak School experiment. Meanwhile,other investigators conducted related studies using a varietyof approaches, and attention shifted from debates over theoriginal study to attempts to make sense of a growing liter-ature on teacher expectation effects and related topics (Braun,1976; Brophy and Good, 1974; West and Anderson, 1976).Research has continued in the nearly 20 years since the OakSchool experiment and leads to a consensus that teachers’

expectations can and sometimes do affect teacher-studentinteraction and student outcomes, along with the recognitionthat the processes involved are much more complex thanoriginally believed (Brophy, 1983; Cooper and Good, 1983;Dusek, 1985; Marshall and Weinstein, 1984). For example,research also indicates that students influence teacher be-havior.

Studies show that teachers’ expectations are often an accu-rate assessment of student ability Hence, teachers’ expecta-tions for student behavior are not necessarily inappropriate.The problem of low teacher expectations may not be one ofsimple identification or labeling of students (i.e., recognitionthat one student is relatively less able than another) butrather of inappropriate knowledge of how to respond to studentswho have difficulty learning.

Teachers’ Expectations for Individual StudentsThis paper focuses on teachers’ expectations for and interac-

tions with individual students believed to be of high or lowachievement potential because most research has concentratedon this area. However, it is important to recognize thatteacher expectations may concern either the entire class,groups of students, or specific individuals. General expecta-tions include teachers’ beliefs about the changeability versusthe rigidity of students’ abilities, students’ potential to benefitfrom instruction, the appropriate difficulty level of materialfor students, whether the class should be taught as a groupor individually, and whether students should memorize mate-rial or interpret and apply key concepts that are presented.

There are countless ways in which teacher beliefs otherthan expectations for individual student performance mayaffect student performance. For example, some teachers be-lieve that it is important for students to be active in theclassroom, discovering knowledge on their own and assuminga great deal of independence. Other teachers believe thatstudents should learn information that teachers present.Teachers’ beliefs about subject matter may also have importanteffects. Depending on whether teachers believe that readinginstruction basically involves teaching students phonics andcomprehension skills (being able to determine someone else’smeaning of a written passage) or challenging students todevelop their own meaning and to read to achieve self-deter-mined goals, the way in which the curriculum is presentedand the opportunities that students have will be quite dif-ferent.The point is that teachers’ beliefs interact in complex ways

and are at least responsive to, if not partially determined by,students’ beliefs and behavior. A low-achieving student mayreceive quite different treatment in a class where a teacherbelieves in emphasizing meaning and understanding than ina classroom where a premium is placed on speed and accuracy.

Students believed to possess less potential are more likely toreceive an unending stream of drill assignments in the latterthan in the former classroom.

Research shows that teachers’ performance expectations varyin terms of student characteristics other than achievement

potential per se. Brophy and Good (1974) found in one setof classrooms that low-achievement girls tended to have espe-cially impoverished academic environments in the classroom,whereas high-achieving boys tended to be afforded productiveand intellectually responsive environments, despite the factthat when general measures of classroom interaction wereused, teachers were more critical of boys than of girls. Thus,depending on the questions researchers ask, different relation-ships can be obtained. Clearly, a teacher may treat girls andboys in the same classroom somewhat differently but stillmaintain sharply divergent interaction patterns with particu-lar subgroups of students (high-achieving boys versus low-achieving girls).The relationship between beliefs and behavior is complex

in part because teachers hold multiple beliefs and becausestudents possess numerous characteristics. Although the in-fluence of beliefs on behavior is undeniable, the long historyof the study of expectations (see Zuroff and Rotter, 1985)shows that conducting research in this area presents a difficultanalytical challenge. Despite the difficulty of relating expec-tations to behavior, a considerable number of good classroomstudies have been conducted. Discussion of this research is

organized around the Brophy-Good model of expectationcommunication.

Brophy-Good ModelMuch of the early classroom observational work was or-

ganized around a model used by Brophy and Good in oneof the first naturalistic studies of teacher interaction withhigh- and low-achieving students following the publicationof Rosenthal and Jacobsoris (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom.Brophy and Good (1970) suggested the following model forhow the expectation communication process might work inthe classroom:

1. Early in the year, teachers form differential expectationsfor student behavior and achievement.

2. Consistent with these differential expectations, teachersbehave differently toward various students.

3. This treatment tells students something about howthey are expected to behave in the classroom and perform onacademic tasks.

4. If the teacher treatment is consistent over time and ifstudents do not actively resist or change it, it will likelyaffect their self-concepts, achievement motivation, levels ofaspiration, classroom conduct, and interactions with theteacher.

5. These effects generally will complement and reinforcethe teacher’s expectations, so that students will come to conformto these expectations more than they might have otherwise.

6. Ultimately, this will affect student achievement andother outcomes. High-expectation students will be led toachieve at or near their potential, but low-expectation stu-dents will not gain as much as they could have gained if

taught differently.



34

Self-fulfilling prophecy effects of teacher expectations canoccur only when all the elements in the model are present.Often, however, one or more elements is missing. A teachermay not have clear-cut expectations about every student, orthose expectations may change continually. Even when expec-tations are consistent, the teacher may not necessarily com-municate them to the student through consistent behavior.In this case, the expectations would not be self-fulfillingeven if they turned out to be correct. Finally, students mightprevent expectations from becoming self-fulfilling by coun-teracting their effects or resisting them in a way that makesthe teacher change them. For sustaining expectations to occur,it is only necessary that teachers engage in behaviors thatmaintain students’ and teachers’ previously formed low expec-tations (e.g., low students receive only drill work, easy ques-tions, etc.).

How Teachers Form ExpectationsThe model begins with the statement that teachers form

differential achievement expectations for individual studentsat the beginning of the school year. Investigators have studiedthe nature of the information that teachers use to form these

expectations and the degree to which the expectations areaccurate.

In one type of experimental study of expectation formation,subjects (not necessarily teachers) are given only carefullycontrolled information about, and little or no opportunityto interact with, the &dquo;students&dquo; (usually fictional) aboutwhom they are asked to make predictions. In such a study,all of the subjects might be given cumulative record formscontaining identical test scores, grades, and comments pre-sumably written by previous teachers, but half of the formswould be accompanied by a picture of a white child and theother half by a picture of a black child (to see if knowledgeabout the fictional students’ race would affect predictionsabout their achievement). Such experiments have shown thatexpectations can be affected significantly by informationabout test performance, performance on assignments, trackor group placement, classroom conduct, physical appearance,race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sex, speech characteris-tics, and various diagnostic or special education labels (seereviews by Baron, Tom, and Cooper, 1985; Braun, 1976;Brophy and Good, 1974; Dusek and Joseph, 1985; Persell,1977; Peterson and Barger, 1985; Rolison and Medway, 1985).Most of the information in school records is accurate and

likely to induce correct expectations in teachers who read it.Thus, teachers’ predictions about student achievement are usu-ally quite correct, sometimes even more accurate than predic-tions based on test data (Egan and Archer, 1985; Hoge andButcher, 1984; Mitman, 1985; Monk, 1983; Pedulla, Airasian,and Madaus, 1980).

In summary, inservice teachers usually develop accurateexpectations about their students, and they tend to changethese expectations as more or better information becomesavailable. This limits the possibility for self-fulfillingprophecy effects (which are based on false or unjustified expec-tations) to occur, although it still allows sustaining expectationEffects. Self-fulfilling prophecy effects are especially likely tooccur when students are new to their teachers because it is

early in the school year (especially in kindergarten and first

grade and in the first year of middle school, junior high, orhigh school) or because they have transferred from anotherschool.

How Teachers Communicate ExpectationsConsidering that teachers have formed differential expecta-

tions for various students, the next step of the Brophy-Goodmodel postulates that teachers communicate these expecta-tions through their behavior toward students. Researchershave documented the ways that teachers interact with studentswho differ in current or expected achievement. Indeed, mostresearch on the communication of teacher expectations con-cerns Step 2 of the Brophy-Good model.Good and Brophy (1987) suggest that the following be-

haviors sometimes indicate differential teacher treatment of

high and low achievers:1. Waiting less time for &dquo;lows&dquo; to answer (Allington,

1980; Bozsik, 1982; Rowe, 1974a, b; Taylor, 1979).2. Giving low achievers answers or calling on someone

else rather than trying to improve their responses by givingclues or repeating or rephrasing questions (Brophy and Good,1970; Jeter and Davis, 1973).

3. Rewarding inappropriate behavior or incorrect answersby low achievers (Amato, 1975; Fernandez, Espinosa, andDornbusch, 1975; Graham, 1984; Kleinfeld, 1975; Meyer,Bachmann, Biermann, Hemplemann, Ploger, and Spiller,1979; Natriello and Dornbusch, 1984; Rowe, 1974a; Taylor,1977; Weinstein, 1976).

4. Criticizing low achievers more often for failure (Brophyand Good, 1970; Cooper and Baron, 1977; Good, Cooper,and Blakey, 1980; Good, Sikes, and Brophy, 1973; Jones,1971; Medinnus and Unruh, 1971; Rowe, 1974a; Smith andLuginbuhl, 1976).

5. Praising low achievers less frequently than highs forsuccess (Babad, Inbar, and Rosenthal, 1982; Brophy andGood, 1970; Cooper and Baron, 1977; Firestone and Brody,1975; Good, Cooper, and Blakey, 1980; Good, et al., 1973;Martinek and Johnson, 1979; Medinnus and Unruh, 1971;Rejeski, Darracott, and Hutslar, 1979; Spector, 1973).

6. Failing to give feedback to the public responses of lowachievers (Brophy and Good, 1970; Good, et al. , 1973; Jeterand Davis, 1973; Willis, 1970).

7. Paying less attention to low achievers or interactingwith them less frequently (Adams and Cohen, 1974; Blakey,1970; Given, 1974; Kester and Letchworth, 1972; Page,1971; Rist, 1970; Rubovits and Maehr, 1971).

8. Calling on low achievers less often to respond to ques-tions (Davis and Levine, 1970; Mendoza, Good, and Brophy,1972; Rubovits and Maehr, 1971), or asking them only easier,nonanalytic questions (Martinek and Johnson, 1979).

9. Seating low achievers farther away from the teacher(Rist, 1970).

10. Demanding less from low achievers. This differentialtreatment is evidenced by a variety of behaviors. Beez (1968)found that tutors with high expectations not only taughtmore words, but also taught them more rapidly and withless extended explanation and repetition of definitions andexamples. The studies of inappropriate reinforcement men-tioned above indicate that teachers may accept low-qualityor even incorrect responses from low achievers. Graham (1984)



35

suggests that excessive teacher sympathy or offers of gratu-itous, unsolicited help may communicate low expectations,especially if these behaviors occur instead of behaviors de-

signed to help low achievers meet success criteria.11. Interacting with low achievers more privately than pub-

licly, and monitoring and structuring their activities more close-ly Brophy and Good (1974) discuss these differences in detail.

12. Grading tests or assignments in a differential manner,in which high achievers but not low achievers are given thebenefit of the doubt in borderline cases (Cahen, 1966; Finn,1972; Heapy and Siess, 1970).

13. Having less friendly interaction with low achievers,including less smiling and fewer other nonverbal indicatorsof support (Babad, et al. , 1982; Chaikin, Sigler, and Derlega,1974; Kester and Letchworth, 1972; Meichenbaum, Bowers,and Ross, 1969; Page, 1971; Smith and Luginbuhl, 1976)and less warm or more anxious voice tones (Blanck andRosenthal, 1984).

14. Providing briefer and less informative feedback to thequestions of low achievers (Cooper, 1979; Cornbleth, Davis,and Button, 1972).

15. Providing less eye contact and other nonverbal com-munication of attention and responsiveness (e.g., forwardlean, positive head nodding) in interaction with low achievers(Chaikin, Sigler, and Derlega, 1974).

16. Evidencing less use of effective but time consuminginstructional methods with low achievers when time is li-mited (Swann and Snyder, 1980).

17. Evidencing less acceptance and use of low achievers’ideas (Martinek and Johnson, 1979; Martinek and Karper,1982).As indicated by the numerous studies conducted, this has

been a very active research area; however, it is clear that someof the 17 points have more support than others. Also, it iscritical to stress that the teacher behaviors listed above donot necessarily characterize ineffective teaching; rather, theyshould be used as guidelines by supervisors and teachers asthey analyze their behavior and study effects of teacher be-havior on particular students. Some students may need morestructure and easier work than others, and there is no reasonto assume that teachers should treat all students alike; how-ever, some teachers overreact to relatively small differencesamong students by teaching them in sharply divergent waysthat are inappropriate. The key issue is the appropriatenessof students’ differential treatment (e.g., work assigned, fre-quency of public questions).

Classrooms differ, and different students in the same class-room vary in important ways. Still, it is possible to exploreresearch findings in order to understand some of the ways inwhich beliefs about achievement potential may inhibit effec-tive classroom communication. The concepts and findingsassociated with expectation research provide guidelines orframes of reference that allow teachers to think about and

attempt to alter classroom environments. These classroom

concepts can help teachers to increase the number of dimen-sions they use in thinking about classroom performance andthe number (and range) of hypotheses or alternative strategiesavailable. Concepts also encourage teachers to consider thepossible consequences of selective actions on various students(Good and Power, 1976).

Some investigators have organized the behavioral researchfindings (e.g., 17 points raised above) into models. Rosenthal(1974) reviewed the research on mediators of teacher expecta-tion effects and identified four general factors. Focusing onpositive self-fulfilling prophecy effects, he suggests that teach-ers will maximize student achievement if they:

1. Create warm social-emotional relationships with thestudents (climate).

2. Give them more feedback about their performance (feed-back).

3. Teach them more (and more difficult) material (input).4. Give them more opportunities to respond and to ask

questions (output).Good and Weinstein ( 1986a) describe the effects of specific

teaching behaviors in a more general way (see Table 1). Wenow turn to a discussion of research related to the remainingsteps of the Brophy-Good model.

Student Perceptions of Differential Teacher TreatmentIn addition to expectation effects that occur directly

through differences in exposure to content, etc., indirecteffects may occur through teacher behavior that affects stu-dents’ self-concepts, motivation, performance expectations,or attributions (inferences about why they succeed or fail).This brings us to Step 3 of the Brophy and Good model,which postulates that students perceive differential treatmentand its implications about what is expected of them.

Research by Weinstein (1983, 1985) and her colleaguesindicates that students are aware of differences in teachers’patterns of interaction with different students in the class.Interviews with elementary school students show that theysee their teachers as projecting higher achievement expecta-tions and offering more opportunity and choice to higherachievers, while structuring the activities of low achieversmore closely and providing them both with more help andwith more negative feedback about academic work and class-room conduct (Weinstein, Marshall, Brattesani, and Middle-stadt, 1982). Furthermore, students see these differences asapplying to their own personal treatment from their teachers,not just to the treatment of other students (Brattesani, Wein-stein, and Marshall, 1984).

Weinsteins research clearly indicates that students’ percep-tions and interpretations of teacher feedback could providea missing link in understanding the transmission of expecta-tions. In a study of the processes and outcomes associatedwith reading groups in three first-grade classrooms, Wein-stein (1976) found that the relationship between teacher be-havior and student achievement was difficult to reconcile.For example, the teacher &dquo;favored&dquo; low reading group mem-bers with more praise and less criticism than high-groupmembers. Despite this &dquo;favorable&dquo; treatment, over the courseof the school year the gap in achievement, peer status, andanxiety about school performance widened significantly be-tween high and low reading group members. However, class-room observers noted that the praise to low achievers wasqualitatively different from the praise to high achievers. Wein-stein hypothesized that the more frequent critical commentsconcerning performance directed toward high achievers mightsuggest high expectations to those students and that thehigh rates of praise for low achievers (for less than perfect



36

Table 1General Dimensions of Teachers’ Communication of Differential Expectations and Selected Examples

This table is reprinted from Good, T., & Weinstein, R. (1986a). Teacher expectations: A framework for exploring classrooms.In K. Zumwalt (Ed.), Improving teaching. (The 1986 ASCD Yearbook). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

answers) conveyed an indiscriminant acceptance to those fromwhom less was expected.

Zahorik (1970) obtained similar results that suggestedthat various students interpret teacher statements differently.For example, if students are to feel &dquo;good&dquo; about answersand to know that their answer is correct, the teacher’s verbalfeedback must contain such words as &dquo;all right&dquo; or &dquo;good.

&dquo;

Although the descriptors that would be necessary to convincestudents that their work was adequate would probably changedramatically from grade level to grade level or from teacherto teacher even at the same grade level, Zahorik’s findingsuggests that students interpret information from teachers.Along these same lines, Morine-Dershimer (1982) investi-gated students’ perceptions of the function of teacher praiseand found that students could distinguish between praise asbeing deserved and praise as having instructional or motiva-tional purposes. Students’ awareness of these differences gen-erally matched teachers’ intended use of praise. Students’reactions to teacher praise are a good illustration of the factthat student thinking and interpretation mediate the effectof overt teaching behavior. Brophy (1981) notes that praisemay erode or enhance motivation, and Mitman (1985) reportsthat in some instances students may interpret teacher criticismas suggesting that the teacher cares (i.e., expects good work).It therefore is clear that in some areas of classroom life studentsinterpret teacher behavior.As Weinstein (1983) notes, several studies provide evidence

that students make sophisticated interpretations of teacher be-havior. Her own work, in particular, demonstrates that stu-dents perceive differential teacher treatment toward high-

and low-achieving students in some areas but not in others.Weinstein and Middlestadt (1979a, b) asked younger andolder elementary school children to rate 60 teacher behaviorsas descriptive of the treatment of a hypothetical male student,either a high or low achiever. Treatment profiles of the twotypes of students showed that students perceived differentialtreatment in one-quarter of the teacher behaviors studied. In

particular, student-perceived teacher treatment of male highachievers reflected high expectations, academic demand, andspecial privileges. Male low achievers were viewed as receivingfewer chances but greater teacher concern and vigilance.Weinstein concludes that students are clearly aware of thegreater teacher help and structure accorded low achievers incontrast to the more autonomous learning context accordedhigh achievers.

Students’ perceptions of differential treatment at the class-room level also appear to moderate the relationship betweenteacher expectations and student achievement. In classroomswith perceived low differential treatment, where it was

hypothesized that the teacher communicated little informa-tion about differential student ability, student achievementwas best predicted by a previous measure of achievement,which accounted for 64 to 77 percent of the variance inachievement (Brattesani, et al. , 1984). In other words, stu-dents continued to perform at about the same levels, relativeto their classmates, as they had performed before. Other

patterns were observed in classrooms with perceived highdifferential treatment. Because students in these classrooms

reported more differential treatment of high- and low-achiev-ing students, it was hypothesized that teachers provided more



37

information about various students’ abilities. The researchersfound that in these classrooms, student achievement was lesseffectively predicted by prior achievement, which accountedfor only 47 to 62 percent of the variance. In these high-differentiation classrooms (as perceived by students), teachers’expectations explained an additional 9 to 18 percent of thevariance in student achievement, whereas teacher expectationsexplained only an additional one to four percent of achieve-ment variance in low-differentiation classrooms.

Cooper and Good (1983) report similar findings. Com-pared to low-expectation peers, elementary students for whomtheir teachers held high expectations reported themselves asengaging more often in teacher-initiated public interactionsbut less often in teacher-initiated private interactions, supply-ing correct answers more frequently, and receiving more praiseand less criticism from their teachers. Actual observed differ-ences were in the same direction but less extreme, suggestingthat students not only perceive differential treatment butexaggerate the degree of differentiation that exists.

To the extent that such differentiation exists in a classroom,expectation effects on student achievement are likely to occurboth directly through opportunity to learn (differences in theamount and nature of exposure to content and opportunitiesto engage in various academic activities) and indirectlythrough differential treatment likely to affect students’ self-concepts, attributional inferences, or motivation.

Individual differences among students also affect the sizeof teacher expectation effects. Some students may be moresensitive than others to voice tones or other subtle communi-cation cues, so that they decode teachers’ communications ofexpectations more often and accurately (Conn, Edwards,Rosenthal, and Crowne, 1968; Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall,and Rosenthal, 1978). Younger and more teacher-dependentstudents may also be more susceptible to teacher expectationeffects (Persell, 1977; West and Anderson, 1976). However,as Weinstein (1985) notes, we still know too little aboutwhat makes some students more sensitive to expectationeffects to make accurate predictions.

Other Models for Indirect Mediation of Expectation EffectsConsidering that teachers form differential expectations

for various students, that teachers act on these expectationsby treating students differently, and that the students perceivethis differential treatment and infer implications about whatis expected of them, the stage is set for teacher expectationeffects on student achievement that are mediated througheffects on self-concept, motivation, expectations, and attribu-tions. The remaining steps in the Brophy-Good modelsuggest that such effects occur, but do not say much abouthow the process might work. However, others have developedmodels that offer such explanations.

Cooper’s Model. Cooper ( 1979, 1985) suggests that teach-ers’ needs to retain predictability and control over classroominteraction cause them to treat low achievers in ways that

may erode achievement motivation. He notes that predicta-bility and control are especially important issues to teachersin public interaction situations, where a student’s unexpectedwords or actions may disrupt lesson continuity and produceclassroom management problems. Because low achievers arethe students most likely to cause such problems, teachers who

fear loss of control may minimize these students’ potentialfor disrupting public interaction settings by squelching theirinitiations and calling on them only for very brief and tightlycontrolled contributions. In order to exert such control, theseteachers may treat low-achieving students less warmly. Inparticular, they may tend not to praise strong efforts by lowachievers because such praise might encourage these studentsto initiate interactions more often, and they may criticizelow achievers’ weak efforts more often because such criticismincreases their control over the lows’ behavior. Meanwhile,high achievers would be treated more warmly, because theteacher has less to fear from encouraging them to initiatepublic interactions and has less need to criticize them inorder to retain control over their behavior.

Such a difference in teacher warmth alone would likelyaffect student motivation. In addition, however, this differen-tial treatment might affect student motivation by decreasinglow achievers’ belief in a direct relationship between academiceffort and achievement. Whereas high achievers would bepraised or criticized in direct response to their effort (praisedwhen efforts are strong and criticized when they do not tryhard enough), low achievers sometimes would be praised orcriticized more because of the teacher’s desire to control theirpublic interactions than for reasons having to do with theirlevels of effort. For them, good effort would often go unrecog-nized, and poor efforts would often be allowed because theteacher was more concerned about discouraging them fromdisrupting lessons than about reinforcing their learning ef-forts. Over time, high achievers would develop a clear sensethat their learning efforts paid off, but low achievers wouldsee less clear relationships between effort and outcome. Intheory, this should lead directly to a reduction in low achievers’achievement motivation, and indirectly to a reduction inachievement itself.

Attribution Theory Models. Others (Dweck and Elliott,1983; Eccles and Wigfield, 1985; Graham, 1984) havesuggested that expectation effects are mediated by teachers’influences on students’ attributional thinking about thereasons for their successes and failures. Ideally, students willbelieve that they have the ability to succeed at academictasks if they apply reasonable effort (&dquo;I can succeed if I try. &dquo;).However, some students, especially low achievers, fall intoa failure syndrome/learned helplessness pattern (&dquo;I carit dothe work - I’m dumb. &dquo;). Such students are prone to discounttheir successes (&dquo;I was lucky. &dquo;) and to attribute their failuresto lack of ability rather than to insufficient effort or relianceon an ineffective strategy. Eventually, they come to believethat nothing they can do will enable them to succeed consis-tently, so they give up. Various authors have suggested thatteacher communication of low expectations encourages lowachievers to develop this pattern of attributional thinking.Teachers usually do not directly suggest that students do nothave the ability to succeed (Blumenfeld, Hamilton, Bossert,Wessels, and Meece, 1983), but they may suggest this indi-rectly by minimizing demands on them, overreacting tominor successes, treating failures as if they were successes,or responding to failures with pity or excessive sympathyinstead of problem identification and remedial instruction.

Eccles and Wigfield (1985) note that the attributional/motivational variables that are the key to the expectation



38 /

communication process are similar for both students andteachers. They suggest that the issue can be summarized inthree questions: Can I succeed at this task? Do I want tosucceed at this task? What do I need to do to succeed atthis task? From the standpoint of the student, these questionsare: Can I learn this material? Do I want to complete theassignment? What do I need to do in order to complete theassignment? From the teacher’s standpoint, these questionsare: Can I teach this child the material? Do I want to teachthis child the material? What do I have to do to teach thischild the material successfully?

Although relatively little research has occurred in class-rooms with regard to Steps 4, 5, and 6 of the Brophy-Goodmodel, there is growing evidence that students are sensitiveto verbal and nonverbal cues from teachers; that studentsperceive differences in the function of teacher behavior; andthat students perceive differences in teacher behavior towardhigh- and low-achieving students, especially in some class-rooms (Weinstein, 1985).

Weinsteins (1985) work shows that students’ interviewresponses often indicate that students make fine distinctionsin a given behavior. For example, with regard to &dquo;call-on,&dquo;students said that the teacher &dquo;calls on the smart kids forthe right answer ... she expects you to know more andworit tell answers. With regard to the low achievers, studentspreceived that the teacher calls on them sometimes &dquo;to givethem a chance&dquo; or &dquo;because they goofed off,&dquo; or &dquo;often shedoesrit call on them because she knows they dorit know theanswer.

&dquo;

Data from classroom observational studies suggest that notall teachers treat high- and low-expectation students differ-ently (Good, 1980). The variability between classrooms andthe occurrence of differential treatment have most often been

explained in terms of individual differences in teacher typeor personality (Brophy and Good, 1974; Cooper, 1979). How-ever, as Weinstein (1985) notes, a growing body of researchsuggests that the activity structure adopted for classroominstruction can either facilitate or constrain the opportunitiesfor certain kinds of teacher-student interaction (Bossert, 1979;Doyle, 1980). More research on students may help us tounderstand better how students perceive, internalize, and acton classroom events.

Group, Class, and School Effects

Expectation effects can operate at the level of groups,classes, or entire schools. Although the Brophy-Good modelfocused on teachers’ communication to individual students,it is clear that teachers communicate expectations to entireclasses and to groups of students and that these expectationeffects are at least as important as effects on individuals.

Group EffectsWeinstein (1976) showed that reading group membership

information added 25 percent to the variance in mid-yearreading achievement that could be predicted beyond whatwas predictable from readiness scores taken at the beginningof the year. Placement into high groups accelerated achieve-ment rates, but placement into low groups slowed themdown (relative to the differences that would have been

expected anyway due to variation in readiness).Research comparing instruction in different reading groups

(reviewed by Hiebert, 1983) suggests some possible reasonsfor this. Teachers tend to give longer reading assignments(Pflaum, Pascarella, Boswick, and Aver, 1980), to providemore time for discussion of the story (Bozsik, 1982), and tobe generally more demanding (Haskett, 1968) with highgroups than with low groups. They are quicker to interruptlow-group students when they make reading mistakes (Al-lington, 1983) and more likely to just give them the wordor prompt them with graphemic (phonetic) cues during oralreading rather than to offer semantic and syntactic cues thatmight help them intuit the word from its context (Allington,1980; Pflaum, et al. , 1980). Teachers are also less likely toask low groups higher-level, comprehension questions (Boz-sik, 1982).The nature and extent of such differential treatment varv

from teacher to teacher, and at least some of it can be seenas appropriate differential instruction (Alpert, 1974; Brophy,1983; Haskins, Walden, and Ramey, 1983). However, as wasthe case with differential treatment of individual students,consistent patterns of such differential treatment of groupsare cause for concern. Too often, low groups continually getless exciting instruction, less emphasis on meaning andconceptualization, and more rote drill and practice activities(Good and Marshall, 1984).

Eder’s (1981) study of reading groups in one first-gradeclass indicates how the process might work, at least in someinstances. She found that students who were likely to havedifficulty in learning to read generally were assigned to groupswhose social context was not conducive to learning. Most ofthe students in Eder’s study had similar academic abilitiesand socioeconomic backgrounds (middle-class). None of thestudents could read prior to entering first grade; however,there are probably some important differences with respectto various reading readiness skills. Still, their progress in

reading could plausibly be related to the reading instructionthey received in first grade. Despite the relative homogeneityof these pupils, the first-grade teacher still grouped them forreading instruction.

Because the most immature, inattentive students were

assigned to low groups, it was almost certain that these

groups would cause more managerial problems than others,especially early in the year. Indeed, because the teacher wasoften distracted from a student reader in the low group whowas responding (because of the need to manage other studentsin the group), students often provided the correct word forthe reader. Readers were not allowed time to ascertain wordson their own, even though less than a third of the studentsinterviewed reported that they liked to be helped, and mostthought that this help interfered with their learning. Eder’swork indicates that low students had less time than highstudents to correct their mistakes before other students orthe teacher intervened. Eder suggests that because of manage-ment problems, frequent interruptions, and less serious teach-ing, low students may inadvertently have been encouragedto respond to social and procedural aspects of the readinggroup rather than to academic tasks.

Grant and Rothenberg (1986) concluded from an intensivestudy of eight classrooms that first- and second-grade reading



39

groups create and perpetuate status distinctions among stu-dents. Students placed in top groups had more educationaladvantages than students placed in the lower groups. Forexample, students in the higher groups had (a) more oppor-tunities to demonstrate competence, (b) work and task envi-ronments that were conducive to learning more academicskills, and (c) greater opportunity to practice autonomous,self-directed modes of learning. Grant and Rothenberg seetheir data as another illustration of the need to rethink theextensive use of ability grouping.

Allington (1983) notes that although there are some goodreasons for oral reading (e.g., it gives the teacher a chanceto identify a child’s difficulties), low-achieving students dotoo much oral reading and too little silent reading. Allingtoncontends that the focus on oral reading or silent readingexerts subtle pressure on the teacher to behave in a particularway. Because reading in low groups tends to be primarilyoral, many teachers emphasize correct pronunciation, properword sequence, etc. In contrast, teachers’ questions of highreaders following silent reading are more likely to focus ontext meaning and student understanding. Hence, the structure,of the reading group may exert subtle influences on bothteachers and students.

Alloway (1984) reports that teachers may express low expec-tations to groups of students and that favorable expectationsexpressed towards individual students may be underminedby communication to students as group members. Some ofthe communication expressed in the classroom follows. Itillustrates some of the expectations that teachers communi-cated to low groups: &dquo;You children are slower so please geton with your work now&dquo; (low-expectancy group); &dquo;I’ll beover to help you slow ones in a moment. This group can goon by itself. &dquo;; &dquo;You need this extra time, so pay attentionto me please. &dquo;; &dquo;The blue group will find this hard. &dquo; Allowayalso pointed out low expectations in the form of labels teachersgive to individual students: &dquo;Hurry up, Robyn. Even youcan get this right&dquo;; &dquo;Michelle, youre slow as it is. You haveritgot time to look around the classroom.&dquo;

&dquo;

The Commission on Reading ( 1984) summarizes the prob-lem for low-ability students in the following way.

There are qualitative differences in the experience of children in highand low reading groups that would be expected to place children inlow groups at a disadvantage. Children in low groups do relativelymore reading aloud and relatively less silent reading. They moreoften read words without a meaningful context on lists or flashcards,and less often read words in stories. Teachers correct a higher propor-tion of oral reading mistakes of children in low groups than childrenin high groups. When the mistake is corrected, teachers are moreoften likely to furnish a clue about pronunciation and less likely tofurnish a clue about meaning for children in low groups. Teachersask relatively more simple, factual questions of children in low groupsand relatively fewer questions that require reasoning. (pp. 89-90)

Students in low groups often receive less interesting andless demanding reading instruction. Because of differencesin vocabulary, rates of processing information, etc., there

may be reasons to group students along ability lines for someof their instruction in reading. However, some instructionneeds to occur in mixed-ability groups - such as when themeanings of stories are discussed. Too often, grouping fordifferential instruction is a &dquo;solution&dquo; that in a subtle fashionbecomes part of the problem. Students who need a bit more

structure and drill receive a curriculum that places too muchemphasis on word analysis and drill.

Class EffectsLike others who have examined the literature on ability

grouping and tracking, Oakes (1985) notes that there areoften major differences between high- and low-track class-rooms including (a) quality of knowledge, (b) amount oftime assigned to learning, (c) amount of high-quality teach-ing, and (d) intellectual stimulation from peers. She also

suggests that teachers’ decisions about classroom learningopportunities are influenced by students’ reactions. However,in contrast to the view of many educators that the presenceof high- and low-ability students in the same class diminishesacademic demands on students, she suggests that both typesof students can learn in the same class.

In an empirical examination of learning time and curricu-lum quality, Oakes found that 35 percent of the heterogeneousclasses were more like high-track than average or low-trackclasses. Thirty-six percent of heterogeneous classes were likeaverage-track classes. Thus, having high and low studentsin the same class does not necessarily lower standards. Theseresults are similar to those obtained by Beckerman and Good(1981), who found that low achievers can learn in heterogene-ous-ability classrooms, especially when a core of high-achiev-ing students establishes a climate that encourages learning.

Oakes also found that teacher-student relationships (e.g.,extent to which teachers were positive, supportive, etc.) inheterogeneous classes were comparable to those in 46 percentof the high-track classes, 37 percent of the average classes,and only 17 percent of the lower-track classes. Thus, in 83percent of comparisons, slower students in heterogeneousclasses had more positive interactions with teachers than theyenjoyed in low-track classes.

Brophy and Evertson (1976) found that a &dquo;can-do&dquo; attitudewas associated with teachers’ relative levels of success in elicit-

ing achievement from their students. The more successfulteachers believed that their students could master curriculumobjectives and that they (the teachers) were capable of meet-ing the students’ instructional needs. These expectations wereassociated with behaviors such as augmenting or even replac-ing the curriculum materials or evaluation instruments ifthese did not appear to be suited to the needs of the students.

Ashton (1985) reported similar findings for teachers whodiffered in sense of efficacy. Sense of efficacy was measured bythe teachers’ responses (on a five-point scale from &dquo;stronglyagree&dquo; through &dquo;strongly disagree&dquo;) to the following twostatements:

1. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really caritdo much because most of a student’s motivation and perfor-mance depends on his or her own environment.

2. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the mostdifficult or unmotivated students.

Teachers who rejected the first of these statements butagreed with the second were classified as high in sense ofefficacy: They believed that they were capable of motivatingand instructing their students successfully.

Compared to teachers with a low sense of efficacy, teacherswith a high sense of efficacy were more confident and at easein their classrooms, more positive (e.g., praising, smiling)



40 /

and less negative (e.g., criticizing, punishing) in interactionswith their students, more successful in managing their class-rooms as efficient learning environments, less defensive, moreaccepting of student disagreement and challenges, and moreeffective in producing student achievement gains. Low-effi-cacy teachers revealed low expectations and a tendency toconcentrate on rule enforcement and behavior management,whereas high-efficacy teachers concentrated on instructingtheir students in the curriculum and interacting with studentsabout academic content. These data are correlational, butthe fact that they come from parallel sections of the samecourses taught to similar students in the same school suggeststhat they were caused by differences in the teachers ratherthan in the students.

As a formal research area, the relationship between teacherexpectations for the class as a whole and behavior toward theclass has largely been ignored. However, it seems reasonableto suggest that teachers can hold low expectations for a classas well as for individuals or groups of students. As a case in

point, when R. Weinstein and I visited a school to observedifferential teacher behavior toward students believed to be

high and low ability, our most striking observation was theteacher’s communication of low expectations to all students(Good and Weinstein, 1986a).We observed one combined fifth/sixth-grade language arts

class where even the physical environment of the class helpedto communicate low performance expectations. We werestruck by the barren nature of the room. The wall clock wasbroken, there were few books around, virtually nothing wason the walls, and little student work was visible.

The lesson we observed also emphasized rules and proce-dures. The teacher dominated, quizzing the students aboutthe meaning of topic sentences and main ideas and aboutthe instructions for the class assignment. The task was nar-rowly defined. It seems inappropriate that students who hadstudied paragraphing and had been reviewing related materialfor several days were not required to write a paragraph, orat least to read several selections and identify which groupsof sentences were paragraphs. Even the latter activity wouldhave allowed active involvement and discussion among stu-dents with regard to why some groups of sentences were notparagraphs. To us, this close monitoring of student behaviorand attention to minor details (i.e., demanding proceduralexactness - the precise words of the text in the preciseorder), and the lack of any discussion of the value or mean-ingfulness of the topic being studied, communicated lowperformance expectations for these students.

Furthermore, the pace was so painfully slow that the stu-dents (and observers) either became restless or sleepy. Al-

though the teacher was aware of these symptoms, she attrib-uted them to the students’ lack of interest and ability. Onlyonce did the teacher express an awareness that perhaps shewas not making herself clear.

Further compounding the problem of an inappropriatetask was the fact that the teacher expected students at bothgrade levels to cover the same material. From an inspection ofthe curriculum, we learned that both fifth- and sixth-graderscompleted the same task with similar instructions (althoughprocedures were much clearer in the fifth-grade text) in theirtextbooks. The teacher also pointed out that if the fifth-grade

students did not learn it now, they would have a secondopportunity in sixth grade. This redundancy in curriculum,accompanied by a teacher-directed, highly passive mode ofdelivery, virtually assured that students would not be in-terested in the lesson, and they were not. Students’ boredomwas obvious and it caused their failure to give the teacherthe answers she wanted (at least from our perspective). Sadly,the teacher probably explained the students’ inadequate per-formance by assuming they lacked ability.

School EffectsStudies of school effectiveness and school improvement

programs (reviewed by Good and Brophy, 1986) indicate thathigh expectations and commitment to bringing about stu-dent achievement are part of a pattern of attitudes, beliefs,and behaviors that characterizes schools that are successful inmaximizing students’ learning gains. Brookover, Beady,Flood, Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker (1979), for example,found that teachers in effective schools not only held higherexpectations but acted on them by setting goals expressedas minimally acceptable levels of achievement rather thanusing prior achievement data to establish ceiling levels beyondwhich students would not be expected to progress. Suchteachers responded to failure as a challenge, requiring studentsto redo failed work (with individualized help as needed)rather than writing them off or referring them to remedialclasses. They responded to mistakes and response failuresduring class with appropriate feedback and reinstructionrather than with lowering of standards or inappropriate praise.Similar findings have been reported by Edmonds (1979) andby Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith (1979).

In response to such findings, school improvement programs(Proctor, 1984) and professional development programs forinservice teachers (Farley, 1982; Kerman, 1979) have begunto incorporate elements designed to reduce negative expecta-tion effects on student achievement. Furthermore, Good andWeinstein (1986b) note that high expectations for the teacha-bility of all students are hindered by beliefs in a singleintelligence that falls in a normal distribution and have chal-lenged educators to develop school programs for studentsthat express high expectations but allow students to

fulfill those expectations in diverse ways.

Individual Differences Among TeachersStudents appear to be differentially sensitive to the com-

munication of expectations, and some teachers are more likelythan others to differ in their behavior toward high- and low-achieving students. Teachers also express low expectations indifferent ways.

Different Types of TeachersBrophy and Good (1974) suggested that teachers can be

thought of as being on a continuum from proactive throughreactive to overreactive. Ptvactive teachers are guided by theirown beliefs about what is reasonable and appropriate in set-ting goals for the class as a whole and for individual students.If they set realistic goals and have the needed skills, they arelikely to move their students systematically toward fulfillingthe expectations associated with these goals.



41

At the other extreme are overreactive teachers who developrigid, stereotyped perceptions of their students based on priorrecords or on first impressions of student behavior. Overreac-tive teachers tend to treat their students as stereotypes ratherthan as individuals, and they are the most likely to havenegative expectation effects on their students.

Most teachers fall in between these extremes and are class-ified as reactive teachers who hold their expectations lightlyand adjust them to take note of new feedback and emergingtrends. Reactive teachers have minimal expectation effectson their students, tending merely to maintain existing differ-ences between high and low achievers (although these differ-ences will increase slightly because of varied student behaviorthat teachers do not compensate for).

Subsequent research supports these distinctions, but withan important qualification. Unfortunately, it appears thatmost sizable teacher expectation effects on student achieve-ment are negative ones, in which low expectations lead tolower achievement than might have been attained otherwise(Brophy, 1983). There is little evidence that even proactiveteachers significantly augment the achievement of individualstudents by projecting positive expectations, but much evi-dence that overreactive teachers minimize student progressby projecting low expectations. Work by other investigatorshas shown that these overreactive teachers differ from otherteachers in being more rigid, authoritarian, and prone tobias and prejudice (e.g., Babad, 1985).

Differential Patterns of Teacher CommunicationIt is important to state again that not all teachers show a

consistent pattern of sharply differentiated behavior towardhigh- and low-potential students. Also, the type of problembehavior varies from class to class; hence, no simple presump-tions are possible. One estimate based on several studies thatwere conducted over a number of years suggests that aboutone-third of the teachers observed acted in a way that appearsto exaggerate the initial deficiencies of low achievers (Goodand Brophy, 1980). Moreover, it is clear that there are differentways in which teachers can communicate low expectationsto students.As noted earlier, studies show that some teachers criticize

low achievers more frequently than high achievers per incor-rect response and praise low achievers less per correct answerthan high achievers. In contrast, other teachers praise margi-nal or incorrect responses given by low achievers. These find-ings reflect two different types of teachers. Teachers whocriticize low achievers for incorrect responses seem to be lesstolerant of these pupils. In contrast, teachers who reward

marginal or even wrong answers are excessively sympatheticand unnecessarily protective of low achievers. Both types ofteacher behavior illustrate to students that effort and class-room performance are not related. As illustrated in Figure1, both the &dquo;rejecting&dquo; and excessively sympathetic teacherstyles appear to stimulate less student thinking.

Over time, such differences in the way teachers treat lowachievers (for example, in the third grade a student is praisedor finds teacher acceptance for virtually any verbalization,but in the fourth grade the student is seldom praised and iscriticized more) may reduce low students’ efforts and con-tribute to a passive learning style. Other teacher behaviors

Figure 1

Passivity Model of Low Achievers

may also contribute to this problem. Low students who arecalled on frequently one year (the teacher believes that theyneed to be active if they are to learn), but who find thatthey are called on infrequently the following year (the teacherdoesn’t want to embarrass them) may find it confusing toadjust to such different role definitions. Ironically, those stu-dents who have the least adaptive capacity may be asked tomake the most adjustment as they move from classroom toclassroom. The greater variation in how different teachersinteract with low students (in contrast to the more similarpatterns of behavior that high students receive from differentteachers) may exist because teachers agree less about how torespond to students who do not learn readily.

Explanations for Differential Teacher BehaviorAlthough there is good evidence that teachers’ assessments

of the general achievement levels of students are accurate(e.g., Brophy and Good, 1974; Egan and Archer, 1985),classroom evidence suggests that teachers’ reactions (i.e., as-signments) to students with less potential indicate a limitedand unsuccessful repertoire of teaching strategies (i.e., drill).Thus, factors other than inaccurate assessment of students’potential account for much of the inappropriate differentialbehavior that occurs in the classroom. Some of these factorsare briefly discussed here.One basic cause of differential behavior is that classrooms

are busy and complex environments, and it is difficult forteachers to assess accurately the frequency and quality of theirinteractions with individual students. Some teachers who are

bright and well-prepared may behave inappropriately towardlow achievers because of the complexity of the classroom.A second explanation involves the fact that much classroom

behavior must be interpreted before it has meaning. Researchsuggests that once a teacher develops an expectation about a



42

student (e.g., the student is not capable of learning), theteacher interprets subsequent ambiguous classroom events ina way consistent with the original expectation (e.g., Ander-son-Levitt, 1984). Good (1980) maintains that most class-room behavior is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpre-tations.A third reason why some teachers differentiate their be-

havior toward high- and low-achieving students is related tothe issue of causality. Some teachers believe that they canand will influence student learning (for example, see Brophyand Evertson, 1976). Such teachers usually interpret studentfailure as the need for more instruction, more clarification,and eventually increased opportunity to learn. Other teachers,because they assign blame rather than assume partial respon-sibility for student failure, often interpret failure as the needto provide less challenge and fewer opportunities to learn.Teachers who do not have a strong sense that they can influencestudent learning are therefore more likely to overreact tostudent error and failure (perhaps by subsequently assigningwork that is too easy) than are teachers who believe that theycan influence student learning and that they are a partialcause of student failure when it does take place. Along theselines, Marshall and Weinstein (1984) argue that some teacherssee intelligence as fixed; others see it as changeable. Differ-ences in views of stability of intelligence can have importanteffects on teacher behavior.

Another explanation for differential teacher behavior isstudents self-presentation. Students present themselves in variedways to teachers, and these self-presentation styles may influ-ence teachers’ responses. Spencer-Hall (1981) notes that somestudents are able to time their misbehavior in such a way asto escape teacher attention, whereas other students who mis-behave just as often are reprimanded considerably more fre-quently because the timing of their misbehavior is inappro-priate. Carrasco (1979) suggests that some students demonstratecompetence in a style that escapes teacher attention. Accord-ing to Green and Smith (1983), the language some studentsuse makes it likely that teachers will underestimate theirpotential.

Classroom ApplicationThis review of the literature may stimulate teachers’ think-

ing about the role of expectations in the classroom and thefact that classroom techniques based on research findingsmust be adjusted to the context of a particular classroom.As Good and Weinstein (1986a) note, teachers express expec-tations in so many ways (e.g., choice of curriculum topic,rationale given to students for curriculum topic, performancefeedback) that it is not possible to suggest a single combina-tion of behaviors that can lead to the communication of

appropriate expectations. It is also difficult to provide adviceto teachers, because the varied implications of teacher be-havior (e.g., call-on, criticism, praise) depend not only onthe behavior but also on the context in which it occurs (whatis challenging to a sixth grader may be threatening to a firstgrader). The quality or style of the behavior, as well as stu-dents’ interpretations of teacher behavior, are also importantfactors that determine the effects of particular behaviors onstudents. For example, Brophy (1981) notes that praise mayerode or enhance motivation, and Mitman (1985) reports

that under some conditions, students may interpret teachercriticism favorably (teacher cares - expects good work).

Teachers must be decision makers and apply concepts andresearch findings to their own classrooms. For example, thereis ample evidence noted earlier that some teachers call onlow-achieving students less often than students they believeto be more capable. It makes little sense, however, to encour-age all teachers to call on low-achieving students more fre-quently simply because some teachers call on low-achievingstudents infrequently.

Similarly, it does little good to call on low-achieving stu-dents more frequently if these students are generally askedonly to answer simple factual questions or asked questionsthey cannot answer. Likewise, it is unproductive to increasethe amount of time that a teacher waits for low-achievingstudents to respond, independent of a consideration of theparticular context. If the teacher asks a factual question,simply waiting and providing clues may be an unproductiveuse of classroom time (the student either knows the answeror doesn’t). However, in a situation involving judgment oranalysis, more time to think and more teacher clues mayfacilitate student response.

Still, it seems that the empirical findings and the differentmodels that describe both teacher and student expectationsprovide a rich way for thinking about and stimulating studentperformance. The book, Looking in Classrooms (Good andBrophy, 1987), outlines a series of practical considerationsand guidelines for teachers based on expectation research.Good and Weinstein (1986a) offer the following suggestionsfor improving classrooms that feature low expectations andboring, unchallenging routines.

1. Broaden the goals of lessons and activities. Studentsneed to practice and master basic content and skills, butthey also need application opportunities. Something is wrongif students are usually working on phonics skills exercisesbut rarely reading, usually practicing penmanship or copyingspelling words but rarely writing, or usually working onarithmetic computation exercises but rarely attempting toformulate and solve problems.

2. Pay more attention to students’ ideas and interests andencourage students to play a larger role in assessing theirown performance. Students are often much more passive andteacher-dependent in their learning efforts than they need tobe.

3. Increase opportunities for students to participate ac-tively in lessons and use materials in meaningful ways.Teacher-led lessons should require more than just quiet listen-ing, and follow-up assignments should require more thanjust working through highly structured and routinized seat-work assignments.

4. Besides asking routine factual questions, ask studentsquestions that require them to think, analyze, synthesize,or evaluate ideas. Include questions that have no single correctanswer or that can be answered at a variety of levels and froma variety of points of view in order to encourage a greaterrange of students to participate and experience success.

5. Focus on the positive aspects of learning. Be encourag-ing and reinforcing by noting group progress toward learninggoals. Minimize public comparisons of students with oneanother, discouraging criticism of the class as a whole or



43

suggestions that the material to be learned is overly difficultor unrewarding.

Future Research Directions

There are many research questions that merit consideration;however, I will limit my discussion to two critical issues.First, the conceptualization of teacher expectation needs tobecome much more differentiated than it has been. Teachers’views of students include achievement, social, and develop-mental cues. To continue to study teachers’ general expecta-tions for high- and low-potential students seems needlesslylimiting.An interesting case study by King (1980) shows that a

teacher’s expectations for students and behavior toward stu-dents were more complex than simple beliefs about whetherstudents were successful or not. In addition to judgingwhether students were high or low ability, the teacher ap-peared to judge whether the students’ performance was dueto ability or effort. King studied one sixth-grade teacher andtwo successful and two unsuccessful students in that class.The teacher often used the student whose success was believedto be due to ability as a role model (e.g., when she wantedto change the pace or direction of the lesson). In contrast,she developed a different relationship with the student whosesuccess she perceived to be due largely to effort. For example,when this student requested help, the teacher expected theproblem to be minor and gave the student minimum butdirect feedback. However, this student was less likely to becalled on as a way to change the direction of the lesson.

The teacher often provided additional academic supportto the student whose lack of success was perceived as due toa lack of ability The teacher would help the student to workthrough a problem, etc. Also, the teacher frequently in-teracted with this student. The teacher seldom interactedwith the student whose lack of success the teacher perceivedas due to lack of effort, and when interactions did occur, theteacher mainly checked the student’s progress and determinedwhether or not the student was minimally involved in theactivity.

This finding is similar to the conclusion that Prawat,Byers, and Anderson (1983) reached after studying 58 elemen-tary school teachers. Specifically, the researchers found thatteachers became angry when students made little effort. Thus,judgments teachers make about students are apt to involvecomplex and multiple criteria.

Second, it is important to recognize that other teacherbeliefs and skills may increase or decrease the effects of teach-ers’ expressed expectations. For example, teachers’ generalinstructional style may affect student learning. Hines,Cruickshank, and Kennedy (1985) demonstrated that, at leastunder certain circumstances, teacher clarity is related posi-tively to both student achievement and student satisfaction.Thus, it is not only the content of instruction or expectationsthat affects students, but the general way in which studentsare presented information in assignments. Students’ sensitiv-ity to expectation cues is also important; however, teachers’clarity (for better or worse) may make it more likely thatstudents will be influenced by teachers’ expectations.

Clearly, more research needs to examine students’ awareness

of teacher expectations as well as students’ vulnerability toexpectation communication. Rosenthal (1985) argues thatmuch of the research on interpersonal expectancies suggeststhat mediation of these expectancies depends to some degreeon various processes of nonverbal communication. There ap-parently are major differences among experimenters, teachers,and other people in the clarity of communication throughdifferent nonverbal channels. He suggests that if those teach-ers who best communicate their expectations for childrenintellectual performance in the auditory channel were as-signed to children whose best channels of reception were alsoauditory, expectation effects would be much more likely tooccur than if those teachers were assigned to children whowere less sensitive to auditory nonverbal communications. Al-though awareness or perception of expectations is a key issue,another vital issue is the susceptibleness of pupils to suchcommunication. Weinstein notes that the effects of teacher

expectations that Braun (1976) suggests have not been tested.It could be that students with high and low self-conceptsreact differently to information from teachers. Also, minoritystatus may also play a role in students’ vulnerability to teacherexpectations. Differences in cultural values may insulate somechildren from the effects of teachers’ views of their performanceor alternately heighten their susceptibility to the dominantviewpoint. Parents’ beliefs may also mediate expectation ef-fects.

Several researchers point out that product measures (stu-dent performance on IQ and achievement tests) are too narrowand too restrictive to reveal much about the relationshipbetween expectations and classroom performance (Good andWeinstein, 1986a; Hall and Merkel, 1985; Meyer, 1985).According to Meyer (1985), the long-term effects of earlyeducation programs produced by Lazar and Darling (1982)provide important evidence showing that the early Head-Startevaluations that looked only at gains in intelligence wereperhaps misplaced. The Lazar and Darling (1982) reportexamined data from 12 well-known preschool programs; eachgroup was matched with an appropriate control group. Out-come measures included percent of students placed in specialeducation classes, frequency of grade retention, and variousachievement and social adjustment measures. In general, thefindings suggested that those students who were receivingearly education programs were higher in social competence,less likely to be placed in special education programs, andfelt better about themselves (treatment children were morelikely to link their positive self-evaluations to school or jobachievement than the controls). Lazar and Darling concludedthat pupils with early education experience were better ableto adapt to the social, intellectual, and behavioral demandsof their school. Meyer suggests that an additional conclusionfrom their work is that a narrow set of aptitude/achievementoutcomes or dependent variables is likely to underestimatethe beneficial effects of early school experiences as well asthe negative or positive effects of something like teacher-ex-pectation phenomena.

Meyer (1985) argues that whether or not teachers use nega-tive approaches (that have been defined in the literature)appears to be less a function of teacher expectancy for individ-ual students but more related to how powerful an effectteachers believe they can have on the learning of children;



44 /

the more powerful they perceive their influence on learningto be, the less likely they will be to use negative behaviors.

Meyer (1985) concludes that it is reasonable to assert thatif teachers believe that a student with modest or lower skillsis teachable, they will work hard to present information tothe student, and in so doing, they will maintain the child’swillingness to work. Thus, he suggests, the need exists totrain teachers to believe that they can teach students, regard-less of the students’ current performance.

AcknowledgementThe author acknowledges the support provided by the

Center for Research in Social Behavior and wishes to thankDiane Chappell for typing the manuscript and Gail Hinkelfor editorial assistance.

References &horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;&horbar;

Adams, G., & Cohen, A. (1974). Children’s physical andinterpersonal characteristics that affect student-teacher in-teractions. Journal of Experimental Education, 43, 1-5.

Allington, R. (1980). Teacher interruption behaviors duringprimary grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 371-377.

Allington, R. (1983). The reading instruction provided read-ers of differing reading ability. Elementary School Journal,83, 548-559.

Alloway, N. (1984). Teacher expectations. Paper presented atthe annual conference of the Australian Association for Re-search in Education, Perth, Australia.

Alpert, J. (1974). Teacher behavior across ability groups: Aconsideration of the mediation of Pygmalion effects. Journalof Educational Psychology, 66, 348-353.

Amato, J. (1975). Effect of pupils’ social class upon teachers’

expectations and behavior. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

Anderson-Levitt, K. (1984). Teacher interpretation of studentbehavior: Cognitive and social processes. Elementary SchoolJournal, 84 (3), 315-337.Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and the teacher’s sense of

efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivationin education. Vol. II: The classroom milieu. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Babad, E. (1985). Some correlates of teachers’ expectancybias. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 175-183.

Babad, E., Inbar, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Pygmalion,Galatea, and the Golem: Investigations of biased and un-biased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 459-474.

Baron, R., Tom, D., & Cooper, H. (1985). Social class, raceand teacher expectations. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectan-cies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beckerman, T., & Good, T. (1981). The classroom ratio ofhigh- and low-aptitude students and its effect on achieve-ment. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 317-327.

Beez, W (1968). Influence of biased psychological reportson teacher behavior and pupil performance. Proceedings ofthe 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associ-ation, 3, 605-606.

Blakey, M. (1970). The relationship between teacher expec-tancy and teacher verbal behavior and their effect uponadult student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-

tional, 31, 4615A.Blanck, P., & Rosenthal, R. (1984). Mediation of interper-sonal expectancy effects: Counselor’s tone of voice. Journalof Educational Psychology, 76, 418-426.

Blumenfeld, P., Hamilton, V, Bossert, S., Wessels, K., &

Meece, J. (1983). Teacher talk and student thought: Sociali-zation into the student role. In J. Levine & M. Wang (Eds.),Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bossert, S. (1979). Task and social relationships in classrooms:A study of classroom organization and its consequences. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Bozsik, B. (1982, April). A study of teacher questioning andstudent response interaction during pre-story and post-story portionsof reading comprehension lessons. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association,New York.

Brattesani, K., Weinstein, R., & Marshall, H. (1984). Stu-dent perceptions of differential teacher treatment as mod-erators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 236-247.

Braun, C. (1976). Teacher expectation: Sociopsychologicaldynamics. Review of Educational Research, 46, 185-213.

Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P, Schweitzer, J., & Wisen-

baker, J. (1979). School social systems and student achievement:Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.

Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Reviewof Educational Research, 51, 5-32.

Brophy, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecyand teacher expectations. Journal of educational psychology,75, 631-661.

Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: Adevelopmental perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers’ communication ofdifferential expectations for children’s classroom perfor-mance : Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 61, 365-374.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships:Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Cahen, L. (1966). An experimental manipulation of the haloeffect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer-sity, Palo Alto, CA.

Carrasco, R. ( 1979). Expanded awareness of student performance:A case study in applied ethnographic monitoring in a bilingualclassroom (Social Linguistic Work Paper No. 60). Austin,TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Chaikin, A., Sigler, E., & Derlega, V (1974). Nonverbalmediators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 30, 144-149.

Claiborn, W. (1969). Expectancy effects in the classroom: Afailure to replicate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60,377-383.

Commission on Reading. (1984). Becoming a nation of readers.Sponsored by the National Academy of Education, Washing-ton, DC: National Institute of Education.

Conn, L. , Edwards, C., Rosenthal, R., & Crowne, D. (1968). at Stanford University Libraries on July 8, 2013jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from


45

Perceptions of emotion and response to teachers’ expectancyby elementary school children. Psychology Reports, 22, 27-34.

Cooper, H. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacherexpectation communication and performance influence. Re-view of Educational Research, 49, 389-410.

Cooper, H. (1985). Models of teacher expectation communi-cation. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, H., & Baron, R. (1977). Academic expectations andattributed responsibility as predictors of professional teach-ers’ reinforcement behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology,69, 409-418.

Cooper, H., & Good, T. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studiesin the expectation communication process. New York: Longman.

Cornbleth, C., Davis, O., & Button, C. (1972, April).Teacher-pupil interaction and teacher expectations for pupil achieve-ment in secondary social studies classes. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research As-sociation, Chicago.

Davis, D., & Levine, G. (1970). The behavioral manifestationsof teachers’ expectations. Unpublished manuscript, HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem.

Doyle, W (1980). Student mediating responses in teaching effec-tiveness. NIE Final Report. Denton: North Texas State Uni-versity.

Dusek, J. (Ed.). (1985). Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Dusek, J., & Joseph, G. (1985). The bases of teacher expec-tancies. In. J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C., & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation.In P Mussen & E. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of childpsychology, IV: Socialization, personality, and social development.New York: Wiley.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations andstudent motivation. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfillingprophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction.Sociology of Education, 54, 151-162.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor.Educational Leadership, 37, 15-18.

Egan, O., & Archer, P. (1985). The accuracy of teachers’ratings of ability: A regression model. American EducationalResearch Journal, 22, 25-34.

Farley, J. (1982). Raising student achievement through theaffective domain. Educational Leadership, 39, 502-503.

Fernandez, C., Espinosa, R., & Dornbusch, S. (1975). Factorsperpetuating the low academic status of Chicano high school stu-dents. (Memorandum No. 13). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Uni-versity, Center for Research and Development in Teaching.

Finn, J. (1972). Expectations and the educational environ-ment. Review of Educational Research, 42, 387-410.

Firestone, G., & Brody, N. (1975). Longitudinal investiga-tion of teacher-student interactions and their relationshipto academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,67, 544-550.

Given, B. (1974). Teacher expectancy and pupil performance:The relationship to verbal and non-verbal communicationby teachers of learning disabled children. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 35, 1529A.Good, T. (1980). Classroom expectations: Teacher-pupil in-teractions. In J. McMillan (Ed.), The social psychology oflearning. New York: Academic Press.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1980). Educational psychology: Arealistic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1986). School effects. In. M. Wit-trock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.570-602). New York: Macmillan.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4thed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Good, T., Cooper, H., & Blakey, S. (1980). Classroom interac-tion as a function of teacher expectations, student sex, andtime of year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 378-385.

Good, T., & Marshall, S. (1984). Do students learn more inheterogeneous or homogeneous groups? In P Peterson, L.Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruc-tion: Group organization and group processes. New York:Academic Press.

Good, T., & Power, C. (1976). Designing successful classroomenvironments for different types of students. Journal of Cur-riculum Studies, 8, 1-16.

Good, T., Sikes, J., & Brophy, J. (1973). Effects of teachersex and student sex on classroom interaction. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 65, 74-87.

Good, T., & Weinstein, R. (1986a). Teacher expectations: Aframework for exploring classrooms. In K. Zumwalt (Ed.),Improving teaching. The 1986 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 63-85).Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Good, T., & Weinstein, R. (1986b). Schools make a differ-ence : Evidence, criticisms, and new directions. AmericanPsychologist, 41, 1090-1097.

Graham, S. (1984). Teacher feelings and student thoughts:An attributional approach to affect in the classroom. Elemen-tary School Journal, 85, 91-104.

Grant, L. , & Rothenberg, J. (1986). The social enhancementof ability differences: Teacher-student interactions in first-and second-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal,87, 29-49.

Green, J., & Smith, D. (1983). Teaching and learning: Alinguistic perspective. Elementary School Journal, 53, 353-391.

Hall, V, & Merkel, S. (1985). Teacher expectancy effectsand educational psychology. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expec-tancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Haskett, M. (1968). An investigation of the relationshipbetween expectancy and pupil achievement in the specialeducation class. Dissertation Abstracts, 29, 4348A-4349A.

Haskins, R., Walden, T., & Ramey, C. (1983). Teacher andstudent behavior in high- and low-ability groups. Journalof Educational Psychology, 75, 865-876.

Heapy, N., & Siess, T (1970). Behavioral consequences of impres-sion formation: Effects of teachers’ impressions upon essay evalua-tions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the EasternPsychological Association, Atlantic City.

Hiebert, E. (1983). An examination of ability grouping forreading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231-255.

Hines, C., Cruickshank, D., & Kennedy, J. (1985). Teacher at Stanford University Libraries on July 8, 2013jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from


46 /

clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satis-faction. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 87-99.

Hoge, R., & Butcher, R. (1984). Analysis of teacher judg-ments of pupil achievement level. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 777-781.

Jeter, J., & Davis, O. (1973, April). Elementary school teachers’differential classroom interaction with children as a function ofdifferential expectations of pupil achievements. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Jones, V (1971). The influence of teacher-student introversion,achievement, and similarity on teacher-student dyadic classroominteractions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Texas, Austin.

Kerman, S. (1979). Teachers’ expectations and studentachievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 16, 716-718.

Kester, S., & Letchworth, J. (1972). Communication ofteacher expectations and their effects on achievement andattitude of secondary school students. Journal of EducationalResearch, 66, 51-55.

King, L. (1980). Student thought processes and the expec-tancy effect. (Research Report 80-1-8). Perth, Australia:Churchlands College of Advanced Education.

Kleinfeld, J. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indianstudents. School Review, 83, 301-344.

Lazar, I., & Darling, R. (1982). Lasting effects of earlyeducation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child De-velopment, 47 (2-3, Serial No. 195).

Marshall, H., & Weinstein, R. (1984, April). Classroomswhere students perceive high and low amounts of differential teachertreatment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Martinek, T., & Johnson, S. (1979). Teacher expectations.Effects on dyadic interaction and self-concept in elementary-age children. Research Quarterly, 50, 60-70.

Martinek, T., & Karper, W. (1982). Canonical relationshipsamong motor ability, expression of effort, teacher expecta-tions, and dyadic interactions in elementary age children.Journal of Teaching and Physical Education, 1, 26-39.Medinnus, G., & Unruh, R. (1971). Teacher expectations andverbal communication. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Western Psychological Association.

Meichenbaum, D., Bowers, K., & Ross, R. (1969). A be-havioral analysis of teacher expectancy effect. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 13, 306-316.

Mendoza, S., Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1972). Who talks injunior high classsrooms? (Report No. 68). Austin: Universityof Texas, Research and Development Center for TeacherEducation.

Meyer, W (1985). Summary, integration, and perspective.In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Meyer, W., Bachmann, M., Biermann, U., Hemplemann, M.,Ploger, E, & Spiller, H. (1979). The information value ofevaluative behavior: Influences of praise and blame on percep-tions of ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 259-268.

Mitman, A. (1985). Teachers’ differential behavior towardhigher and lower achieving students and its relation to

selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 77, 149-161.

Monk, M. (1983). Teacher expectations? Pupil responses toteacher mediated classroom climate. British Educational Re-

search Journal, 9, 153-166.Morine-Dershimer, G. (1982). Pupil perceptions of teacherpraise. Elementary School Journal, 82, 421-434.

Natriello, G., & Dornbusch, S. (1984). Teacher evaluativestandards and student effort. New York: Longman.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Page, S. (1971). Social interaction and experimenter effectsin the verbal conditioning experiment. Canadian Journal ofPsychology, 25, 463-475.

Pedulla, J., Airasian, P., & Madaus, G. (1980). Do teacherratings and standardized test results of students yield thesame information? American Educational Research Journal, 17,303-307.

Persell, C. (1977). Education and inequality: The roots andresults of stratification in American schools. New York: The FreePress.

Peterson, P, & Barger, S. (1985). Attribution theory andteacher expectancy. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pflaum, S., Pascarella, E., Boswick, M., & Auer, C. (1980).The influence of pupil behaviors and pupil status factorson teacher behaviors during oral reading lessons. Journal ofEducational Research, 74, 99-105.

Prawat, R., Byers, J., & Anderson, A. (1983). An attribu-tional analysis of teachers’ affective reactions to students’success and failure. American Educational Research Journal,20, 137-152.

Proctor, C. (1984). Teacher expectations: A model for schoolimprovement. Elementary School Journal, 84, 469-481.

Rejeski, W., Dararcott, C., & Hutslar, S. (1979). Pygmalionin youth sport: A field study. Journal of Sports Psychology, 1,311-319.

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations:The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. HarvardEducational Review, 40, 411-451.

Rolison, M., & Medway, F. (1985). Teachers’ expectationsand attributions for student achievement: Effects of label,performance patterns, and special education intervention.American Educational Research Journal, 22, 561-573.

Rosenthal, R. ( 1974). On the social psychology of the self-fulfillingprophecy: Further evidence of Pygmalion effects and their mediatingmechanisms. New York: MSS Modular Publications.

Rosenthal, R. (1985). For unconscious experimenter bias toteacher expectancy effects. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expec-tancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the class-room: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rowe, M. (1974a). Pausing phenomena: Influence on qualityof instruction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 203-224.

Rowe, M. (1974b). Wait-time and rewards as instructionalvariables, their influence on language, logic, and fate con-trol: Part 1: Wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,11, 81-94.

Rubovits, P., & Maehr, M. (1971). Pygmalion analyzed:Toward an explanation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 197-203.



47

Rutter, M. , Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. , &

Smith, A. ( 1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools andtheir effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Smith, F., & Luginbuhl, J. (1976). Inspecting expectancy:Some laboratory results of relevance for teacher training.Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 265-272.Snow, R. (1969). Unfinished Pygmalion. Contemporary Psychol-ogy, 14, 197-199.

Spector, P. ( 1973). The communication of expectancies: The interac-tion of reinforcement and expectancy instructions. Unpublishedmanuscript. St. Louis: Washington University.

Spencer-Hall, D. (1981). Looking behind the teacher’s back.Elementary School Journal, 81, 281-289.

Swann, W , & Snyder, M. (1980). On translating beliefs intoaction: Theories of ability and their application in an instruc-tional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,879-888.

Taylor, C. (1970). The expectations of Pygmalion’s creators.Educational Leadership, 28, 161-164.

Taylor, D. (1977). Second grade reading instruction: The teacher-child dyadic interactions of boys and girls of varying abilities.Unpublished masters thesis, Rutgers University, NewBrunswick, NJ.

Taylor, M. (1979). Race, sex, and the expression of self-ful-filling prophecies in a laboratory teaching situation. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 897-912.

Weinstein, R. (1976). Reading group membership in firstgrade: Teacher behaviors and pupil experience over time.Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 103-116.Weinstein, R. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling.

Elementary School Journal, 83, 287-312.Weinstein, R. (1985). Student mediation of classroom expec-tancy effects. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weinstein, R. Marshall, H., Brattesani, K., & Middlestadt,S. (1982). Student perceptions of differential teacher treat-ment in open and traditional classrooms. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 74, 678-692.

Weinstein, R., & Middlestadt, S. (1979a, April). Learningabout the achievement hierarchy of the classroom: Through children’seyes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco.

Weinstein, R., & Middlestadt, S. (1979b). Student percep-tions of teacher interactions with male high and low achiev-ers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 421-431.

West, C., & Anderson, T. (1976). The question of preponder-ant causation in teacher expectancy research. Review of Edu-cational Research, 46, 613-630.

Willis, B. (1970). The influence of teacher expectation onteachers’ classroom interaction with selected children. Dis-sertation Abstracts, 30, 5072A.

Zahorik, J. (1970). Pupils’ perception of teachers’ verbal feed-back. Elementary School Journal, 71, 105-114.

Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R., Hall, J., & Rosenthal, R.(1978). Accuracy of nonverbal communication as determin-ant of interpersonal expectancy effects. Environmental Psychol-ogy and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 206-214.

Zuroff, D., & Rotter, J. ( 1985). A history of the expectancyconstruct in psychology. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectan-cies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.



journal of teacher education ......34 self-fulfilling prophecy effects of teacher expectations can...

Documents