Notes

Treating All Students Equitably WITH REGARD TO Teacher Attention
It stands to reason that treating all students equitably with regards to teacher attention and behavior would raise the academic achievement of the students generally and improve classroom climate; this reasoning is supported by a plethora of research. The research also confirms a commonly held view that male students have more attention than female students, whatever the teacher's gender. Racial/ethnic attributes in students may also be linked to differentiated teacher expectations. To summarize this research in broad strokes, the Pygmalion effect is widespread and, ironically, is communicated to students with techniques that would otherwise be effective teaching practices, only if carried out equity.

The following descriptions of teaching practices will undoubtedly be couched in a normal lecture-discussion style of teaching. This will not imply that I present this practice as being the most effective, but I really do believe that it is a commonly used mode of instruction. Secondly, these practices aren't limited to lecture-discussion; they are trusted in more inquiry and experientially based instruction.

Equal Distribution of Response Opportunities. Simply put, more info is directing questions toward all students, not just the ones who volunteer or those who the professor feels preferred in querying. It really is my observation that teachers at all levels have a knee-jerk a reaction to call on a student who raises her or his hand. That is a habit which might be un-learned, and it is a habit one is wise to handle with the students. I generally utilize the initial meeting of a training course with a comment that goes something similar to this: "I would like to interact with everyone in this class, not just those who are the most eager. Therefore I will be calling on everyone, not just those of you who raise your hands or volunteer comments. I promise not to try to embarrass you or put you down easily call on you and you also are reluctant to respond. However, I reserve the right to help you respond by following up on my initial question with some leading comments. You'll find my behavior a little unusual, but you'll get used to it.

Delving, Probing, and Correcting. Certainly we all hope to be adroit enough to check out up a question that confounds our students with one which is simpler to respond to, or, in case a student has responded and we want them to expand upon their idea, we hope to use Socratic questioning or something closely akin. Sometimes students response is just off the mark, and we need to gently let the student know that he or she is certainly going down a fruitless direction. However, as the research cited earlier has established, we are not equitable in these practices. It has been my observation in dealing with other teachers and analyzing my very own teaching that this is specially true when a teacher is dealing with a student perceived as less able. For a number of reasons, we believe that we do not want to embarrass the student in question, but if this is a more able student, we are more prone to pursue our questioning or correct a reply. To be equitable, a teacher has to be aware of this tendency and monitor her or his behavior. This will not mean that all initial questions and for that reason their subsequent follow-ups are equally fitted to all our students. One would be wise to address simpler questions to less able students, even though issue of gender should have nothing to do with the issue of the question. Which does not imply that higher-level questions should be reserved for the students we perceive as the brightest.

Higher-level Questioning. I will not discuss the issue of higher-level questioning at length, but I am going to define higher-level questioning as those inquiries which ask the student to go beyond factual information that he/she has (or must have) read, seen, heard, or whatever within the preparation for a given class session. For instance, a brief history teacher might ask his students, "Why did public opinion react so strongly to the Watergate cover-up?" This would be a lower-level question if a proper response were to be found in the assigned reading. However, were exactly the same question to be asked and the answer needed to be pieced together from several sections of the reading and/or other sources of information and requiring the students' judgment, it could be a higher-level question. I propose that we direct higher-level questions, especially open-ended ones in which a variety of responses might have some validity, to students we perceive as less able. Following the student's initial response, one might probe and delve in a manner that asked the student to compare his or her response with the public's a reaction to Watergate. It really is obvious that one should be careful never to be too apparent in the differing levels of difficulty fond of students of differing abilities lest the students look out of this strategy.

Latency. Latency, or "wait time" since it is also known is merely this: a more than "normal" pause between exchanges. The more common type of latency (type one) occurs when a teacher asks a question and chooses a respondent. While research varies concerning the exact amount of time a teacher should use, we know that most teachers practice hardly any latency, typically less than or about one second. I advocate a teacher should wait at the very least three seconds when asking a question, especially an increased level question. Initially, this is very difficult. As a prompt for latency, I identify a part of the physical landscape, a window or a clock if such is put in the rear of the classroom. After I ask a question I look to this feature and focus my attention onto it. While this is initially disconcerting to my students who expect me to be scanning their ranks, it is effective in reminding me to apply latency. In addition, it serves to remind me to be equitable in my selection of respondents along with lessening my focus on the most obvious volunteers, students who've raised their hands or verbalized a response.

The second kind of latency involves the pause in discussion following a student has responded. That is known as "type two" latency. If an instructor gets in the habit of letting a student's comments hang in the air for two or three seconds, this sends a sign to all or any the students that response will probably be worth reflecting upon and evaluating. It has been my observation that, when type two latency is used, students are more attentive to their peers' ideas because the focus is recinded from the instructor. Again, this seems slightly bizarre when one first begins to apply it, but it does create a more thoughtful and honoring classroom climate. In addition, it helps me in formulating my response to student input.

Encouragement. The initial program uses the term "praise" instead of my terminology, but I prefer "encouragement" since it connotes a support of student ideas and work, rather than a Pavlovian reward of same. We are more curt in our encouragement of student responses, in accordance with a few of the research. We have been more prone to simply mumble "uh huh" when a student of perceived lesser ability responds within an acceptable fashion, but when one of "favorites" responds in an identical fashion we are more likely to become more emphatic, e.g. "You got it!" However, I believe a still better practice is that of precise encouragement, the next practice to be delineated.

Precise Encouragement. Precise encouragement works well because it suggests why or the way the student response has merit. It also fits neatly within the practice of delving and probing. The instructor, if using precise encouragement, might respond in this manner (after using a couple of seconds of type two latency of course), "I think you've got a real good point in distinguishing between arenas of behavior based on their "publicness." However, can we explain the whole of the difference based only with this distinction?" If the student seemed perplexed, one might delve by saying, "Aside from the issue of publicness, what other differing circumstances might element in here?"

Proximity. It seems obvious that students which are located nearer the instructor will be more mixed up in discussion and connected to the instructor than students more distantly located. I also use randomly assigned groups frequently, and this leads students to be grouped concerning the classroom in varying patterns. After group work, the groups report out on their discussion. Because their seating arrangements have already been varied, this enables different students to be proximus to me on different days, even if I do get swept up in the center of the area. Also, I find it helpful to stand on the contrary side of the area from the group reporting out. This causes the group to speak to the whole room, not just me, and is more prone to encourage student to student discussion across groups. It has been my observation that I do have a tendency to gravitate to front center of the room during sessions without group work; by catching myself at this, I move about more freely.

What exactly constitutes proximity? Proximity is operationally defined at being within three feet or arm's amount of a student. I prefer to increase this range to about five or six feet, and I imagine this distance to be the space that would allow the student and I to touch hands, were we to increase an arm to one another. This seems a far more appropriate distance for the collegiate classroom where we spend less time dealing with our students on projects and writing assignments in-class and save money time talking with our students about such projects, assignments, and ideas central to the course we have been teaching.

Individual Help. If you asked most K-12 teachers, they might let you know that the large majority of the time they spend assisting students with seatwork and so on is devoted to their less able students. It has been my observation there are obviously needy students who might capture their teacher's attention, but if the student isn't demonstrably needy, the teacher tends to direct his focus on either needy students or students the teacher perceives to be particularly engaged in the duty accessible. While opportunities for individual helping probably exist to a lesser degree at the collegiate level (labs being an exception), there are still occasions when college instructors, especially those of a constructivist orientation, have students involved with individual or group projects during class. If their tendency is equivalent to K-12 teachers, they are likely not be equitable in their attention without assistance. I also believe that the higher up students go within their educational careers, the less likely they are to actively demonstrate confusion and neediness of the instructor's attention. Thus, learning to be equitable in individual helping is of great importance to collegiate instructors.

Attentive Listening. Attentive listening, to define it operationally, may be the usage of ones body to show that certain is attending to a student's comments, questions, or concerns. It really is all too easy for an instructor, his head swimming with the flow of conversation and his instructional objectives, to devote significantly less than his full focus on a student, despite the fact that the instructor wants nothing more than an interactive, conversational classroom climate. Additionally it is human nature to tend to devote more of the sort of attention to students one perceives as being particularly able. As with the rest of the practices I've described, the goal of the effective and equitable instructor is to be consistent with active listening.

Courtesy and Personal Interest. Some of us are very prone to share personal comments and conversations with students while some of us have a more aloof stance. The main element here, as earlier, is to be equitable in this regard: either spread such attention around to all the students in a class on an equally occasional basis, or avoid it altogether. Obviously, these practices could be counter-productive during actual instructional time, but I find such relationship-building worthwhile if carried out in the minutes before or following the actual session. The main element is to find something to comment on with all students, or, if students initiate such conversations, never to spend a lot of time being chatted up by a minority of the class.

Jeff C. Palmer is really a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is really a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.
Website: https://pyable.org/business-analyst-certification/