DOCUMENT RESUME ED 102 437 CG 009 427 AUTHOR Entwisle, Doris R.; And Others TITLE 'Expectation Theory in the Classroom. Final Report. INSTITUTION Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Md. Dept. of Social Relations. SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEN) , Washington, D.C. BUREAU NO 1-0034 PUB DATE Jun 74 GRANT OEG-3-71-0122 NOTE 437p. EDRS PRICE MP-$0.76 HC-$22.21 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS *Behavior Development; Elementary Education; *Elementary School Students; *Expectation; Grades (Scholastic); *Individual Development; *Performance; Research Projects; Theories ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to study expectations of elementary school children in two ways: experimentally and observationally. Expectations may be roughly defined as a child's ideas of his own ability at a particulartask. From the data it appears that childrens'expectations could be raised experimentally by a suitable adult and high expectations in one area generalize into other unrelated areas. The experiments aresummarized in a number of published articles reproduced herein andlisted in the bibliography. The observational data focus on children infirst and second grades in a white middle-class school and in anintegrated lower class school. From the time they enterschool individual children are followed to see how their expectations fortheir own performance in reading, arithmetic, and conductdevelop. Their expectations, and their parents' expectations for them, are repeatedly measured. Children in both places have, onthe average, very high expectations for themselvesbefore they get a report card, higher than their parents..These expectations do notdiminish much when marks are lower than expected; in fact forthe majority, expectations are maintained over first grade. Childrenwhose marks improve are likely to be those whose expectations exceededmarks. (Author) NI' BEST COPYAVAILABLE pr% Co rt Final Report C:11 LLit Project No. 1.0034 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION &WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF Grant No. OEG-3-71-0122 EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE SENT OFF ICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY EXPECTATION THEORY IN THE CLASSROOM Doris R. Entwisle Murray Webster, Jr. Leslie A. Hayduk The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland 21218 June, 1974 The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant 1., with the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional 4.. judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of tr, Education position or policy. 0 0 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education BEST COPY AVAILABLE Abstract* The purpose of this research was to study expectations of elementary school children in two ways: experimentally (Section I), and observationally (Section II). Expectations may be roughly defined as a child's ideas of his own ability at a particular task. The experiments focus on (1) how children's expectations for their own performance may be raised, (2) what kinds of persons can raise Aildren's expectations, (3) what kinds of children are susceptible to expectation raising, (4) whether children's expectations generalize from one area to another, (5) whether children express behaviorally their expectations for other children, and (6) what kinds of data shape children's expectations for other children. Children's expecta- tions can be raised experimentally by a suitable adult and high expecta- tions in one area generalize into other unrelated areas. The experiments are summarized in a number of published articles reproduced herein and listed in the bibliography. The observational data focus on children in first and second grades in a white middle-class school and in an integrated lower class school. From the time they enter school individual children are followed to see how their expectations for their own performance in reading, arithmetic, and conduct develop. Their expectations, and their parents' expecta- tions for them are repeatedly measured. Children in both places have, on the average, very high expectations for themselves before they get a report card, higher than their parents. These expectations do not diminish much when marks are lower than expected, in fact for the majority, expectations are maintained over first grade. Children whose marks improve are likely to be those whose expectations exceeded marks. * The reader should also see the "Overview", p. xiv. Preface This research has been conducted over a 3-year period. It had its genesis in work done even earlier, starting with exploratory studies in 1969. There is a clear intellectual debt owed to Joseph Berger and his associates at Stanford University who have formulated and tested Expectations States Theory in the laboratory. In a very real way our research represents the extension of that research into field settings. The theory led us to work directly with children's expectations. It also led us to some observational work, to see what events in young children's academic careers lead them to formulate high (or low) expectations for themselves. Like most research, that reported here probably raises more questions than it answers. That it can answer any is due in a very real sense to the cooperation and patience of teachers and children in schools in both Baltimore County and Baltimore City.Where possible, individual principals and others are identified in reports reproduced for inclusion in this Final Report. In the case of Section II, which covers the observational work, confidentiality requires that we do not identify the particular schools involved in the study.We acknowledge here the splendid cooperation we have received from these schools, and regret that they must remain anonymous even here. A number of graduate students have aided in various phases of the work: Margaret Boeckmann, Ellen Dickstein, Esther Greif, Guillermina Jasso, Susan Doering, Muriel Berkeley, Marguerite Bryan. Other persons who have aided in the procuring and analysis of data are Barbara Bricks, Laura Gordon, and Judy Kennedy. Eileen Rudert is also due thanks. A very special acknowledgment is due to Linda Olson who for the past two years has assumed a very heavy role in this project, and contributed to every part of it. Doris R. Entwisle Murray Webster, Jr. Leslie Hayduk Baltimore, Maryland June, 1974 t.. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview xiv to xix Section I: Experimental Studies of Expectations 1 to 14 Appendix A: "Raising Children'sPerformance Expectations" . A- 1 to A- 12 Appendix B: "Research Notes: Status Factors in Expectation Raising" B - 1 to B- 12 Appendix C: "Raising Children'sExpectations for Their OwnPerformance: A Classroom Application" C - 1 to C- 33 Appendix D: "Expectations inMixed Racial Groups" D - 1 to D- 23 Appendix E: "Raising Expectations Indirectly". E - 1 to E- 10 Appendix F: "Expectation Effectsin Perform- ance Evaluations" F - 1 to F 14 Appendix G: "Effect of a Principal'sExpecta- tions on Test Performanceof Elementary-School Children" G - 1 to G- 6 Appendix H: "Procedures ThatTurned Out to be Unsuccessful" H - 1 to H- 7 Section II: Observational Studies ofChildren's EXpectations Chapter 1: Introduction 1 - 1 to 1- 11 Chapter 2: Method and Design 2 - 1 to 2- 18 Chapter 3: Middle-Class School,Cohort 1 (Starting FirstGrade in Sept. 1971) 3 - 1 to 3- 69 Chapter 4: Middle-Class School,Cohort 2 (Starting FirstGrade in Sept. 1972) 4- 1 to 4 - 15 Chapter 5: Results for Two First-GradeCohorts (1971-72, 1972-73),White Middle- Class Suburban School 5 - 1 to 5- 71 ii Pages Chapter 6: Results for One First-GradeCohort (1972-73) Lower -Class Integrated School (144 White) 6- 1 to 6 - 63 Appendix to Chapter 6 .6- A- 64 to 6 -A - 72 Chapter 7: Discussion 7 - 1 to 7 - 17 Bibliography BIB 1 to BIB4 ; iii LIST OF TABLES Section II Chapter 3 Table Page 3.1Means and Standard Deviations for Cohort 1, Middle-Class School, 1971-72 and 1972-73 3-2 to 3-3 3.2 Reading Mark vs. Expectation, Time 1 3-5 3.3 Arithmetic Mark vs. Expectation, Time 1 3-5 3.4 Conduct Mark vs. Expectation, Time 1 3-6 3.5 Reading Expectation vs. Mark, Time 2 3-8 3.6 Arithmetic Expectation vs. Mark, Time 2 3-8 3.7Conduct Expectation vs. Mark, Tim 2 3-9 3.8 Reading Expectation vs. Mark, Time 3 3-11 3.9Arithmetic Expectation vs. Mark, Time 3 3-11 3.10 Conduct Expectation vs. Mark, Time 3 3-12 3.11Reading Expectation vs. Mark, Time 4 3-14 3.12 Arithmetic Expectation vs. Mark, Time 4 3-14 3.13 Conduct Expectation vs. Mark, Time 4 3-15 3.14 Reading Expectation, Time 2 vs. Expectation, Time 1 . 3-18. 3.15Arithmetic Expectation, Time 2 vs. Expectation, Time 1 . 3-18 3.16Conduct Expectation, Time 2 vs. Expectation, Time 1. 3-19 3.17 Reading Expectation, Time 3 vs. Expectation, Time 2 . 3-21 3.18Arithmetic Expectation, Time 3 vs. Expectation, Time 2 . 3-21 3.19Conduct Expectation, Time 3 vs. Expectation, Time 2. 3-22 3.20 Reading Expectation, Time 4 vs. Expectation, Time 3. 3-24 3.21 Arithmetic Expectation, Time 4 vs. Expectation, Time 3 . 3-24 3.22 Conduct Expectation, Time 4 vs. Expectation, Time 3. 3-25 3.23 Reading Expectation, Time 2 vs. Mark, Time 1 3-32 3.24 Arithmetic Expectation, Time 2 vs. Mark, Time 1 . 3-32 iv Table Page 3.25 Conduct Expectation, Time 2,vs. Mark, Time 1 3-33 3.26 Change in Reading Mark Time 3 to Time4 vs. Expectation-Mark Discrepance, Time 3 3 -37 3.27 Change in Arithmetic Mark Time 3to Time 4 vs.