Notes

Treating All Students Equitably WHEN IT COMES TO Teacher Attention
It stands to reason that treating all students equitably with regards to teacher attention and behavior would increase the academic achievement of the students generally and improve classroom climate; this reasoning is supported by way of a plethora of research. The research also confirms a commonly held view that male students get more attention than female students, whatever the teacher's gender. Racial/ethnic attributes in students are also linked to differentiated teacher expectations. In summary 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, if only carried out equity.

The next descriptions of teaching practices will be couched in a traditional lecture-discussion model of teaching. This does not mean that I present this practice as being the most effective, but I really do believe that it is a popular mode of instruction. Secondly, these practices aren't limited to lecture-discussion; they're trusted in more inquiry and experientially based instruction.

Equal Distribution of Response Opportunities. Simply put, that is directing questions toward all students, not only the people who volunteer or those that the professor feels preferred in querying. It really is my observation that teachers at all levels have a knee-jerk reaction to call on a student who raises her or his hand. This is the habit that may be un-learned, in fact 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 want to interact with everyone in this class, not just those who are the most eager. Because of this I will be calling on everyone, not just those who increase your hands or volunteer comments. I promise not to attempt to embarrass you or put you down easily call on you and you are reluctant to respond. However, I reserve the right to assist you respond by following through to 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 desire to be adroit enough to follow 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 a student response is just off the mark, and we have to gently let the student know that he or she is going down a fruitless direction. However, as the research cited earlier has generated, we have been not equitable in these practices. It has been my observation in working with other teachers and analyzing my very own teaching that this is particularly true when a teacher is dealing with a student regarded as less able. For several reasons, we feel that we do not desire to embarrass the student in question, but if this can be a more able student, we are more prone to pursue our questioning or correct a response. To be equitable, a teacher should be aware of this tendency and monitor his / her behavior. This will not imply that all initial questions and for that reason their subsequent follow-ups are equally suited for all our students. One would be smart to address simpler questions to less able students, even though issue of gender must have nothing to do with the difficulty of the question. And this does not mean that higher-level questions ought to be reserved for the students we perceive as the brightest.

Higher-level Questioning. I am going to not discuss the problem of higher-level questioning in detail, but I will define higher-level questioning as those inquiries which ask the student to exceed factual information that he/she has (or must have) read, seen, heard, or whatever within the preparation for a given class session. For example, a brief history teacher might ask her or his students, "Why did public opinion react so strongly to the Watergate cover-up?" This might be considered 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 had to be pieced together from several parts of the reading and/or other resources of information and requiring the students' judgment, it might 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 their 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 degrees of difficulty directed at 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 far more than "normal" pause between exchanges. The more common kind 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 realize that a lot of teachers practice very little latency, typically less than or around one second. I advocate that a teacher should wait at least three seconds when asking a question, especially a higher level question. Initially, this is difficult. As a prompt for latency, I identify a part of the physical landscape, a window or a clock if such is positioned in the rear of the classroom. After I ask a question I turn to this feature and focus my attention on it. While this is initially disconcerting to my students who expect me to be scanning their ranks, it really is effective in reminding me to practice latency. It also serves to remind me to be equitable in my own selection of respondents and 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 referred to as "type two" latency. If an instructor gets in the habit of letting a student's comments hang in the air for just 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's been my observation that, when type two latency can be used, students are more mindful of their peers' ideas because the focus is recinded from the instructor. Again, this seems slightly bizarre when one first begins to practice it, but it does create a more thoughtful and honoring classroom climate. It also helps me in formulating my reaction to student input.

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

Precise Encouragement. Precise encouragement works well since it suggests why or the way the student response has merit. In addition, it fits neatly within the practice of delving and probing. The instructor, if using precise encouragement, might respond in this fashion (after using a few seconds of type two latency needless to say), "I think there is a real good point in distinguishing between arenas of behavior based on their "publicness." However, can we explain the complete of the difference based only on this distinction?" If the student seemed perplexed, one might delve by saying, "Besides the issue of publicness, what other differing circumstances might element in here?"

Proximity. It seems obvious that students which are located nearer the instructor could be more mixed up in discussion and linked to the instructor than students more distantly located. I also use randomly assigned groups quite often, which 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 been varied, this enables different students to be proximus if you ask me on different days, even if I do get caught up in the center of the room. Also, I think it is 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 only me, and is more prone to encourage student to student discussion across groups. check here 's been my observation that I really do tend to gravitate to front center of the area 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 length of a student. I favor to increase this range to about five or six feet, and I imagine this distance to function as space that would allow the student and I to touch hands, were we to extend an arm to each other. This seems a 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 are teaching.

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

Attentive Listening. Attentive listening, to define it operationally, is the usage of ones body to demonstrate that certain is attending to a student's comments, questions, or concerns. It is all too possible for an instructor, his head swimming with the flow of conversation and his instructional objectives, to devote less than his full focus on a student, even though the instructor wants nothing more than an interactive, conversational classroom climate. It is also human nature to tend to devote more of the sort of attention to students one perceives to be particularly able. As with the rest of the practices I have described, the goal of the effective and equitable instructor is to be in keeping 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 take a more aloof stance. The main element here, as earlier, is usually 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 after the actual session. The main element is to search for something to touch upon with all students, or, if students initiate such conversations, never to spend too much time being chatted up by way of a minority of the class.

Jeff C. Palmer is 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.
Here's my website: https://pyable.org/business-analyst-certification/