Notes

Treating All Students Equitably In Terms Of Teacher Attention
It stands to reason that treating all students equitably with regard to teacher attention and behavior would increase 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 summarize 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 normal lecture-discussion model of teaching. This does not mean that I present this practice being the most effective, but I really do believe it is a commonly used 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. To put it simply, this is directing questions toward all students, not only the people who volunteer or those that the professor feels preferred in querying. It is my observation that teachers at all levels have a knee-jerk reaction to call on students who raises his / her hand. This is a habit which can be un-learned, in fact it is a habit one is wise to address with the students. I generally utilize the initial meeting of a training course with a comment that goes something similar to this: "I wish to connect to everyone in this class, not just those who are probably the most eager. Therefore I will be contacting everyone, not just those of you who increase your hands or volunteer comments. I promise not to try to embarrass you or put you down if I call on you and you also are reluctant to respond. However, I reserve the proper 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 used to it.

Delving, Probing, and Correcting. Certainly we all hope 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, hopefully to use Socratic questioning or something closely akin. Sometimes a student response is merely off the mark, and we have to gently allow student know that she or he is certainly going down a fruitless direction. However, as the research cited earlier has established, we have been not equitable in these practices. It's been my observation in working with other teachers and analyzing my very own teaching that this is specially true whenever a teacher is dealing with a student perceived as less able. For several reasons, we believe that we do not desire 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 response. To be equitable, a teacher needs to be conscious of this tendency and monitor her or his behavior. This will not mean that all initial questions and therefore their subsequent follow-ups are equally suited for all our students. One would be wise to address simpler questions to less able students, even though issue of gender must have nothing to do with the issue of the question. And this 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 issue 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 should have) read, seen, heard, or whatever within the preparation for confirmed class session. For instance, a 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 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 where a variety of responses can have some validity, to students we perceive as less able. After the student's initial response, one might probe and delve in a manner that asked the student to compare her or his response with the public's reaction to Watergate. It really is obvious that one must be careful never to be too apparent in the differing levels of difficulty fond of 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 prevalent kind of latency (type one) occurs whenever a teacher asks a question and chooses a respondent. While research varies regarding the exact amount of time a teacher should use, we realize that most teachers practice hardly any latency, typically significantly less than or around one second. I advocate that a teacher should wait at the very least three seconds when asking a question, especially an increased level question. Initially, this is difficult. As a prompt for latency, I identify part of the physical landscape, a window or perhaps 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 that is initially disconcerting to my students who expect me to be scanning their ranks, it is effective in reminding me to practice latency. It also serves to remind me to be equitable in my own selection of respondents in addition to lessening my attention to the 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 sign to all or any the students that this response is worth reflecting upon and evaluating. It has 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 apply it, nonetheless it does create a more thoughtful and honoring classroom climate. In addition, it helps me in formulating my reaction to student input.

more info . The original program uses the word "praise" in lieu 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, according to a few of the research. We are more prone to simply mumble "uh huh" whenever a student of perceived lesser ability responds within an acceptable fashion, but when one of "favorites" responds in an identical fashion we are more prone to be more emphatic, e.g. "You have it!" However, I really believe that a still better practice is that of precise encouragement, another practice to be delineated.

Precise Encouragement. Precise encouragement works well because it suggests why or how 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 fashion (after using a few seconds of type two latency of course), "I believe you've got 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 with this distinction?" If the student seemed perplexed, one might delve by saying, "Besides the issue of publicness, how many other differing circumstances might factor in here?"

Proximity. It appears obvious that students which are located nearer the instructor could be more involved in the 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 from their discussion. Because their seating arrangements have been varied, this allows different students to be proximus to me on different days, even if I do get swept up in the center of the room. Also, I think it is helpful to stand on the opposite 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 likely to encourage student to student discussion across groups. It's been my observation that I do tend to gravitate to front center of the room during sessions without group work; by catching myself as of this, I move about more freely.

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

Individual Help. In the event that you asked most K-12 teachers, they would tell you that the large majority of enough time they spend assisting students with seatwork etc is devoted to their less able students. It has been my observation that there are obviously needy students who might capture their teacher's attention, but if the student isn't demonstrably needy, the teacher will 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 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 the same as K-12 teachers, they're likely not be equitable in their attention without assistance. I also think 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, may be the use of ones body to show 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 attention to a student, even though the instructor wants nothing more than an interactive, conversational classroom climate. It is also human nature to have a tendency to devote more of this sort of attention to students one perceives as being particularly able. As with the rest of the practices I have described, the purpose 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 others of us have 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 or any 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 completed in the minutes before or following the actual session. The key is to consider something to comment on with all students, or, if students initiate such conversations, not to spend too much time being chatted up by 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 a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.
Here's my website: https://issuu.com/arildsenfreedman93