Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
What you Expect is What You Get
Transcript of What you Expect is What You Get
"The Pygmalion Effect and the Power of Positive Expectations." YouTube. YouTube, 25 Sept. 2011. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Topic of Study
Cognitive psychologists study human mental processes
Self fulfilling prophecy:
if we expect something to happen a certain way, our expectation will tend to make it so
Do teachers subconsciously change their teaching styles for students they have greater expectations for?
Do these expectation affect student IQ scores?
Rosenthal's research with the Oak School students only served to corroborate his earlier findings. Teachers who maintained expectations that certain students would show greater intellectual development than others witnessed the fulfilling of their prophecies. However, Rosenthal and Jacobson believed it was necessary to at least hypothesize possible explanations for the discrepancy between the effects on younger v. older students. They offered several reasons, including:
Younger children are considered to be more malleable, and thus may have been easier to influence than the older children
Teachers may have not yet formed their own opinions of the younger children, and may have been more convinced of the researches' assertions
The younger children may have been more susceptible to the subtleties of the teachers' body language and communication
Also, there was a possibility that teachers that taught lower grades may have differed in their approaches to students than those who taught older grades
What you Expect is What You Get
The topic of the self-fulfilling prophecy in scientific research was first discovered in 1911 when "Clever Hans,",
, was able to read, spell, and solve math problems by stomping out answers with his front hoof.
Although it seems impossible, Clever Hans was tested by a committee of experts and they found that Clever Hans was able to perform the tasks that they asked.
A researcher named Oskar Pfungst was skeptical of the horse's abilities and, through conducting careful experiments, he found that the horse was actually receiving subtle clues for when to stop from the researchers.
The researchers would look up when they expected the horse to finish its answer and thus the horse would stop and it would appear to the researchers that the horse answered the questions correctly.
The Horses ability to solve human like puzzles made researchers question how it was possible and spurred research leading to the discovery that the Pygmalion effect is true
Robert Rosenthal, a leading researcher on the effect, demonstrated it in laboratory psychological experiments. In one study, psychology students that were studying learning and conditioning became participants themselves.
Some students were told that the rats they would be working with were bred for unusually high intelligence, while others were told that their rats were rather dull. So, when the students were made to condition their rats to perform various skills, including learning how to navigate mazes, those with the "high-intelligence" rats were able to record faster learning times for their rats. However, they were not aware that the rats had been randomly assigned and were, in fact, standard lab rats. In addition, the influence that the students exerted was not through cheating, but rather through unintentional and unconscious influences.
Thus, the threat the experimenter effect could pose to scientific research became clear. However, Rosenthal wondered how pervasive these effects and biases could be in real-life situations.
All students in Oak School Grades 1 through 6 given an intelligence test (the Tests of General Ability, or TOGA) at beginning of year
TOGA chosen because it was a nonverbal test in which students did not primarily depend upon school-learned skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic
For accuracy, students had no prior familiarity with the test
Psychologist lied to the teachers
Teachers were told that the students were being given the "Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition"
This deception was important in this case to create expectancies in the minds of the teachers, a necessary ingredient for the experiment to be successful.
Teachers believed that students who scored high were ready to enter a period of increased learning abilities within the next year. Predictive ability of test was not true
Oak School offered 3 classes each of Grade 1 through 6
All of the 18 teachers (16 women, 2 men) for these classes were given a list of names of students in their classes who had scored in the top 20% on the Harvard Test
The children on the top 10 lists had been assigned to this experimental condition purely at random
The only difference between these children and the others (controls) was that they had been identified as ones who would display unusual intellectual gains
Near the end of the school year, all children at the school were measured again with the same test (the TOGA), and the degree of change in IQ changes between the experimental group and the controls could then be examined to see if the expectancy effect had been created in a real-world setting
For all the grades (1-6), there was a significant difference in the improvement of the children in the experimental group v. those in the control group (12.2 points v. 8.2 points). However, upon closer examination, these results are revealed to be largely due to the vast differences in grades 1 and 2. The research revealed two key findings:
The expectancy effect is just as potent in real-life settings as in laboratory settings
The differences that occur due to the experimenter expectancy effect are, to a greater extent, present in younger children than in older children.
In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers began to question the validity of the unitary approach to human intelligence. Many of the IQ tests themselves were shown to be biased toward certain economic classes and cultural groups. Moreover, children's educational opportunities were often dictated by their scores on these biased and potentially invalid scores.
As criticisms of the early conceptualization of intelligence grew in number and influence, IQ tests began to fade. At the same time, a new, and at the time radically different, view of intelligence was making its way into scientific and popular thinking about how our minds work. In stark contrast to the notion of a single, generalized intelligence, this emerging approach expanded the notion of intelligence into many different mental abilities, each possessing in itself the characteristics of a complete, "free standing" intelligence. Howard Gardner, at the Harvard University, introduce to the world this new view of multiple intelligences in his 1983 book Frames of Mind which forms the basis of this chapter.
n your Prezi, include the following information:
o State the main topic of the study, such as when we said that Pavlov studied classical conditioning.
o Describe the circumstances that led to the research, including why the scientists chose to study it in the first place.
o Clearly state the key research question(s)
o Outline the research methodology, including details about the subjects, groups, the research setting, the type of research, key dependent and independent variables, confounding variables, and any other pertinent characteristics.
o Outline the results of the research, being certain to include the most pertinent and important aspects.
o Discuss the implications of the findings, including modern applications of the research.
o Include a discussion of the criticisms or opposing viewpoints related to this research.
• Conclusion – No new information, just a summary of earlier info
o State the reworded research question(s).
o Summarize the methodology.
o Summarize the results, implications, and applications.
o Concluding statement(s) that highlight the importance of this research.
• References – APA format.
Prepare this as an in-class presentation (note cards, etc.), but also include detailed information on the Prezis so that your classmates can use them for review purposes. This will help us on the final exam and on the IB final assessments. Finally, please include a portion of this project that engages your classmates, either as a question and answer session, game show (Jeopardy, etc.), or other format.
I will use the TWJ presentation rubric to score this assignment. Hopefully, you will shoot for excellent rather that adequate so that the grades will be a non-issue. I will have a group evaluation for you to complete after the Prezis are submitted to me.
Rosenthal's discovery that teachers do influence the development of a child based on what their bias spurred research into exactly how teachers do so.
Researchers Chaiken, Sigler, and Derlega conducted an experiment in which they videotaped student-teacher interactions. Teachers were told that certain students were brighter than others.
The three researchers found that teachers favored the brighter students because they smiled more at them, made more eye contact, and had more favorable reactions to the "brighter" students' comments.
This can make students enjoy school more, receive more constructive criticism from teachers, work harder to improve, and thus be better, "smarter" students.
Rosenthal originally wondered whether teachers subconsciously change their teaching styles for students that they have greater expectations and whether these expectations affected the students IQ score.
Not only did he find the answer to his question, but also he spurred further research into the Pygmalion effect.
He discovered that the Pygmalion effect existed and found that teachers did influence students negatively or positively based on what they thought of them.
Rosenthal gave teachers, working at Oak school, information on the students level of intelligence and they lied about that information. As a result, teachers already had a bias about the students and expected certain children to develop more than others.
Rosenthal found that the students that teachers expected to do better actually did end up doing better, proving the Pygmalion effect.
Later, Chaiken, Sigler, and Dergela found that teachers favored certain children in subtle ways. This made them like school more and thus do better in school.
Rosenthal's groundbreaking research on the Pygmalion effect revolutionized the way that teachers teach and brought into question the idea of the IQ.
You can achieve, if you just believe.