Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225 DOI 10.1007/s11256-007-0070-x
Mexican-American Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Expectations: Do Perceptions Differ Depending on Student Achievement Levels? Soung Bae Æ Susan D. Holloway Æ Jin Li Æ Janine Bempechat
Published online: 7 August 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract This exploratory study examines the learning beliefs of high and low achieving, low-income Mexican-American students. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 ninth grade students. The qualitative analysis shows that students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations of a ‘‘good’’ student or a ‘‘not so good’’ student did not differ along achievement lines. However, the students’ perceptions about what it means to be a good student differentiated the lowachievers from the high-achievers. This study’s findings may be used to inform educators about Mexican-American students’ orientation towards school and learning, in hopes for creating more equitable educational settings where all students achieve to their fullest potential. Keywords Mexican-American students Teacher expectations Student achievement
S. Bae (&) Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, 4511 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94270–1670, USA e-mail:
[email protected] S. D. Holloway Cognition and Development, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, 4309 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720–1670, USA J. Li Education and Human Development, Education Department, Brown University, 21 Manning Walk, 1938, Providence, RI 02912, USA J. Bempechat Human Development, Wheelock College, 200 The Riverway, Boston, MA 02215, USA
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
211
Although their achievement has risen over the past several decades, Latino students continue to achieve at rates lower than Anglo-American and African-American students and are underrepresented in most areas of higher education (Solorzano, 1995; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995). In 2000, the status dropout rate for Latinos was 28 percent, higher than the 7 percent for Anglos and the 13 percent rate for African-Americans (Pew Hispanic Centers Report, 2003). Further, the high school completion rates mirror the status dropout rates. Latinos are less likely than Anglos and African-Americans to complete their high school degrees. In 2000, 64 percent of Latinos completed high school programs, compared to 92 percent of Anglos and 84 percent of African-Americans (Pew Hispanic Centers Report, 2003). The mounting statistics on the underachievement of Latino students reveal the need for researchers, educators, and policy makers to address the problem of how schools are failing Latino students. What steps are being taken to adequately and properly prepare Latino students for access to higher education and future economic success? Why aren’t these students able to flourish and achieve to their fullest potential in school? One answer to these questions may lie in the area of teacher expectancy effects. The research on teacher expectancies demonstrates that the way teachers perceive their students and make instructional decisions and judgments about their future achievement in the classroom has a significant effect on students (Babad & Taylor, 1992; Brophy & Good, 1970; Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). The studies suggest that teachers’ expectations for their students’ potential in the classroom influence the students’ achievement in school. Furthermore, studies also show that students are highly aware of their teachers’ expectations (Babad & Taylor, 1992; Marshall & Weinstein, 1984; Weinstein, 1983). This body of literature suggests that critical links exist between what teachers expect of students as academic learners, the teachers’ subsequent behaviors in instructional practices, the students’ interpretation of the teachers’ expectations and behaviors, and the students’ academic achievement. Understanding the students’ perspective on teachers’ expectations may be an important factor in ameliorating the problem of students’ school failure. All too often, what gets overlooked and left out in the dialogue relating to the issues of academic underachievement and equal opportunities for education is the students’ own perspectives on learning and school achievement. Research aimed towards changing school policies and practices often fails to focus on the students’ views, especially the perspectives of students from non-dominant communities (Nieto, 1994; Rubin & Silva, 2003). From the students’ experiences, we may glean how educational institutions manage to support or limit their achievement goals and access to higher education. This is a necessary step towards a fuller understanding of why some students succeed and why others fail in schools. In this study, we compared high and low achieving students with regards to their perceptions of teachers’ expectancies. Specifically, we examined Mexican-American students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations of good and not so good students, as expressed by a group of 6 high achieving Mexican-American students and a group of 5 low achieving Mexican-American students. In doing so, we investigated how Mexican-American students perceive their teachers’ expectations
123
212
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
of good students and poor students and whether the students’ perceptions differ along achievement lines.
Theoretical Perspective Beginning with Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) landmark study of the selffulfilling prophecy in the classroom, research has demonstrated a link between teacher expectations and student performance. Brophy and Good’s (1970) model of teacher expectancy effects propose the following pattern: 1)
2)
3)
4)
Teachers develop differential expectations for their students’ academic achievements from a variety of sources (e.g., students’ cumulative record, students’ test scores, previous teachers’ summaries, students’ characteristics, students’ behavior). Corresponding with these expectations, teachers behave differentially towards various students via the way they group students for instruction, give feedback, and provide opportunities for learning. The differential treatment communicates to the student the teacher’s expectations and alters the student’s self-concept and motivation to achieve academically. The differential treatment, if continued over time, influences the way students achieve and behave (i.e., high expectation students achieve at high levels and low expectation students achieve at much lower levels).
This model outlines the way in which teacher expectations for students’ achievement affects teachers’ behaviors and influences students’ academic outcomes in the classroom. What is most relevant for the purposes of this paper is the third step in this model of teacher expectancies: the formation of students’ self-concepts as a consequence of the students’ perceptions of teachers’ differential treatment. In regards to teacher expectancy effects on student achievement, students’ perceptions of teachers’ differential treatment have been researched extensively and have been shown to be an important mediator (Babad, 1990b; Marshall & Weinstein, 1984; Weinstein, 1983; Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp, & Botkin, 1987). In addition, researchers found that students’ perceptions of teachers’ differential treatment are a critical factor in the students’ motivation for learning and the formation of their selfconcepts as ‘‘good students’’ (Blote, 1995; Chen & Thompson, 2003). Blote (1995), for example, proposed that students for whom teachers held high expectations and were treated as high achievers reported higher academic self-concepts than students whose teachers held low expectations and were treated as low achievers. Similarly, Chen and Thompson (2003) demonstrated that teachers’ academic feedback to students were particularly reflective of teachers’ expectations for student achievement. As a result, students for whom teachers held high expectations perceived less negative and more positive oral feedback from teachers and this correlated with high self-concept ratings. The research shows that as children mature cognitively and become accustomed to teacher feedback mechanisms and classroom conditions, they become more adept at discriminating teachers’ expectations and interpreting teachers’ differential treatment. Consequently, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations may
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
213
affect their own ability conceptions and in turn create related achievement outcomes. However, the existing research demonstrates that there are gaps in our understanding of teacher expectancy effects. To begin, little research on teacher expectancies has been conducted to understand the students’ perception of teacher expectancy. Furthermore, few studies have focused on ethnic minority students. Early studies have compared teachers’ expectations for Mexican-American students in comparison to white and black students (Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974), but they did not investigate the phenomenon from the students’ perspectives. This is important to our understanding of how teacher expectations mold and shape Mexican-American students’ self-concepts and their academic identities. As a result, it would be beneficial to examine and understand how Mexican-American students interpret teachers’ expectations for ‘‘good’’ students. Building on this, we explored students’ perceptions of teachers’ expectations of a model student. Thus, in this exploratory study, we investigated ninth grade Mexican-American students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations of ‘‘good students’’ and ‘‘not so good students.’’ At a purely descriptive level, we were interested in what types of expectations these students believed that their teachers had for students. Additionally, we were interested in whether students perceived teachers to have different expectations for these two types of student, and whether these perceptions were linked to the target student’s own achievement level. Given the scarcity of data regarding the perspectives of adolescent students, particularly those of low-income Mexican-Americans, we did not formulate formal hypotheses. But based on the teacher expectancy literature, our general expectation was that higher achieving students may view teachers’ expectations for ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘not good’’ students as being higher than do lower achieving students.
Methods Participants The sample of Mexican-American students was derived from two San Francisco Bay Area urban schools: North High School and South High School1(see Table 1). North High School is located on the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area. As the table exhibits, the school registers an ethnically diverse group of student in grades 9 through 12 and almost one half of the student population qualifies for free or reduced price lunch. Student achievement at North High is consistently low. Student performance, as reflected in the Academic Performance Index2 (API), was among the lowest in the state, even among students from comparable SES backgrounds. The Latino students’ API score in 2004 was 504, significantly lower than the non-Hispanic 1
To preserve the students’ anonymity, all names of schools, teachers and students were changed to pseudonyms. However, school statistics were derived from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest and www.greatschools.net on November 27, 2004.
2
California’s state accountability index for school achievement
123
214
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
Table 1 School Demographics North High School
South High School
St Population:
1585 students
1515 students
Latinos
42%
27%
African-American
13%
35%
Asian-American
8%
12%
Non-Latino whites
28%
17%
Sts Identified as English Language Learners
29%
22%
Sts Qualifying for Free or Reduced Price Lunch:
42%
22%
2004 API score
552
564
2003 API score
537
547
Credentialed Tchrs
77%
70%
Ave Yrs of Tching Exp
10
13
Ave Class Size
18
30
white students’ score of 585. In 2004, only 15% of the graduates completed University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) requirements compared to a state average of 34%. At North High School, 77% of the teaching staff is fully credentialed, compared to the statewide average of 86%. In addition, the average years of teaching experience for the faculty is 10 years, which suggests a relatively veteran teacher workforce. South High School is situated in a working class community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many South students are performing below academic standards. As with North High School, the students’ API score suggested a level of achievement well below the state average for students of comparable family background. In 2004, the API score for Latino students at this school was 549; for non-Hispanic white students it was 631. The school’s statistics indicate that only 10% of South graduates complete UC/CSU requirements for matriculation into 4-year universities. At South, 70% of the teaching staff is fully credentialed and has an average of 13 years of teaching experience. The two school sites provided access to 32 Mexican-American students3 (16 from each site, with an equal mix of female and male students). Selection for participation in the study was based on parents’ permission and student desire to participate. We solicited students’ involvement by making presentations to the students in their English classes as well as circulating around the campuses. From the larger sample of 32 Mexican-American students, we chose to closely examine 11 Mexican-American ninth grade students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations (see Table 2). Specifically, we selected a purposive sample of the six highest achieving students, as measured by their grade point average (GPA) of 3.5 or higher, and the five lowest achieving students with GPAs of 1.5 or lower. The 3
The students self-identified themselves as Mexican-American. The participating students also met other criteria such as not receiving special education services and qualified as low-income by receiving free or reduced priced lunch.
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
215
Table 2 Student Profiles Student Name
Gender
High School
GPA
Maria
Female
South
3.917
Elena
Female
North
3.833
Evelin
Female
South
3.75
Marissa
Female
North
3.708
Joshua
Male
South
3.625
Rosa
Female
South
3.50
Melaney
Female
South
1.417
Lupe
Female
North
1.417
Alejandro
Male
South
1.321
Paula
Female
North
1.10
Teresa
Female
South
1.00
contrastive sample was expected to highlight the variation in student perceptions of their teachers’ expectations for performance outcomes. The decision to study ninth grade students was based upon research showing that two thirds of those who leave school prior to graduation drop out before the tenth grade year (Schwartz, 1995). Interview Protocol and Procedure During the spring of 2003, each student participated in two, hour-long semistructured interviews that were geared towards understanding the student’s perspective on schooling, their teachers, their peers, and their families. Either a graduate student or a university professor interviewed the ninth-grade students, onsite at the high schools. All student interviews were completed in English, audio taped, and transcribed. The semi-structured interviews entailed a core set of questions that was developed for each round of interviews. The initial round of interviews focused on questions that pertained to their lives outside of school. The second round of interviews explored the students’ school experiences: how they perceived their teachers, their classes, and other students; their own conceptions of ability and effort; and their future aspirations. This paper focuses specifically on the following interview questions, asked during the second interview: 1) Think of 2 students who your teachers would say are good students. State their names. So, what do those students have in common? How are they the same? What makes your teachers think they are good students? 2) Think of 2 students who your teachers would say are not so good students. What is it about them that make them not good students? Data Analysis The aim of the study was to explore whether students’ perceptions of teachers’ expectations for ‘‘good students’’ and ‘‘not so good students’’ differed depending on the student’s achievement level. The interview data were analyzed via multiple
123
216
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
passes. The first pass involved identifying and tagging relevant passages using NVivo, a program designed for qualitative data analysis. We then moved to a second, more explanatory level involved creating theme matrices from the patterns that emerged from the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). An overall matrix was created that highlighted the essential themes pertaining to each student and analyzed for emerging patterns. The next step involved reducing the overall theme matrix by developing individual matrices for each theme such as engagement in school, good grades, or helpfulness. The individual theme matrix allowed us to make assertions about the students’ perceptions as well as collect frequency counts on how many students discussed each theme. The final level of analysis involved writing case summaries of each student. This level of analysis allowed the subtle nuances of how the students differed in their representation of a good student to arise from the data. Toggling back and forth between the individual theme matrices and the case summaries allowed us to recognize and validate the themes that emerged from the analyses.
Findings Good Students ‘‘Do Their Work’’ When students were asked to discuss their perceptions of their teachers’ expectations of a good student, all of the high and low achieving students alike described good students in behavioral terms. They talked about ‘‘good’’ students in terms of such academic behaviors as doing their work, turning in their work, paying attention in class, and coming to class on time. In addition, the students spoke about good students as engaged in particular kinds of social behaviors: being polite and nice, staying out of trouble, having a good attitude, and not talking back to the teacher. According to the high as well as the low achieving students, teachers thought good students were those who completed in-class assignments and homework; the students tended to describe these students as those who ‘‘do their work.’’ A related view was that good students were those who worked hard. Five out of 6 high achieving students described good students as ones who ‘‘do their work’’ or work hard. Rosa shared, ‘‘They have good grades, they do their work, they pay attention. They do their homework.’’ In similar fashion, Marissa commented, ‘‘And she likes to do good at everything. She likes to be good at it. They work hard. At everything.’’ A similar pattern emerged from the low achieving students. Four out of five low achievers described the teachers’ perceptions of good students in terms such as these used by Alejandro: ‘‘They do all their work, they don’t talk, and they help each other a lot.’’ In addition, 3 out of 6 high achievers and 1 out of 5 low achievers expressed their perceptions of teachers’ expectations for a good student in terms of good grades. These students’ statements mirrored Rosa’s comment, ‘‘They have good grades, they do their work, they pay attention.’’ Here, grades are used as evidence for identifying a good student. But absent from their talk are descriptors such as achieving straight A’s or the academic honor roll, which may be typically considered as identifying behaviors. Rather, their talk focuses on the absence of
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
217
poor grades. For example, Teresa noted that a good student does not ‘‘have any Fs.’’ Only two of the high achieving students employed the notions of intelligence and ability as a way to describe a good student. Marissa stated, ‘‘He’s really smart,’’ and Elena commented, ‘‘The writing skills of both of them are good.’’ Only one student, Rosa,, conveyed the idea that less successful students may have trouble comprehending the material, and might not be able to successful in spite of trying hard: If you explain something to her, she wouldn’t get it until you explain it to her like, 15 times. And then at the end, when she is out of work, if you see her paper, she erased, eraser marks, she erases, you could see her whole paper is grey. She goes to class in the morning. She also like, first, she goes to class and sign in and then, she leaves, then doesn’t come back. She doesn’t pay attention, she doesn’t do her work, she cheats. She looks at other people’s paper. Rosa emerged as a unique case because she saw achievement as multiply determined, with student ability playing a role in addition to student motivation. Good Students Comply with Social Norms Another theme from the analyses illustrated that 7 seven out of 11 students, across the achievement spectrum, described the perception that good students engaged in such social behaviors as showing respect for adults, listening to the teacher, and adhering to the social norms in the school (i.e., classroom rules). Paula described a particular good student as one who is ‘‘always on time, she raises her hand and everything. She never misses class and when she does, like she makes up homework, and she never misses any homework and she always on time and she does everything the teacher tells her to.’’ Similarly, Evelin noted the following characteristics of good students, ‘‘They do their work. Everything. Like, they have a good attitude. Because you know how kids sometimes act up in class? They’re not that type of person. They’re polite and stuff, you know?’’ Moreover, across the achievement spectrum, 9 out of 11 students illustrated their perceptions of a teacher’s expectations of a bad student as someone who is disrespectful, temperamental, does not listen to the teacher, acts up in the class, and disturbs other students by talking. Elena described one particular ‘‘not so good’’ student as followed: ‘‘She’s always putting on make-up in class. And she starts talking to the people around her and it goes on for the whole period. And she’s always talking while other people work. Like to her friends. Yeah [she’s rude to the teacher] and other students.’’ Similarly, Alejandro characterized a ‘‘not so good’’ student in terms of social behavior: ‘‘skips class. He smokes. He doesn’t do his work. He acts stupid. Like he acts dumb, kind of. He’s always trying to make jokes about the teachers. He never pays attention.’’ For Low Achieving Students, Good Students are Always Good The high and low achievers differed in their use of hyperbolic descriptors. All 5 of the low achievers used absolutes (e.g., always, all, never) to describe their perceptions of teachers’ expectations of a good student (see Table 3). For example,
123
218
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
Table 3 Students’ Perceptions of a Teacher’s Expectations for a Good Student High Achievers
Low Achievers
They, they always raise their hand. [It means] That They’re smart and they never, they always behave they know. They don’t talk very much in class. good. They always do their work. The teacher [That helps them be a good student] ‘Cause they tells them not to talk in class and they don’t talk listen. Joshua 3.625 (GPA) anymore. They don’t have any F’s. They always pay attention. Teresa 1.0 (GPA) They’re both hard working students and like they Always raising their hands. They like go to class on pay close attention and are like good friends and time. Melaney 1.417 stuff. They’re always like there when you need them and they offer to help you. They do their work and they’re like, they never get into trouble around school. Maria 3.917 They have good grades, they do their work, they pay attention, um. They do their homework. Rosa 3.50
They do all their work, they don’t talk, and they help each other a lot. Alejandro 1.321
They do their work. Everything. Like, they have a [She’s] always on time, she raises her hand and good attitude. Because you know how kids everything. She never misses class and when she sometimes act up in class? They’re not that type does, like she makes up homework, and she never misses any homework and she always on of person. They’re polite and stuff, you know? time and she does everything the teacher tells her They’re nice? Evelin 3.750 to. Paula 1.10 They decided to work, and are not talking. They do X, she always pays attention. And XX, like all the their work. They don’t slack off. They finish their time she always has her work done. Well XX, I don’t have her class, but like, she always, like tests and their grades are good. Um, the writing worries about her stuff. Like if she has a part or skills of both of them are good. And they can something, she wants to go like the first day they show other people because they know what give it to her or something. Well, X like she they’re doing. They’re just good at explaining always turns in her stuff, and she’s always there. things when people are confused. They just get [Her stuff is] like most of her subject work and it. Elena 3.833 homework. Lupe 1.417 He’s really smart. And she likes to do good at everything. She likes to be good at it. They work hard. At everything. Marissa 3.708
Teresa, a low achieving student, articulated the following perceptions of a good student: ‘‘They’re smart and they never, they always behave good. They always do their work. The teacher tells them not to talk in class and they don’t talk anymore. They don’t have any F’s. They always pay attention’’ [emphasis added by authors]. In contrast, only 2 out of 6 of the high achievers used hyperbolic descriptors. Rosa, a high achieving student said, ‘‘They have good grade, they do their work, they pay attention, um. They do their homework.’’ In Rosa’s descriptions, the absence of hyperbolic language is clearly noted when compared with Teresa’s statement.
Discussion The goal of this exploratory study was to examine the perceptions of high and low achieving Mexican American ninth grade students about the expectations that their teachers held for ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘not so good’’ students. Among all the students, two
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
219
salient themes emerged as key elements of student perceptions of what a teacher considers to be a good student: effortful behavioral orientation and compliance with social norms. Additionally, the low achieving students held the view that good students adhered to these positive behavior patterns invariably and without exception. Few students discussed the role of intellectual ability in determining achievement. Effortful Behavior Orientation These students tended to believe that teachers thought good students were those who worked hard. They focused on behavioral manifestations of effort—particularly reliable class attendance and completion of homework. In terms of achievement motivation, it appears that these students view achievement from an effort rather than an ability orientation. Research on children’s conceptions of ability has shown that while young children see effort as the primary determinant of achievement, older children develop the more complex view that achievement outcomes result from one’s ability as well as one’s effort (Dweck, 2002; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989). Further, adolescents frequently come to see effort and ability as compensatory, and some perceive that effort needs to be exerted only in the absence of ability and conclude that effort expenditure signals low ability (Covington, 1998). To the extent that we found an almost universal endorsement of effort as the primary characteristic of a good student, the current study departs from previous findings. Cultural factors may be one of the keys to understanding why students in this study emphasize effort in relation to academic success or how they conceptualize what it means to be a good student. Cross-cultural studies indicate that American students conceptualize the role of effort in regards to student achievement differently than students in European and Asian countries (Holloway, 1988; Parameswaran & Hom, 2000; Phinney, Baumann, & Blanton, 2001; Ryckman & Mizokawa, 1988; Yan & Gaier, 1994). For example, Holloway’s (1988) review of attribution studies in the U.S. and Japan concludes that effort was seen as the primary determinant of achievement in Japan whereas in the U.S., ability was most often cited as the key factor of school success. There may be subcultural differences within the US as well. In a study investigating adolescents’ life goals and attributions for academic outcomes, ethnic minority students (African-American, Mexican-American, Vietnamese-American, and Armenian-American) attributed outcomes more to effort than to ability whereas the white students placed more emphasis on ability (Phinney et al., 2001). Thus, the tendency of the Mexican-American students in our study to focus on effort and downplay ability may be partially attributable to their ethnic background. A second factor that may lead these Mexican-American adolescents to hold strong effort oriented beliefs pertains to the level of expectations and type of encouragement provided by their teachers via the teacher feedback loop. There is ample evidence that schooling expectations are socially constructed through implicit and explicit classroom experiences (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Stigler & Hiebert, 2004; Stipek & Daniels, 1988; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989). Although these data do not directly address how teachers interact with students and how teachers behave in the classroom, the research literature on teacher effects suggests that
123
220
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
teachers often evaluate students based upon effort expended. McMillan and Workman (1999) found that elementary and secondary school teachers factored in student effort along with academic performance when calculating student grades. Similarly, McMillan and Lawson (2001) investigated secondary science teachers’ assessment and grading practices and found that teachers placed more weight on academic-enabling behaviors such as effort and improvement than on the student’s academic performance. Analysts and policy makers generally laud teacher practices that downplay student ability differences and focus on student persistence and effort. For example, Bottoms (1995) argued that school programs in Georgia were able to improve academic learning outcomes for career-bound students by stressing effort over ability. Similarly, Resnick (1999) has asserted that U.S. schools should be built around the assumption that effort creates ability and Black (2000) recommends that when praise is used in the classroom it should be awarded for student’s effort and persistence rather than natural ability. Based on their perceptions that teachers value signs of effortful behavior, students may construct the belief that effort itself is the sole criterion defining high achievement. Understanding the role of teacher expectations might also help to clarify the views of the Mexican-American students in our study. A salient characteristic of the effort/compliance philosophy is that they espouse that achievement is defined as something that can be achieved through persistent adherence to such mundane activities as simply appearing in class. Using the criteria outlined by these students, being a good student seems well within the reach of everyone who is willing to put in a modicum of effort. If these students hold relatively simplistic notions about what goes into being a good student, it may be that they are exposed to low expectations on the part of their teachers. Indeed, studies on teacher expectancy effects have shown that positive and negative teacher expectancies have powerful effects on student achievement (Marshall & Weinstein, 1984; Weinstein, 1983; Weinstein et al., 1987). Teachers may create differential treatment patterns for students depending on student characteristics such as race, class, and ability. Students accurately perceive teachers’ differential treatment patterns as early as the first grade (Weinstein et al., 1987). The students then buy into the teacher’s expectations, either by aiming high or by lowering their own achievement goals (Weinstein, 2002). Mexican-American students are one group that are frequently subjected to low expectations by teachers (Valdez, 1996), and as a result are often segregated and marginalized in schools by being inappropriately placed in lower ability tracks, special education, or English Language Development classes (Garcia, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999; Weinstein, 2002). Thus, it is possible that the MexicanAmerican students may be reading the teacher’s differential treatment cues that orient these students to try and put forth effort. Compliance with Social Norms In essence, both high achieving and low achieving students underscored the importance of polite manners and demonstrating respect to others in the classroom. Paula pointed out that a good student waits to be called on by the teacher by raising her hand and ‘‘does everything the teacher tells her to do.’’ Her statement denotes
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
221
the significance of being a polite student who listens to the teacher and follows the teacher’s instructions. No student in this sample asserted that challenging the course material or the questioning a position taken by the teacher was part of being a good student. Bad students, on the other hand, were those who failed to abide by classroom rules, particularly by coming in late and talking disrespectfully to the teacher. These students may be employing the cultural model of educacion to explain their shared understandings of the attributes displayed by good and bad students. The cultural model of educacion, which is endorsed by many Mexican American parents, holds that being well educated extends beyond formal learning to include having good manners and strong moral values (Valdes, 1996). In Goldenberg and Gallimore’s (1995) ethnographic study of 121 Latino kindergarteners and their parents, they found that many parents perceived that academics and moral development could not be separated: ‘‘Nearly half—44 percent—of parents subordinated academics to moral development, but still maintained they were inextricably linked; moral development is seen as indispensable for school achievement’’ (p. 198). The Mexican-American students in this study may have appropriated the cultural model of educacion, which they enact in their perceptions of a teacher’s good or bad student. Absolutism We found that the low achieving students tended to express the view that good students invariably and consistently tried hard and acted in a polite and compliant manner. The students viewed high achievement as the consistent mastery of these relatively ordinary behaviors; this is a quantitative philosophy of sorts, in the sense that the accumulation of these mundane competencies added up to high achievement, as opposed to a view that high achievers are able to engage in more complex or qualitatively different cognition. Thus, even though the elements of being a good student are not particularly challenging, the perceived difficulty may be in enacting them all the time in all situations. Low achievers may perceive being a good student as something that is unattainable, an unachievable ideal; it would be daunting to think that high achieving student must always do all of their work, never come to class late, and always pay attention. In contrast, the high achievers may view being a good student in more realistic and attainable terms: ‘‘do the work’’ by coming to class, completing homework, and paying attention to the teacher. High achievers seemed to think of work completion as simply ‘‘doing their work,’’ whereas low achievers conceived of it as completing ‘‘all the work.’’ When the criteria of being a good student are thought of in such absolute terms, low achievers may come to believe that they cannot be one of ‘‘them.’’ Even though the requisite behaviors are not difficult to accomplish in and of themselves, they are difficult to accomplish without fail in every situation. Furthermore, these students did not offer other reasons for low performance—such as learning disabilities, poor teaching, or inadequate preparation. Their beliefs of the need for this apparently unattainable perfection may predispose them to give up on being a good student, and lead them to take on ‘‘non-good student’’ behaviors. This belief pattern,
123
222
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
indicative of low self-efficacy in accomplishing behaviors thought to lead to a desired outcome (Schunk & Pajares, 2002), may result in a tendency to avoid challenging tasks and to not persist when faced with difficulty. Limitation of Study The study’s primary weakness is its small sample size. We drew from a purposive sample of 11, high and low achieving, Mexican-American students. As such, the sample size precludes us from making definitive statements about how MexicanAmerican students perceive their teachers’ expectations for good and bad students. However, this study offers an important first step in understanding the meanings Mexican-American students make of teachers’ expectations and how their sense making may influence their academic trajectories. Implications for Practice The study has multiple implications for educational practices. To begin, it highlights the importance of helping low achieving Mexican-American students break down notions of absolutism. If they perceive being a good student as an unattainable and unreachable goal, they may set forth a self-fulfilling prophecy of low achievement. Thus, it behooves educators to assist students in setting smaller, intermediate goals that are attainable. This may reshape low achieving students’ conceptions of good students to envision them in more realistic terms. In addition, educators should be encouraged to capitalize on Mexican-American students’ cultural models that orient them towards putting forth effortful behaviors and adhering to social norms in school. The students’ cultural models of educacion and respeto prime them to be well mannered and respectful to peers and adults. This is important in terms of how teachers set up classroom cultures. Classroom cultures that focus on cooperation, affiliation and interdependence would benefit MexicanAmerican students’ motivation to achieve in schools. Lastly, it is important to note the role educators play in the development of students’ academic identities and trajectories. Educators are socializing agents; thus, they need to be highly cognizant of the messages they send to their students. This would require that teachers critically examine their own beliefs about their Mexican-American students and the expectations they hold for their students’ academic achievement. The explicit and implicit messages must be carefully crafted to ensure the future success of all students. Future Steps As this study demonstrates, regardless of their achievement level, Mexican-American ninth grade students share certain perceptions of their teachers’ expectations for good and bad students. Yet, this study does not address what accounts for the difference in the students’ achievement outcomes. What makes one student a high achiever and another student a low achiever? Further research must be conducted on students’ perceptions of their school experiences so that a model may be developed to outline
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
223
the path between student perceptions of teachers’ expectations, student beliefs, and student achievement for Mexican-American, secondary education students. In essence, how do the students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations affect their perceptions of themselves as learners? Then how do their self-beliefs influence their learning, motivation, and gains in achievement? Do their self-beliefs create learning trajectories that differentiate high achievers from low achievers? In addition, more research is needed to further investigate the role of cultural differences in students’ conceptions of effort and ability. In this paper, we speculate that Mexican-American’s cultural model of educacion, in conjunction with the classroom culture, creates an effort-orientation for the students. These students, with their families and teachers, co-construct their effort emphasis. To further elucidate this theory, a comparison group of Anglo and other ethnic groups such as AfricanAmerican students’ perceptions are needed to tease out the potential cultural influences. Are there differences in the Anglo students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations for good and bad students when compared with the MexicanAmerican students’ perceptions? How do Anglo students’ view effort and ability in regards to their achievement outcomes? Are they socialized to interpret different messages from their teachers and parents? As the scope of this project is unable to answer these questions, future research along these lines is well warranted.
References Babad, E., & Taylor, P. J. (1992). Transparency of teacher expectations across language and cultural boundaries. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 120–125. Black, S. (2000). The praise problem. American School Board Journal, 187, 38–40. Blote, A. W. (1995). Students’ self-concept in relation to perceived differential teacher treatment. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 221–236. Bottoms, G. (1995). Strengthening school programs for career-bound students. School Administrator, 52, 20–24. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teacher’s communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365–374. Chen, Y., & Thompson, M. S. (2003). Relations among teacher expectancies, student perception of teacher oral feedback, and student self-concept: An empirical study in Taiwanese elementary schools. Retrieved November 25, 2004, from http://edcare.ed.asu.edu/msms/research/aera/yihsin03.pdf Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Davidson, A. L. (1996). Making and molding identity in schools: Student narratives on race, gender, and academic achievement. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield, & J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Garcia, E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United States: Racies y alas. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36, 45–56. Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ values and beliefs about their children’s education: Continuities and discontinuities across cultures and generations. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 9, 183–228. Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58, 327–345.
123
224
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
Holloway, S. D. (2002). The meanings of learning, achievement, and motivation: A study of schooling beliefs and behavior in five cultural milieux. W.T. Grant Foundation Proposal, submitted January 7, 2002. Holloway, S. D., Fuller, B., Rambaud, M. F., & Eggers-Pierola, C. (1997). Through my Own eyes: Single mothers and the cultures of poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jensen, M., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1974). Influence of mode of presentation, ethnicity, and social class on teachers’ evaluations of students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(4), 540–547. Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 1554–1578. Marshall, H. H., & Weinstein, R. S. (1984). Classroom factors affecting students’ self-evaluations: An interactional model. Review of Educational Research, 54, 301–325. McMillan, J. H., & Lawson, S. R. (2001). Secondary science teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices (Report No. TM032348). Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED450158). McMillan, J. H., & Workman, D. (1999). Teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices: Phase I and II (Report No. TM031260). Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442840). Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 392–426. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Parameswaran, G., & Hom, H. L. (2000). The lack of ability-related explanations in children from India. Clearing House, 73, 279–281. Pew Hispanic Centers Reports (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from http://www.pewhispanic.org/page.jsp?page=dropouts Phinney, J. S., Baumann, K., & Blanton, S. (2001). Life goals and attributions for expected outcomes among adolescents from five ethnic groups. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 23, 363–377. Resnick, L. B. (1999). From aptitude to effort: A new foundation for our schools. American Educator, 23, 14–17. Richardson, V. (1996). The roles of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. P. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan. Rosenthal R. (1985). From unconscious experimenter bias to teacher expectancy effects. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher Expectancies (pp. 37–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rubin B., Silva E. (Eds.) (2003). Critical voices in school reform: Students living through change. New York & London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ryckman, D. B., & Mizokawa, D. T. (1988). Causal attributions of academic success and failure: Asian Americans’ and White Americans’ beliefs about effort and ability (Report No. UD026158). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED293967). Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schwartz, W. (1995). School dropouts: New information about an old problem. ERIC Digest. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386515). Retrieved December 31, 2003, from http://iume.tc.columbia/eric_archive/digest/109.pdf Solorzano, D. G. (1995). In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Class, culture, and race in American schools: A handbook (pp. 35–54). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17. Stipek, D., & Daniels, D. (1988). Declining perceptions of competence: A consequence of changes in the child or the educational environment? Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 352–356. Stipek, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521–538.
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:210–225
225
Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Valdes, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Weinstein, R. S. (1983). Students’ perceptions of schooling. Elementary School Journal, 83, 287–312. Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weinstein, R. S., Marshall, H. H., Sharp, L., & Botkin, M. (1987). Pygmalion and the student: Age and classroom differences in children’s awareness of teacher expectations. Child Development, 58, 1079–1093. Yan, W., & Gaier, E. L. (1994). Causal attributions for college success and failure: An Asian-American comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 146–158.
123
