Communication of Teacher Expectations and their Effects on Achievement and Attitudes of Secondary School Students

Kester, Scott W.; Letchworth, George A.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1972.10884402

Cited by 43 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, psychotherapy for depression can increase the variability in depressive symptoms, in comparison with a control group, because the effectiveness of the therapy will depend on individual differences (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1988;Erceg-Hurn & Mirosevich, 2008). Similarly, Kester (1969) compared the IQs of students from a control group with the IQs of students when high expectancies about students were induced in the teacher. While no effect of teacher expectancy on IQ was found, the variance was bigger in the treatment group than in the control group (56.52 vs. 32.59, that is, SDR ≈ 1.32).…”

Section: Homogeneity Of Variance Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test

Delacre¹,

Lakens²,

Leys

2017

International Review of Social Psychology

719

383

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When comparing two independent groups, psychology researchers commonly use Student's t-tests. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance underlie this test. More often than not, when these conditions are not met, Student's t-test can be severely biased and lead to invalid statistical inferences. Moreover, we argue that the assumption of equal variances will seldom hold in psychological research, and choosing between Student's t-test and Welch's t-test based on the outcomes of a test of the equality of variances often fails to provide an appropriate answer. We show that the Welch's t-test provides a better control of Type 1 error rates when the assumption of homogeneity of variance is not met, and it loses little robustness compared to Student's t-test when the assumptions are met. We argue that Welch's t-test should be used as a default strategy. Keywords:Welch's t-test; Student's t-test; homogeneity of variance; Levene's test; Homoscedasticity; statistical power; type 1 error; type 2 error Independent sample t-tests are commonly used in the psychological literature to statistically test differences between means. There are different types of t-tests, such as Student's t-test, Welch's t-test, Yuen's t-test, and a bootstrapped t-test. These variations differ in the underlying assumptions about whether data is normally distributed and whether variances in both groups are equal (see, e.g., Rasch, Kubinger, & Moder, 2011;Yuen, 1974). Student's t-test is the default method to compare two groups in psychology. The alternatives that are available are considerably less often reported. This is surprising, since Welch's t-test is often the preferred choice and is available in practically all statistical software packages.In this article, we will review the differences between Welch's t-test, Student's t-test, and Yuen's t-test, and we suggest that Welch's t-test is a better default for the social sciences than Student's and Yuen's t-tests. We do not include the bootstrapped t-test because it is known to fail in specific situations, such as when there are unequal sample sizes and standard deviations differ moderately (Hayes & Cai, 2007).When performing a t-test, several software packages (i.e., R and Minitab) present Welch's t-test by default. Users can request Student's t-test, but only after explicitly stating that the assumption of equal variances is met. Student's t-test is a parametric test, which means it relies on assumptions about the data that are analyzed. Parametric tests are believed to be more powerful than non-parametric tests (i.e., tests that do not require assumptions about the population parameters; Sheskin, 2003). However, Student's t-test is generally only more powerful when the data are normally distributed (the assumption of normality) and the variances are equal in both groups (homoscedasticity; the assumption of homogeneity of variance; Carroll & Schneider, 1985;Erceg-Hurn & Mirosevich, 2008).When sample sizes are equal between groups, Student's t-test is robust to violations of the assump...

show abstract

Section: Homogeneity Of Variance Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test

Delacre¹,

Lakens²,

Leys

2017

International Review of Social Psychology

719

383

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brophy and Good (1974) found that teachers gave those students for whom they had high expectations more praise when students were correct and less criticism when students were wrong. Kester and Letchworth (1972) found that teachers were more friendly and encouraging with "bright" students. The studies noted in the following section suggest how these differences might affect the science-and mathrelated attitudes and achievement of underrepresented groups.…”

Section: Different Teacher Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Opportunities, Achievement, and Choice: Women and Minority Students in Science and Mathematics

Oakes¹

1990

Review of Research in Education

206

328

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cooper (1979) refers to Rosenthal's (1974) four-factor categorization of teacher expectancy behavior, which consists of climate, feedback, input, and output; and he cites studies demonstrating that students classified as lows achievers receive less of these four teacher behavior's. For instance, regarding climate, Cooper cites studies (Chaikin et al, 1974;Kester & Letchworth, 1972) that indicate that teachers show more nonverbal support and friendliness toward bright students. Regarding input, Cooper cites studies (Beez, 1970;Cornbleth et al, 1974) that show that students labeled as slow learners have fewer opportunities to learn new material than students labeled as bright.…”

Section: Help Students To Recognize Effort-outcome Linkagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experienced teachers: Their constructs of effective teaching

Covino

Iwanicki

1996

J Pers Eval Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many states (e.g., Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Virginia) have invested considerable resources in developing programs for the induction of beginning teachers. The teacher behaviors identified through such state initiatives are not sufficient to guide the development of a comprehensive evaluation or professional development plan since they do not include the additional behaviors pertinent to experienced teachers. This study seeks to identify the behaviors of effective, experienced teachers, including teachers' cognitive processes. BackgroundWhile there is abundant research on what effective teachers do, there is limited research on the cognitive processes of teachers (Clark & Peterson, 1986), and even less research on the thought processes of experienced teachers (Lavely et al., 1986). Because the literature on experienced teachers' thought processes is sparse, this study depended on the professional judgment of Connecticut educators when identifying and validating those thought processes that experienced teachers believe facilitate effective instruction. The problem this study addressed consists of two parts: 1) to identify what the literature supports as the behaviors of effective experienced teachers, and 2) to validate these behaviors for experienced teachers in Connecticut. Studying behaviors of experienced teachers in the areas of subject-matter knowledge, planning, decisionmaking, class management techniques, motivation skills, and professional development requires more than observing teachers' actual classroom behavior; it also requires insight into these teachers' thought processes, while there is abundant research on the correlates of effective teaching and student achievement, the literature has failed to establish a concrete distinction between the teaching effectiveness behaviors of experienced and beginning teachers. This failure can be attributed to the following factors: 1) there has been little research on the thought processes of teachers, so the reasons experienced teachers operate differently from beginning teachers have not been investigated; 2) there has been even less research on contrasting the thought processes and behaviors of experienced and beginning teachers; and 3) the research attempting to 326 E.A. COVINO & E.E IWANICKI differentiate expert or experienced teachers from beginning teachers is very sparse. Since specific teaching behaviors that would clearly differentiate between experienced and beginning teachers' have not been established empirically, a quantitative methodology was used in this study, which enabled experienced (and beginning) educators to rate which teaching behaviors facilitated their teaching effectiveness. Review of the LiteratureThis review of the literature is presented in four sections as follows: 1) a summary of the findings of empirical research on effective teaching to establish a base of effective teaching practices from which to look at experienced teachers, 2) a rationale for exploring and relating research on the cognitions and thought processes of tea...

show abstract

Communication of Teacher Expectations and their Effects on Achievement and Attitudes of Secondary School Students

Cited by 43 publications

References 4 publications

Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test

Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test

Opportunities, Achievement, and Choice: Women and Minority Students in Science and Mathematics

Experienced teachers: Their constructs of effective teaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About