Notes

Treating All Students Equitably In Terms Of 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 in general and improve classroom climate; this reasoning is supported by a plethora of research. The study also confirms a commonly held view that male students have more attention than female students, regardless of the teacher's gender. Racial/ethnic attributes in students are also linked to differentiated teacher expectations. To conclude this research in broad strokes, the Pygmalion effect is widespread and, ironically, is communicated to students with techniques that would otherwise succeed teaching practices, if only carried out equity.

The following descriptions of teaching practices will be couched in a traditional lecture-discussion style of teaching. This does not imply that I present this practice 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 are widely used in more inquiry and experientially based instruction.

Equal Distribution of Response Opportunities. Simply put, this is directing questions toward all students, not just the ones who volunteer or those who the professor feels most comfortable in querying. It is my observation that teachers at all levels have a knee-jerk a reaction to call on students who raises her or his hand. This can be 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 connect to everyone in this class, not only those who are probably the most eager. Which means that 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 if I 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 will discover my behavior a little unusual, but you'll get accustomed 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 that is simpler to react to, or, if a student has responded and we wish them to expand upon their idea, we hope to utilize 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 she or he is going down a fruitless direction. However, because the research cited earlier has generated, we have been not equitable in these practices. It has been my observation in dealing with other teachers and analyzing my own teaching that this is particularly true whenever a teacher is working with a student regarded as less able. For several reasons, we believe that we do not desire to embarrass the student in question, but if it is just a more able student, we are more prone to pursue our questioning or correct a reply. To be equitable, a teacher must be aware of this tendency and monitor his / her behavior. This will not mean that all initial questions and therefore their subsequent follow-ups are equally suited for all our students. You might be smart to address simpler questions to less able students, although the issue of gender should have nothing to do with the issue of the question. Which does not imply that higher-level questions ought to be reserved for the students we perceive because the brightest.

Higher-level Questioning. I will not discuss the problem of higher-level questioning at length, but I'll define higher-level questioning as those inquiries which ask the student to exceed factual information that he/she has (or should have) read, seen, heard, or whatever within the preparation for a given class session. For example, a brief history teacher might ask his students, "Why did public opinion react so strongly to the Watergate cover-up?" This might be a lower-level question if an appropriate 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 resources of information and requiring the students' judgment, it would be a higher-level question. I suggest 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 reaction to Watergate. It is obvious that one must be careful not to be too apparent in the differing degrees of difficulty directed at students of differing abilities lest the students see through this strategy.

Latency. Latency, or "wait time" as it is also known is merely this: a far more than "normal" pause between exchanges. The more common kind of latency (type one) occurs whenever a teacher asks a question and chooses a respondent. While research varies concerning the exact length 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 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 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 selection of respondents and also lessening my attention to the most obvious volunteers, students who've raised their hands or verbalized a reply.

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 signal to all 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 as the focus is recinded from the instructor. Again, this seems slightly bizarre when one first begins to practice it, nonetheless it does develop a more thoughtful and honoring classroom climate. In addition, it helps me in formulating my response to student input.

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

Precise Encouragement. Precise encouragement works well since 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 predicated 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, "Besides the issue of publicness, what other differing circumstances might element in here?"

Proximity. It seems obvious that students that are located nearer the instructor could be more involved in the discussion and connected to the instructor than students more distantly located. read more 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 if you ask me on different days, even though I do get caught up in the center of the area. Also, I think it is beneficial to stand on the opposite side of the room from the group reporting out. This causes the group to talk with the whole room, not only me, and is more prone to encourage student to student discussion across groups. It has been my observation that I 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 amount 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 one another. 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 spend more time talking with this students about such projects, assignments, and ideas central to the course we are teaching.

Individual Help. If you asked most K-12 teachers, they might tell you that the large most the time they spend assisting students with seatwork and so on 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 focus on either needy students or students the teacher perceives to be particularly engaged in the duty at hand. 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 while in class. If their tendency is equivalent to K-12 teachers, they're likely not be equitable within their attention without assistance. I also think 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, is the usage of ones body to show that certain is attending to a student's comments, questions, or concerns. It is all too easy for an instructor, his head swimming with the flow of conversation and his instructional objectives, to devote less than his full attention to a student, despite the fact that the instructor wants nothing more than an interactive, conversational classroom climate. Additionally it is human nature to have a tendency to devote more of the sort of attention to students one perceives as being particularly able. Much like all of those other 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 susceptible to share personal comments and conversations with students while others 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 refrain from 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 consider 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 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.
Homepage: http://www.linkagogo.com/go/To?url=114996132