Ed Psych Final Flashcards
Characteristics of a good classroom
group cohesion (kids get along and have sense of purpose as a group), classroom management (orderly, smooth transitions)
Good teacher practices
High expectations of students; has students monitor own work; challenges students to work hard
Teacher social & emotional competence (practice)
How well relates to students; self & social awareness; self & relationship management; evaluative feedback, emotional climate of the class
At-risk kids & teacher emotion
Emotional support benefitted at-risk students more than affluent students and helped them learn better, not just feel good
Teacher degrees
means nothing for teacher quality except loose correlation for science/math degree in science/math classrooms in high school
value added scores
standardized tests to students in fall and spring to see how much teacher impacts; problematic b/c standardized tests can only ask limited questions, doesn’t test memory, love of learning, attrition (& moving more common among at–risk students), score gains might not be equivalent
teacher qualities that matter
experience (4 years), college selectivity somewhat, t
teacher certifications
vary from state to state in degree of difficulty to obtain but can transfer; fence of prestige
Current average classroom (how good?)
Not good. Much more time spent on “basic skills” than critical thinking, mostly whole group discussion and seat work, generic feedback on correctness rather than alternate strategies
school effects
~10%; more funding doesn’t improve; charter/public doesn’t matter; big schools good for affluent students but poor kids benefit from smaller schools; transformational principals .15 effect size vs .4 for instructional
Peer effects- rainbow theory
notice and emphasize differences and more likely to stick to their own gender/class/cultural norms more
Peer effect- boutique theory
indirect theory; kids benefit from being with similar peers so teacher can tailor instruction to that common group
Peer effects- contagion theory (epidemic)
direct theory; kids conform to school/class social norms
Peer effects- institutional theory
Indirect theory; it’s not the peers impacting, it’s the resources of the institution
Peer effects- disruption theory
indirect theory; problem kids take away all teacher’s attention from kids who are easy to teach (popular with teachers)
peer effects- low expectation theory
indirect theory; teachers have low expectations of kids who they perceive as low-achieving
Peer effects- findings
Low income kids benefit from being in classes w/ affluent kids; everyone benefits from being in classes w/ high achieving kids; contagion, disruption, and low achieving theories could be true (rainbow, institutional, boutique are not true)
Class size
doesn’t matter, but popular and costly intervention b/c everyone besides scientists like it
Neighborhood effects- bridging
Do neighborhood institutions connect to other institutions? ie, does barber know principal? doesn’t matter, no effect
Neighborhood effects-bonding
bonding, cohesive neighborthood where people know/communicate with each other has positive effect, better outcomes for kids
Family effects- SES Chronic Stress theory
If not buffered by supportive emotional relationship, long term exposure to stress leads to detrimental brain effects in executive functioning; stressful parents tend be more harsh & inconsistent,
Family effects- SES Family Investment Theory
Affluent families have more financial capital (money, books, computers, tutors, better schools, good health care), human capital (knowledge, language exposure, understanding of child development, intentional investment in child (less TV, more reading to) and social capital (connections, connections at school)
Low SES
exposed to much fewer words, start school 6-9 months behind affluent peers in pre-literacy, math; fall behind every summer; duration and timing matters, worse during preschool years; low SES miss more school days and affects them more, more likely to live in chaotic home, lead paint, poor maternal healthcare
Neighborhood effects- what helps
having professionals in low income neighborhood helps neighborhood
We can change people’s behavior
ie parenting, TX littering campaign, seatbelts
Culture, ethnicity, gender
Effects that people are REALLY interested in but are only modest effects
Racial performance differences
White, Asian perform better than black, hispanic, native american; SES
Mismatch Theory
Culture affects how you understand the world, relate socially, think of education roles; if home norms don’t match school norms, there’s disconnect, miscommunication (ex: white/black storytelling: teacher understood and scaffolding prompted white kids, messed up black kids’ stories); teacher assumptions are often implicit and cultural
Speaking norms
vary culturally- speaking to adults, eye contact, etc
“Acting White” Theory
potential threat for non-voluntary minorities; excelling academically is “acting white,” in schools with small percentage of minority students can lead to social rejection
Stereotype threat
When member in stereotyped group becomes emphasized, concern of the stereotype uses working memory resources (.5 effect size)
Gender
Girls earn more degrees, better grades, fewer ADHD/special ed but fewer jobs, percentage of math/sci/CS jobs; teacher call on boys more, wait longer for them to answer and tell to try harder why girls praised for trying; global slight edge for boys, encouraged to do better; girls more confident socially, gendered interests and boys more active, confident in problem solving
Basic & Applied Sci Relationship- Post WWII View
WW2 was when gov’t got involved in massive research projects (sonar, atom bomb) that were beyond scope of scholars, businesses; Vannevar Bush wrote that gov’t should invest in institutions to fund basic research, will pay off in economy overall (b/c businesses still benefit); this turned out to be true; his vision Basic research→ applied fine tuning → product development
Basic vs Applied Sci: Pasteur’s quadrant
DO NOT think of it as basic to applied mutually exclusive spectrum; think of two axises: consideration of use and fundamental understanding of world (basic= understanding, no consideration of use; fundamental understanding and use consideration- pasteur; use only, no fundamental understanding (pure applied) edison; no one does useless quadrant, KPCOFGS) ; nice shift in thinking but no direction on how to get there
Natural & Artificial sciences
natural- discovering laws of natural phenomenon; artificial- human and nature interactions, how things SHOULD be
Artifacts (simon model)
the inner environment is the components of the artifact itself; the outer environment is the place it’s situated/to be used in; how well the artifact meets goal is determined (independently) by both factors; basic sci helps in describing environments
Education as artificial science- problems
goal is crucial to success of artifact, it’s all relative to the goal but the goals of education aren’t discussed/agreed; defining outer envrionment- we know more about mind that classroom dynamics; feedback- we don’t actually know how well artifact is fulfilling goal; problem 4- general/marketplace
Science relationships strategy #1
you’re applied, look to basic, use their results; it’s cheap, but now everything is “based on latest research” (use research to create intervention, trial and error)
Science relationships Simon strategy (2)
artifacts came before science to explain them; use scientific method to test (rather than develop) education interventions); BUT randomized control trials difficult, unethical, expensive in classroom setting
