The Effects Of Classroom Expectancy On Student

The Effects Of Classroom Expectancy On Student Achievement Essay, Research Paper

Running head: CLASSROOM EXPECTANCY AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS

The Effects of Classroom Expectancy on Student Achievement

Aaron D. Anderson

Cumberland College

The Effects of Classroom Expectancy on Student Achievement

Introduction

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to investigate how classroom expectancy impacted upon student academic achievement; second, to test whether there existed interactions between learning styles that resulted in differential patterns of academic achievement in the classroom.

Across America, in state after state, a decade of major reforms in education has so far failed to produce the anticipated improvement in the quality of our schools or the academic achievements of our students

Recently the reform debate has intensified even further. Now almost every day one hears of a new controversy about such issues as teacher pay and accountability, parental choice, local control of the school, new and revised curricula and textbooks, new forms of tests and evaluation, and year-round school.

Missing in this debate has been the discussion of the engagement and motivation of the students in the classroom themselves. This is a suspect omission, for even if we raise standards and succeed at restructuring our schools and improving the quality of our teachers. The results may be little or no improvement at all unless the students also increase their level of expectations. After all, it is the students who still must do the learning and the work.

The results of the study on student’s expectations of the classroom and the patterns of student achievement further support the idea that attitudes and perceptions play a fundamental role in the learning process. Therefore, if a teacher, school district, or the education field as a whole, are to expect to raise student’s academic achievement levels we must take into account the attitudes and perceptions of each individual learner and then adapt our plans to foster more positive expectations.

Background

Popular opinion has it that students’ academic achievement in terms of success depends on the quality of their teachers and textbooks. However, if you ask the students, you get a different view (U.S. Department of Education 1992).

According to the U.S. Department of Education (1992) most students believe their ability and effort are the main reasons for school achievement. As far as researchers can tell, most educators still subscribe to that traditional way of thinking and believe in the value of student effort. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of education (1992), when achievement drops, parents and policy makers seldom blame the study habits of students. Rather, they blame the schools and, particularly, the teachers. Consequently, over the past twenty-five years, most educational reforms have assumed that achievement would rise if the quality of instruction, teachers, and textbooks were improved (1992).

However, left out of this assumption is the relationship existing between academic achievements and the amount and quality of student effort (1992). For example, according to Robert Marzano (1992), in the review of research in mathematical problem solving, researchers have found that learners’ perceptions about their ability to solve problems are a primary factor in mathematics performance. If students perceive themselves as poor problem solvers, that perception overrides most other factors, including natural ability and previous learning (Marzano 1992). Therefore, awareness of how students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning develop and what facilitates learning for its own sake can assist educators in reducing student apathy (Lumsden, 1992).

Teachers routinely attest to the significance of perception and attitude, lamenting how easily students’ memorize unending rap songs despite their needing a truckload of teaching tricks to remember directions for a simple assignment (Walker, 2001).

Given the amount of prior research, I sought to clarify the relationship between student expectations in the classroom and the likelihood of student academic achievement due to that expectation.

Goals

The primary goal of the study was to evaluate how classroom expectancy impacted student academic achievement. Also, to test whether there existed interactions between learning styles that resulted in differential patterns of academic achievement in the classroom.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to investigate how classroom expectations impacted upon student achievement; second, to test whether there existed interactions between classroom learning styles that resulted in differential patterns of academic achievement in the classroom.

Design

Subjects

Thirty students enrolled in McCreary Central High School located in South Eastern Kentucky participated in this study. Students were randomly sampled from two World Civilization classes which is a required class for all tenth grade students. From the sampled students population, twelve were males, and eighteen females. The survey instrument was administered approximately 11 weeks into the Spring 2001 semester.

Measures

Subjects responded to scales from the Canfield’s Learning Styles Inventory (CLSL: Hatcher, 2001). This is a 30-item inventory, which determines learning preferences. Each item has four choices, which are ranked from 1 to 4 in terms of preference. Results are given for four categories: conditions, content, mode, and expectancy. Scores for each category can be interpreted in terms of the following criteria: (a) peer (working in student teams; good relations with other students; having student friends; etc.); (b) organization (course work logically and clearly organized; meaningful assignments and sequence of activities); (c) goal setting (setting one’s own objectives; using feedback to modify goals and procedures; making one’s own decisions about objectives); (d) competition (desiring comparison with others; needing to know how one is doing in relation to others); (e) instructor (knowing the instructor personally; having mutual understanding; liking one another); (f) detail (specific information on assignments, requirements, rules, etc.); (g) independence (working alone and independently; determining one’s own study plan; doing things for oneself); (h) authority (desiring classroom discipline and maintenance of order; having informed and knowledgeable instructors); (i) numeric (working with numbers and logic; computing; solving mathematical problems; etc.); (j) qualitative (working with words or language; writing, editing, talking); (k) inanimate (working with things; building, repairing, designing, operating); (l) people (working with people; interviewing, counseling, selling, helping); (m) listening (hearing information; lectures, tapes speeches, etc); (n) reading (examining the written word; reading texts, pamphlets, etc.); (o) iconic (viewing illustrations, movies, slides, pictures, graphs, etc.); (p) direct experience (handling or performing; shop, laboratory, field trips, practice exercises, etc.); (q) expectancy (the student’s predicted level of performance). For this study, items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1= most preferred rank to 4= least preferred rank). In order to maintain student privacy, each was assigned a letter for representation (A thru DD). Finally, to investigate the extent to which variations in student expectancy and student academic achievement I chose to conduct a correlational method of research.

Analyses

First, I selected learning styles that were ranked 50 percent or above on each student’s learning styles inventory. The next step was to compare the expected grade with the actual grade by plotting the actual scores compared to the expected scores on a mixed bar chart.

Finally, to see if any similarities existed between favored learning styles and academic grades, I compared the differences and or similarities for each grade classification (i.e., A, B, C, and D) to their learning style criteria that they ranked most frequently in a bar chart.

Results

Differences in expectancy and academic success

I found that fifty-three percent of the overall students made a grade at or above their expected grade. (see figure 1). Fifty percent of the students that expected to make 90% or above (A) achieved their expectancy. One hundred percent of the students that expected to make 80% or above (B) achieved their expectancy. Fifty percent of the students that expected to make 70% or above (C) achieved their expectancy. Fifty-four percent of the students that expected to make 60% or above (D) achieved their expectancy. Interestingly, 84% of the overall students’ actual grades were within twenty percentage points of their expected grades.

Interaction effects of learning styles on student achievement

After selecting the learning styles ranked fifty percent or above on the learning styles inventory I then used them to compare the differences and or similarities for each grade classification (i.e., A, B, C, D, and F) in bar charts (see figures 2 thru 6).

The students who scored 90% or above in the class all had one significant similarity (see figure 2). All five ranked listening (hearing information; lectures, tapes, speeches, etc.) and authority (desiring classroom discipline and maintenance of order; having informed and knowledgeable instructors) in their learning inventory. Also, four out of the five students ranked organization (course work logically and clearly organized; meaningful assignments and sequence of activities) and competition (desiring comparison with others; needing to know how one is doing in relation to others) in their learning inventory. However, only two out of the five students ranked goal setting (setting one’s own objectives; using feedback to modify goals and procedures; making one’s own decisions about objectives) in their learning inventory. Interestingly, those same two students also scored the highest two grades in the class. Finally, only one out of the five students ranked instructor (knowing the instructor personally; having mutual understanding; liking one another) in their learning inventory and none of the students ranked direct experience (handling or performing; shop, laboratory, field trips, practice exercises, etc.).

The students who scored 80% to 89% in the World Civilization class also selected one significant similarity in their learning style inventory (see figure 3). All of those students ranked numeric (working with numbers and logic; computing; solving mathematical problems; etc.) in their learning inventory. Coincidentally, only three out of the five students scoring 90% or above, also ranked this in their learning inventory. Also, three out of the four students with grades from 80% to 89% ranked competition, listening, reading (examining the written word; reading texts, pamphlets, etc.), and direct experience in their learning inventory. A significant difference in learning inventories was found in direct experience and reading inventories. None of the 90% or above students ranked direct experience, and only two selected reading. However, three out four of the students with grades from 80% to 89% ranked these two styles in their learning inventories.

In students with grades from 70% to 79% no significant similarity in ranked learning inventories were noted (see figure 4). Authority, organization, and detail were the only particular learning styles that were ranked by more than three students. The differential effects of learning styles on student achievement appear to have no significant impact on students in the 70% to 79% grade range.

However, students with grades from 60% to 69% did have one significant similarity (see figure 5). Four out of four of the students ranked independence (working alone and independently; determining one’s own study plan; doing things for oneself) in their learning styles inventory.

Finally, students with grades 59% or less also had one significant similarity (see figure 6). Six out of six of those students ranked numeric in their learning styles inventory. Also, five out of six of those students ranked peer and iconic in their learning styles inventory.

Discussion

The results presented here indicate that there is no significant difference existed in classroom expectancy and academic achievement. Of the student population enrolled in World Civilization class there was an 84% likelihood a student will not score 20 points below their classroom expectancy. In accordance with the work done by Marzano, I found a student’s predicted level of performance had positive effects on student academic achievement. For example, the results showed student’s who expected to achieve a grade of 90% or above did achieve an overall higher percentage grade than the other students as a whole. Therefore, it can be concluded that classroom expectancy does play a role in academic achievement.

This study also indicated interactions existed between learning styles that result in differential patterns of academic achievement in the classroom. For example, 4 out of 5 students who earned a class average of 90% or above ranked organization in their learning inventory. On the contrary, only 1 student who earned a class average of 59% or below ranked organization in their learning inventory. As a result of this finding, it can be concluded that organizational skills of students does have an affect in the academic achievement of students.

Also noted, not one student who scored an class average of 90% or above ranked direct experience in their learning inventory, and only 2 out of 5 students ranked iconic. On the other hand 5 out of 6 students who earned a class average of 59% or below ranked iconic on their learning inventory, and 4 out of 6 ranked direct experience. Since direct experience deals with hands on learning activities, and iconic involves illustrations, movies, slides, pictures, graphs, etc, then it can further be concluded that most students who earned a class average of 59% or below were not exposed to an atmosphere conducive to their learning styles.

Recommendations

Given the vast diversity of students in a school, the fact that different learning styles exist lends greater urgency to focusing our attention on fostering positive classroom environments. Teachers should be made aware of potentially motivation-enhancing practices in which they can engage, such as linking subject matter to students’ everyday concerns and gearing activities more toward cooperation rather than competition. Moreover, for teachers to facilitate positive classroom expectations which can lead to higher academic achievement. Finally, the degree of correspondence between teachers and students expectations of the classroom is an important issue to consider. The data reported here, and the suggestions offered for future research testify to the dynamic and contextual nature of classroom expectancy.

References

Hatcher, J. A. (2001). On-line and off-line survey instruments: motivation, cognitive styles, learning styles, and learning strategies. [On-line].

Available: http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/canfield1.html

U.S. Department of Education (1992, June). Hard work and high expectations: motivating students to learn. U.S. Department of Education. [On-Line].

Available: http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content3/work.expectations.k12.4html

Marzano, R.J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: a framework for curriculum and instruction. [On-line].

Available: http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/marzano88book.html

Lumsden, L. (1994, June). Student motivation to learn. Eric Digest. [On-line].

Available: http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest092.html

Figure 1. Student’s expected grade percentage and actual grade.

Figure 2. Ranked importance of learning styles of students who received a grade of 90% or above.

Figure 3. Ranked importance of learning styles of student’s who scored 80% to 89% in the class.

Figure 4. Ranked importance of learning styles of students who scored 70% to 79% in class.

Figure 5. Ranked importance of learning styles of student’s who scored 60% to 69% in class.

Figure 6. Ranked importance of learning styles of student’s who scored 59% or below.

Bibliography