Teacher Expectations
Running Head: TEACHER EXPECTATIONS AND STUDENT SELF-PERCEPTIONS
Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relationships
Christine M. Rubie-Davies, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
This paper is based on a doctoral dissertation by the author completed at the University of
Auckland, New Zealand, in April 2004.
Submission Date: 10 May 2005
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christine Rubie-Davies,
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.
Electronic mail may be sent via the internet to: c.rubie@auckland.ac.nz
1
Teacher Expectations
2
Abstract
For forty years researchers have been exploring the teacher expectation phenomenon. Few
have examined the possibility that teacher expectations may be class-centered rather than
individually-centered. The current study aimed to track the self-perception outcomes of
students (N = 256) whose teachers had high or low class-level expectations. Students
completed the reading, mathematics, physical abilities and peer relations subscales of the
SDQ-1 (Marsh, 1990) at the beginning and end of one year. A subscale related to student
perception of how the teacher viewed their abilities was added. An overall self-perception
score was computed for each subscale. At the beginning of the year there were no statistically
significant differences between the expectation groups in any of the academic, teacher
opinion or total self-perception scales. By the end of the year statistically significant
differences were found mainly due to a decline in the self-perceptions of students with low
expectation teachers. Implications for teacher practice are discussed.
Teacher Expectations
3
Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relationships
For over forty years researchers have been exploring the phenomenon of teacher
expectations. A plethora of studies have been conducted which have clearly shown the
existence of differential teachers’ expectations for individuals within their classrooms (e.g.
Good & Brophy, 2003; Eccles & Wigfield, 1985; Jussim, Smith, Madon & Palumbo, 1998;
Pellegrini & Blatchford, 2000) The vast majority of such studies, however, have concentrated
on teachers and the ways in which they interact directly or more subtly with individual
children for whom they have correspondingly high or low expectations (e.g. Brophy, 1985;
Cooper & Good, 1983; Rosenthal, 1991). Very few have empirically examined the possibility
that expectations may be teacher-centered, i.e. that there may be teachers who have high or
low expectations for all the students in their classrooms (see Rubie-Davies, in review-a, for a
recent example). Similarly there have been proportionately few studies that have examined
the responses of students in the expectancy construct (e.g. Babad, 1998; Kuklinski &
Weinstein, 2001).
Students in the Expectancy Construct
Weinstein and her colleagues (Weinstein, 1993; Weinstein, Marshall, Brattesani &
Middlestadt, 1982; Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp & Botkin, 1987; Weinstein & McKown,
1998) and Babad and his colleagues (Babad, 1993; Babad, Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1989;
Babad, Inbar & Rosenthal, 1982), however, have extensively investigated whether students
are able to discern teachers’ high or low expectations and how they might do this. In five
separate studies (Brattesani, Weinstein & Marshall, 1984; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000;
Weinstein & Middlestadt, 1979; Weinstein et al., 1982; Weinstein et al., 1987) Weinstein and
her colleagues used the Teacher Treatment Inventory with first to fifth graders to determine
whether students perceived differential treatment by teachers, of high and low achievers.
Teacher Expectations
4
They found that in comparison to low achievers students felt that teachers interacted more
positively with high achieving students, that they had higher expectations of them, and that
they offered them more leadership opportunities and more choice in their learning
experiences. In contrast to the high achievers, students reported that teachers were more
negative towards low achievers and directed their learning far more frequently. In further
studies (Weinstein, 1986; 1989; 1993) Weinstein interviewed 133 fourth grade children about
how they knew whether their teacher considered them ‘smart’ or not. She reported that
students determined this from what their teachers told them, from the marks and grades that
they received, from various instructional practices such as ability grouping, from the types of
learning experiences students were given and from aspects of the affective climate of the
classroom. The students showed a sophistication in their interpretation of teacher behaviors
that belied their age. They could provide numerous explicit examples of comparative
feedback, of single critical incidents where students had been publicly humiliated, of
meaningful facial expressions by their teachers, of the vocal tone used with particular
students. In response Weinstein (2002) has called for greater responsiveness by teachers to
children’s perceptive illustrations, which provide clear examples of how expectations can be
communicated to children.
Much of Babad’s work, too, has concentrated on exploring the subtle verbal and nonverbal cues that teachers provide which lead students to interpret these as expectations for
their achievement (Babad, 1993; 1998). His investigations have shown that whereas teachers
reported providing more emotional support to low ability students, the children perceived the
opposite (Babad, 1990; 1995). Babad reported that the teachers did endeavor to display
warmth and emotional support to low expectation students but that the students were able to
determine that such displays were not genuine because they were exaggerated. The teachers’
natural affection for the high expectation students was interpretable by students despite
Teacher Expectations
5
teacher attempts to control this (Babad, 1998). Students were resentful of this differential
emotional support and this was particularly so in the classrooms where teachers reported
having ‘pets’.
Babad has further investigated student interpretation of teacher behaviors using small
video clips (Babad, Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1987; 1989a, 1989b; 1991). Israeli teachers were
filmed interacting with either low or high expectation students. Students were then shown the
video clips. Children as young as fourth graders were able to tell when teachers were talking
to or about high as opposed to low expectation students even though the students involved in
the interactions were not seen and the video clips were only ten seconds in length. When the
video clips were shown to students in New Zealand in a separate study (Babad & Taylor,
1992) ten-year old students were able to signal whether the unseen child the teacher was
interacting with was a student for whom the teacher had either high or low expectations. This
was despite the fact that none of the students in this particular study understood Hebrew and
hence their interpretation was gleaned from facial expressions, tone and body language.
Babad’s studies showed not only the strength of the nonverbal channels in transmitting
teachers’ expectations towards the student but also showed that such nonverbal affective
responses were cross-cultural.
It would seem clear from the extensive work of both Weinstein and Babad that
students are able to perceive their teachers’ expectations for their performance. How might
students respond in light of this awareness? One of the debates in the expectancy literature
has been that of the direction of the expectancy effect. Do teacher behaviors shape students’
(re)actions in line with teachers’ expectations or do student behaviors influence the
expectancies of teachers? While the relationship is more likely dynamic than dichotomous
some of the more recent evidence has provided support for a stronger relationship from
teacher to student than the alternative. Gill and Reynolds (1999) surveyed fourth-grade
Teacher Expectations
6
teachers to determine their expectations for the urban African American children that they
taught. The researchers reported that one-fifth of the teachers had high expectations for their
students’ future achievement while approximately one-seventh had limited expectations.
They found that the students’ perceptions only mediated the teacher’s expectations to a
limited extent while the expectations of the teachers had a large direct effect on both the
reading ( = .45) and mathematics ( = .42) achievement of the students.
Kuklinski and Weinstein (2001) found similar results. They reported that teacher
expectations had significant effects on Grade 5 students’ self-expectations particularly in
classes where the messages that teachers gave about student ability were salient. This was not
true, however, in the Grade 1 and Grade 3 classrooms included in their study. Teacher
expectations, however, did have a significant effect on the achievement outcomes of students
at both the earlier grades and at Grade 5. The authors concluded that at the earlier levels
teacher expectations had more direct effects on students’ achievement outcomes and were not
mediated to the same extent by student self-expectations. This was particularly so in
classrooms where students perceived much differential treatment towards high and low
expectation students.
Teacher Propensities and Student Outcomes
Teachers vary in their propensities to interact differently with high and low achievers.
It appears that teachers who make more discrimination between their high and low achievers
may affect their students’ achievement outcomes and possibly self-perceptions to a greater
degree than those teachers who make less distinction in their interactions with students of
different ability. Brattesani, Weinstein and Marshall (1984) defined such teachers as high or
low differentiating teachers. They showed that children’s academic performance differed
substantially according to their teachers’ proclivity. In classrooms where the students
reported clearly differential treatment of high and low achievers, teachers’ expectations
Teacher Expectations
7
explained 14% of the variance in children’s end-of-year achievement after controlling for
prior achievement. On the other hand in the classrooms of low differentiating teachers only
3% of the variance could be explained by teachers’ expectations. Babad et al., (1982) also
provided evidence that teachers who placed more credence in biasing information, such as
prior achievement, differentiated to a greater extent in their subsequent treatment of students.
This led to greater self-fulfilling prophecy effects for the students. They called such teachers
high and low differentiating. Indeed it was when using video clips of high differentiating
teachers that the students participating in the experiments of Babad and his colleagues (cited
above) could discern differential teacher expectations and student treatment. The
identification of teachers who differentiated more or less in their behaviour towards high and
low expectation students led Babad (1998) to suggest that preferential affect was at the heart
of the teacher expectation issue.
It appears that students placed in the classrooms of particular types of teachers (high
or low differentiating, high or low bias) may become more or less vulnerable to self-fulfilling
prophecy effects dependent on the classroom environment in which they find themselves.
Recently Rubie-Davies (in review-a) has identified teachers having correspondingly high or
low expectations for all the students in their classrooms, i.e. that their expectations are at the
class rather than the individual level. These were teachers whose expectations for their
students were significantly above or below the students’ attainment. Similarly to the students
in the classrooms of high and low differentiating teachers (Brattesani et al, 1984), the
students in the classrooms of high and low expectation teachers showed contrasting patterns
of academic achievement, with those in the classes of high expectation teachers making large
gains over one year in reading (d > 0.5 in all classes) while those in the classes of low
expectation teachers made fewer gains (d < 0.2 in all classes). Hence there are some studies
which show variable student achievement according to particular teacher characteristics. It
Teacher Expectations
8
would appear possible that students’ self-perception may also come to vary in classrooms
where teacher propensities differ. This does not, however, appear to have been measured in
empirical research. Since student self-perception has been shown by some researchers to
relate to academic achievement (Assor & Connell, 1992; Hay, Ashman, & Van Kraayenoord,
1998; Lynch, 2002) then the measurement of student self-perception when placed in the
classrooms of teachers with varying characteristics would appear to be important. If student
self-perception and academic achievement were found to vary with teacher-type this would
add further weight to the argument that the direction of the teacher expectancy effect is
stronger from the teacher to the students than the opposite. Hence the current study aims to
measure the self-perceptions of students placed in the classrooms of high and low expectation
teachers. It is proposed that over one year students’ self-perceptions may alter in line with
teachers’ class-centered expectations.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 256 students from 12 different classrooms
attending eight elementary schools in the Auckland area of New Zealand. Their teachers were
identified in a previous paper (Rubie-Davies, in review-a) as having expectations for their
students’ learning that were either significantly above or significantly below the children’s
level of achievement. The teachers formed three groups. The first consisted of six teachers
whose expectations for end of year performance were significantly above their students’ level
of achievement at the beginning of the academic year and whose students made statistically
significant achievement gains over the year in reading. This group will be referred to as the
students with the high expectation teachers (HiEx Group). The second group consisted of
three teachers whose expectations were significantly above their students’ level of
Teacher Expectations
9
achievement at the beginning of the academic year but whose students did not make
statistically significant gains over the year in reading and called the average progress teachers
(AvPr Group). The final group was comprised of three teachers whose expectations were
significantly below their students’ academic achievement at the beginning of the academic
year and whose students made no or small gains over the year in reading. This group is called
the low expectation teachers (LoEx Group). Of the 256 students included in the current study
132 were in classrooms with high expectation teachers, 65 had average progress teachers and
59 had low expectation teachers. The demographic makeup of the students in each of these
groups may be found in Table 1. This table includes numbers of students by gender within
each expectation group. It also includes numbers by socioeconomic level of the school. In
New Zealand every school is given a decile ranking based on census data which provides an
indication of the socioeconomic status of the school. For the purposes of this study deciles 15 are defined as low and deciles 6-10 are defined as high. Table 1 also includes the class level
of the students where Year One and Two students are classified as junior and Year Five and
Six students are classed as senior. The ethnicity of the students in each group is included.
Materials
The self-perception scale used to survey the students’ perceptions of themselves in
various areas, academic and non-academic, was adapted from the Self Description
Questionnaire-1 (SDQ-1) with the permission of the author (Marsh, 1990). The SDQ-1
consists of eight scales each containing eight statements designed to illustrate a child’s selfperceptions in various areas of self-concept. Of these the reading scale, the mathematics
scale, the physical abilities scale, and the peer relations scale were of interest in the current
study. The SDQ-1 includes statements such as ‘I am good at reading’ and ‘Most other kids
like me’ and students respond on a five-point Likert scale ranging from false (1) to true (5).
As well as these scales two additional items were added. These were: ‘The teacher thinks I’m
Teacher Expectations 10
good at reading’ and ‘The teacher thinks I’m good at math’. These items were added in order
to determine whether there were any changes over the year in the students’ perceptions of
how their teachers viewed their abilities in two academic areas.
The Cronbach alpha coefficient across the reading, mathematics, physical abilities,
peer relations and teacher opinion subscales was .71; if the teacher item had been removed
from the overall scale the Cronbach alpha coefficient would have remained at .71. Marsh
(1990) reported much lower correlations among the factors (.05 for mathematics and reading,
and .32 for peer relations and physical abilities) but argued that these low correlations
provided support for the notion of self-concept as being multifaceted with distinct and
measurable domains. The internal consistency coefficients across the normative sample (n =
3562) were acceptable (.89 for reading and mathematics, .83 for physical abilities and .85 for
peer relations). Marsh reported (1990) that the questionnaire was suitable for students in
Grades Two to Six. In a subsequent study Marsh, Craven and Debus (1991) found that
students aged from kindergarten to grade two exhibited differentiated perceptions of
themselves across the eight self-concept domains in the SDQ-1.
Procedure
All students completed the self-perception scale in March and November of one
academic year. (In New Zealand the academic year in elementary schools runs from February
to December.) The classroom teacher was not present for the administration of the
questionnaire. Six trainee teachers completing the final year of their pre-service teaching
qualification assisted with the administration of the scale. In the junior classrooms the
students were divided into six or seven small groups, depending on class size. The adults then
read each item aloud to their respective groups and supervised the completion of the
questionnaires closely to ensure that any missed items could be detected and that student
engagement could be enhanced. The author supervised the administration in smaller
Teacher Expectations 11
classrooms. In the Year Five and/or Six classrooms the author read all items aloud and the
trainee teachers monitored the students to again ensure high levels of completion.
Data Collection and Analysis
In order to score each separate subscale of the self-perception scale, the sum of the
raw scores was found. Marsh (1990) suggested that the raw score allowed ‘absolute’
differences to be determined and that these may be lost when scales were normalized or
standardized. Only students who were present at both testing sessions were included in the
analyses.
The major analyses in this study involved conducting one-way analyses of variance
(ANOVA) across the three groups at the beginning and end of the year in order to determine
any statistically significant differences between the groups. The Tukey HSD test was used for
post-hoc comparisons. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine
within group changes across time. Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988) was calculated to determine the
effect size of any statistically significant changes for groups across the year.
Results
Overall Self-Perception
Overall self-perception was a composite of the students’ scores for the reading,
mathematics, physical abilities, peer relations and teacher perception subscales. The means
and standard deviations for this aggregation of scores are presented in Table 2. A one-way
between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore any differences in overall
student self-perception for beginning of year scores. There was a statistically significant
difference between the three groups (F (1,2) = 3.09, p < .05). Despite reaching statistical
significance post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated no statistically
significant differences between any of the groups. When the same analysis was completed for
end of year scores for overall student self-perception, a statistically significant difference was
Teacher Expectations 12
found between the three groups (F (1,2) = 8.44, p < .001). Post-hoc comparisons indicated
that the mean score for the LoEx Group was significantly lower than that of the HiEx Group
(p < .001) and that of the AvPr Group (p < .01). A repeated measures ANOVA to compare
differences within the groups over time showed a statistically significant group by time
interaction (F (1,2) = 4.88, p < .008). This statistically significant difference was as a result of
a decline in mean for the LoEx Group across time (d = - .24) and an increase in the means for
both the HiEx Group (d = 0.11) and the AvPr Group (d = .33).
Self-Perception of Reading
The means and standard deviations for the beginning and end of year scores of the
three expectation groups for the reading subscale may be found in Table 3. A one-way
between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore any differences in reading
self-perception for beginning of year scores. There was no statistically significant difference
between the three groups (F (1,2) = .27, p < .76). When the same analysis was completed for
end of year scores for self-perception in reading, a statistically significant difference was
found between the three groups (F (1,2) = 6.36, p < .002). Post-hoc comparisons indicated
that the mean score for the LoEx Group was significantly lower than that of the HiEx Group
(p < .002) and of the AvPr Group (p < .01). A repeated measures ANOVA to compare
differences within the groups over time showed a statistically significant group by time
interaction (F (1,2) = 5.97, p < .003). This statistically significant difference was as a result of
a decline in mean for the LoEx Group across time (d = - .35) and an increase in the means for
both the HiEx Group (d = 0.11) and the AvPr Group (d = .24).
Self-Perception of Mathematics
The means and standard deviations for the beginning and end of year scores of the
three expectation groups for the mathematics subscale are shown in Table 4. A one-way
between groups analysis of variance to explore any differences in mathematics self-
Teacher Expectations 13
perception for beginning of year scores showed no statistically significant difference between
the three groups (F (1,2) = 1.39, p < .25). When the same analysis was completed for end of
year scores for self-perception in mathematics, a statistically significant difference was found
between the three groups (F (1,2) = 5.21, p < .006). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that the
mean score for the LoEx Group was significantly lower from that of the HiEx Group (p <
.005) and of the AvPr (p < .05). A repeated measures ANOVA to compare differences within
the groups over time did not show a statistically significant group by time interaction (F (1,2)
= 2.82, p < .06).
Self-Perception of Physical Abilities
The means and standard deviations for the beginning and end of year scores of the
three expectation groups for the physical abilities subscale are shown in Table 5. A one-way
between groups analysis of variance for beginning of year scores showed a statistically
significant difference between the three groups (F (1,2) = 5.27, p < .006). Post-hoc
comparisons indicated that the mean score for the HiEx Group was significantly greater than
that of the AvPr Group (p < .01). When the same analysis was completed for end of year
scores for self-perception of physical abilities, no statistically significant differences were
found between the three groups (F (1,2) = 2.66, p < .07). Similarly a repeated measures
ANOVA to compare differences within the groups over time did not show a statistically
significant group by time interaction (F (1,2) = 2.43, p < .09).
Self-Perception of Peer Relations
The means and standard deviations for the beginning and end of year scores of the
three expectation groups for the peer relations subscale are shown in Table 6. A one-way
between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore any differences in selfperception of peer relations for beginning of year scores. There was a statistically significant
difference between the three groups (F (1,2) = 3.37, p < .04). Post-hoc comparisons indicated
Teacher Expectations 14
that the mean score for the HiEx Group was significantly greater than that of the AvPr Group
(p < .04). When the same analysis was completed for end of year scores for self-perception of
peer relations, no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups (F
(1,2) = .16, p < .85). A repeated measures ANOVA to compare differences within the groups
over time, however did show a statistically significant group by time interaction (F (1,2) =
3.51, p < .03). This statistically significant difference was as a result of an increase in the
means for both the AvPr Group (d = 0.21) and the LoEx Group (d = .19).
Self-Perception of Teacher Opinion
The means and standard deviations for the beginning and end of year scores of the
three expectation groups for the teacher opinion subscale are shown in Table 7. A one-way
between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore any differences in selfperception of teacher opinion for beginning of year scores. There was a statistically
significant difference between the three groups (F (1,2) = 4.11, p < .02). Post-hoc
comparisons indicated that the mean score for the HiEx Group was significantly greater than
that of the AvPr Group (p < .02). When the same analyses were completed for end of year
scores for self-perception of teacher opinion, again a statistically significant difference was
found between the three groups (F (1,2) = 6.69, p < .001). The beginning of year statistically
significant difference between the HiEx and AvPr Groups had disappeared but by the end of
the year the mean for the HiEx Group was statistically significantly greater than that of the
LoEx Group (p < .001). A repeated measures ANOVA to compare differences within the
groups over time, however, did not show a statistically significant group by time interaction
(F (1,2) = 2.87, p < .06).
Discussion
Teacher Expectations 15
Teacher Expectations and Student Academic Self-Perceptions
This study builds the argument that teacher expectations may influence student selfperceptions. In the academic areas in particular student self-perception appeared to change
over the year of the research to correspond with teachers’ expectations. In reading,
mathematics and overall self-perception while there were no differences between the three
groups at the beginning of the year, by the end of the year the self-perception of the high
expectation and average progress groups had increased while that of the low expectation
group had declined. Moreover students appeared to show some awareness of their teachers’
expectations since while there were no differences between the high and low expectation
groups at the beginning of the year in how students viewed their teachers’ opinions by the
end of the year there was a statistically significant difference between the groups. This was
due to a decline in the perception of the students in the low expectation group that their
teachers favored their abilities in reading and mathematics, rather than to an increase in the
perception of the high expectation group. In both reading and overall self-perception there
were also statistically significant changes within the groups over the year of the research.
These changes were mainly due to declines in the self-perception of the low expectation
groups and increases in the self-perception of the average progress group. Although not
statistically significant over the year, the changes in mathematics self-perception and
perception of teacher opinion mirrored those of reading and overall self-perception.
Student Self-Perception and Class-Centered Expectations
It is possible, of course, that the decline in self-perceptions for the students with lowexpectation teachers was related to achievement since these students’ academic progress over
the year of the research was limited. The students in the classes of the average progress
teachers, however, also made only small performance gains over the year and yet their selfperceptions increased. Their teachers had high expectations for their achievement. It would
Teacher Expectations 16
seem possible then that the changes in the students’ self-perceptions were teacher-related
rather than achievement related. The changes may relate not only to the teachers’
expectations but also to the ways these are operationalized in the classroom. These findings
support those of Kuklinski and Weinstein (2001) who reported greater effects of teacher
expectations for students’ self-expectations in classrooms where ability differences were
more salient, particularly at Grade Five. In the current study greater effects have also been
found for particular groups of teachers.
Age Effects of Teacher Expectations and Student Self-Perceptions
Moreover, Kuklinski and Weinstein (2001) further reported that student selfexpectations altered in line with teacher expectations for Grade Five students but not for
Grades One and Three students. This may provide one explanation for the finding in the
current study that student self-perceptions mostly altered across the year for students in the
classes of average progress and low expectation teachers while those of the students with
high expectation teachers changed to a lesser extent. The classes of both average progress and
low expectation teachers contained more than double the numbers of senior elementary age
students compared with junior school students while within the high expectation group there
were more junior elementary school age students than there were senior level students. Class
level was not used as a controlling variable in the current study, however, due to the small
numbers in each teacher expectation group and so any possible conclusions must be tentative.
Future research with larger numbers of students in each teacher expectation group would
enable age group factors to be identified and could lend further weight to the current study.
Non-Academic Student Self-Perceptions
The patterns of change between and within groups across the year of the study were
not evident for the subscales of physical abilities and peer relations. In an investigation of
teacher beliefs about students and student self-perceptions of ability Wigfield and Harold
Teacher Expectations 17
(1992) reported that the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and students’ perceptions were
greater for mathematics, reading and sports than they were in other domains. They suggested
that teacher beliefs about students might influence student perceptions in some curriculum
areas more than in others. In the current investigation change in student self-perceptions of
physical abilities across the three groups was not found whereas changes were found in the
academic areas. It is possible that students more frequently receive salient feedback from
teachers about their performance in academic areas rather than in non-academic ones. In New
Zealand the emphasis in both sport and physical education in elementary schools tends to be
on children’s enjoyment rather than on the sequential development of skills (Graham, 2001).
Students are rarely tested or provided with feedback about their learning and hence are less
likely to be subjected to comparative comments. For these reasons the students may be less
aware of their teachers’ expectations and may also be less likely to alter their own selfperceptions.
At the end of the year there were no differences between the groups in their selfperceptions of their peer relations. There was, however, a within-groups change for both the
students with the average progress teachers and those with the low expectation teachers; for
both these groups their self-perceptions of their peer relations increased across the year.
Again it is seems less likely that student self-perception in an area such as peer relations
would be influenced by teachers’ expectations. There are various plausible explanations for
why student self-perception of peer relations may have improved over the year in these
groups. One possibility is that, as explained earlier, the vast majority of students in these two
groups were in Grades Five and Six. By this age students are becoming less reliant on
teachers for friendship and support and are beginning to place more emphasis on their peer
group relationships (Kerns & Richardson, 2005). Hence over one year they may have
fostered improved relationships and friendships with the peers in their respective classes. In
Teacher Expectations 18
contrast the students with the high expectation teachers who tended to be younger may have
been more reliant on their teachers for support and hence their peer relationships remained
more static over the year. A further explanation is simply that the students with high
expectation teachers enjoyed caring relationships with their teachers. Rubie-Davies (in
review-b) has provided evidence that the socioemotional climate in the classrooms of high
expectation teachers was more positive than that enjoyed by the other two groups of students.
In such classrooms students may have felt less need to develop their peer relationships than in
classrooms where the students’ experience with their teachers was less positive.
The Direction of the Teacher Expectation Effect
The current study adds weight to those of other researchers who argue that the
direction of the expectation effect appears to be more salient from the teacher to the students
than the converse (Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Muller, Katz &
Dance, 1999; Weinstein, 2002). Particularly in the academic areas there were no differences
in student self-perceptions at the beginning of the year and yet by the end of the year while
those of the students with high expectation teachers increased somewhat, the academic selfperceptions of the students with low expectation teachers decreased dramatically. This
change in self-perception came to match the teachers’ expectations over the year. Perhaps
more importantly the students in the current study appeared to be aware of their teachers’
expectations for the class since the students’ perceptions of their teachers’ opinions of their
abilities also altered in line with the teachers’ expectations. While caution about assuming
causality must be made the results are worthy of future investigations where the impact on
student self-perception of teachers who have correspondingly high or low expectations for
their students might be more thoroughly examined.
Teacher Expectations 19
Future Research
This study has some limitations. One mentioned earlier is that junior and senior level
elementary school students were combined in the current investigation. Future studies could
either concentrate on investigating any teacher expectation effects for one particular age
group or could include larger numbers of students with each teacher group which would
enable the results to be examined in relation to both teacher expectation group and age
effects. A further limitation of the current study is that in the earlier study of Rubie-Davies
(in review-a) the teachers were categorized according to their expectations of their students in
reading, yet student self-perceptions were measured across a range of areas. It may be that
teachers’ expectations for their class vary across different academic and non-academic areas.
This may be a further explanation for the differing results found for the various curriculum
and non-curriculum subscales. It remains for future research to further unravel the nested
relationships of teachers’ expectations for their class across curriculum areas and student selfperceptions across a range of school related criteria.
Conclusions
The finding that student self-perception in academic areas did alter across the year in
accordance with teachers’ expectations for their classes is an important one and has
implications for practicing teachers as well as for preservice teacher education programmes.
The increasing evidence for the effect of teachers’ expectations on their students in both
academic and social spheres demands that teacher beliefs about student capabilities are
examined. It is important that teachers and teacher education programmes place additional
emphasis on the role of positive self-fulfilling prophecies for students and high expectations
for teachers. Teacher education institutions, practicing teachers and families need to work
collaboratively to ensure that students remain optimistic, motivated and successful within the
schooling environment. In this way every child will have the opportunity to thrive and reach
Teacher Expectations 20
his or her potential in a classroom environment that is supportive, constructive, encouraging
and caring.
Teacher Expectations 21
References
Assor, A., & Connell, J. P. (1992). The validity of students' self-reports as measures of
performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student
perceptions in the classroom (pp. 25 - 47). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Babad, E. (1990). Measuring and changing teachers' differential behavior as perceived by
students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 683-690.
Babad, E. (1993). Teachers' differential behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 347376.
Babad, E. (1995). The "teacher's pet" phenomenon, teachers' differential behavior, and
students' morale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 361-374.
Babad, E. (1998). Preferential affect: The crux of the teacher expectancy issue. In J. Brophy
(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the Classroom (Vol. 7, pp.
183-214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Nonverbal and verbal behavior of preschool,
remedial, and elementary school teachers. American Educational Research Journal,
24, 405-415.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1989a). Nonverbal communication and leakage in
the behavior of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 89-94.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1989b). When less information is more informative:
Diagnosing teacher expectations from brief samples of behaviour. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 59, 281-295.
Teacher Expectations 22
Babad, E. Y., Inbar, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Pygmalion, Galatea and the Golem:
Investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
74, 459-474.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Students as judges of teachers' verbal and
nonverbal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 211-234.
Babad, E., & Taylor, P. B. (1992). Transparency of teacher expectancies across language,
cultural boundaries. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 120-125.
Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of
differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 236-247.
Brophy, J. E. (1985). Teacher-student interaction. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies
(pp. 303 - 328). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, H., & Good, T. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation
communication process. NY: Longman.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In J. B.
Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 185-226). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of urban
African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 403-424.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Graham, J. (2001). Getting set for an active nation: Report of the Sport, Fitness and Leisure
Ministerial Taskforce. Wellington: Sport, Fitness and Leisure Ministerial Taskforce.
Teacher Expectations 23
Hay, I., Ashman, A. F., & Van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998). Educational characteristics of
students with high or low self-concept. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 391-400.
Lynch, J. (2002). Parents' self-efficacy beliefs, parents' gender, children's reader selfperceptions, reading achievement and gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 5467.
Jussim, L., Smith, A., Madon, S., & Palumbo, P. (1998). Teacher expectations. In J. E.
Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (Vol.
7, pp. 1-48). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Kerns, K. A. & Richardson, R. A. (2005). Attachment in middle childhood. NY: Guildford
Press.
Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2000) Classroom and grade level differences in the
stability of teacher expectations and perceived differential treatment. Learning
Environments Research, 3, 1-34.
Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a
path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72, 1554-1578.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self description questionnaire – 1: Manual. Campbelltown, N.S.W.:
University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concept of young children 5 to 8
years of age: Measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 377-392.
Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning. Urban
Education, 34, 292-337.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Blatchford, P. (2000). The child at school: Interactions with peers and
teachers. London: Arnold.
Teacher Expectations 24
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Teacher expectancy effects: A brief update 25 years after the
Pygmalion experiment. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 3-12.
Rubie-Davies (2005) Identifying high and low expectation teachers: Exploring academic
outcomes for students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Rubie-Davies (2005) Classroom Interactions: Exploring The Practices Of High And Low
Expectation Teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Weinstein, R. S. (1986). The teaching of reading and children’s awareness of teacher
expectations. In T. Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy. NY: Random
House.
Weinstein, R. S. (1989). Perceptions of classroom processes and student motivation:
Children's views of self-fulfilling prophecies. In A. R. & A. C. (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 187-221). NY: Academic Press.
Weinstein, R. S. 1993. Children’s knowledge of differential treatment in school: Implications
for motivation. In T. M. Tomlinson (Ed.), Motivating students to learn: Overcoming
barriers to high achievement. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, R. S., Marshall, H. H., Brattesani, K. A., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1982). Student
perceptions of differential teacher treatment in open and traditional classrooms.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 678-692.
Weinstein, R., Marshall, 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.
Teacher Expectations 25
Weinstein, R. S., & McKown, C. (1998). Expectancy effects in "context": Listening to the
voices of students and teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching:
Expectations in the classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 215-242). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weinstein, R. S., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1979). Student perceptions of teacher interactions
with male high and low achievers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 421-431.
Wigfield, A., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Teacher beliefs and children's achievement selfperceptions: A developmental perspective. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.),
Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 95-121). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Teacher Expectations 26
Table 1
Demographic Data by Teacher Group for Students Participating in the Current Study
HiEx Group
AvPr Group
LoEx Group
Total No. of Students
132
65
59
Boys
71
35
28
Girls
61
30
31
High Decile
94
19
44
Low Decile
38
46
15
Junior Level
83
20
18
Senior Level
49
45
41
NZ European
87
14
37
Maori
12
17
16
Pacific Island
18
31
0
Asian
15
3
6
Teacher Expectations 27
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Self-Perception at Beginning and End of Year for
Students With High Expectation, Average Progress and Low Expectation Teachers
Beginning of Year
Group
End of Year
M
SD
n
M
SD
HiEx
132
106.96
15.70
132
108.72
15.70
AvPr
65
101.06
20.64
65
106.97
15.09
LoEx
59
102.51
15.59
59
98.73
16.32
Teacher Expectations 28
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Perception of Reading at Beginning and End of Year
for Students With High Expectation, Average Progress and Low Expectation Teachers
Group
Beginning of Year
End of Year
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
HiEx
132
32.96
7.01
132
33.73
6.76
AvPr
65
32.22
6.92
65
33.69
5.14
LoEx
59
32.59
6.06
59
30.32
6.89
Teacher Expectations 29
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Perception of Mathematics at Beginning and End of
Year for Students With High Expectation, Average Progress and Low Expectation Teachers
Group
Beginning of Year
End of Year
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
HiEx
132
32.09
7.13
132
33.20
6.97
AvPr
65
30.45
8.06
65
32.66
6.04
LoEx
59
30.69
7.07
59
29.80
7.31
Teacher Expectations 30
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Perception of Physical Abilities at Beginning and
End of Year for Students With High Expectation, Average Progress and Low Expectation
Teachers
Group
Beginning of Year
End of Year
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
HiEx
132
33.32
5.71
132
33.22
5.83
AvPr
65
30.60
6.63
65
32.42
5.78
LoEx
59
31.19
6.32
59
31.08
6.32
Teacher Expectations 31
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Perception of Peer Relations at Beginning and End
of Year for Students With High Expectation, Average Progress and Low Expectation
Teachers
Group
Beginning of Year
End of Year
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
HiEx
132
31.53
7.06
132
30.40
5.83
AvPr
65
28.86
7.54
65
30.35
5.78
LoEx
59
29.69
7.21
59
31.00
6.32
Teacher Expectations 32
Table 7
Means and Standard Deviations for Student Perception of Teacher Opinion at Beginning and
End of Year for Students With High Expectation, Average Progress and Low Expectation
Teachers
Group
Beginning of Year
End of Year
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
HiEx
132
8.59
1.73
132
8.56
1.71
AvPr
65
7.80
2.27
65
8.20
1.80
LoEx
59
8.03
2.03
59
7.53
2.01