Changing teacher and student behavior: An empirical investigation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Good and Brophy (1974) found that behaviours towards non-target students also improved, which might at least partially explain why relative teacher expectations for the first target group did not change.
“Not only did the behaviours towards the fi rst target students improve, but also towards non-target students, which might at least partially explain why the relative teacher expectations for the fi rst target group did not change.”
From The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers' expectations and student achievement: narrative review and meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as Good and Brophy (1974)
Studies in which teacher support was deliberately enhanced by enabling teacher collaboration in the intervention programme and design noticed that this contributed to the intervention's effectiveness.
“Studies in which teacher support was deliberately enhanced by enabling teacher collaboration in the intervention programme and design noticed that this contributed to the intervention ' s e ff ectiveness (Dworkin, 1979; Good & Brophy, 1974; Rubie-Davies et al., 2015; Weinstein et al., 1991).”
From The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers' expectations and student achievement: narrative review and meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as Good & Brophy, 1974
In Good and Brophy (1974), awareness was likely created indirectly by providing teachers with personalised information, based on observations in the classroom, about their own differential behaviours towards different students, and how this affected the students.
“Here, awareness was likely created indirectly by providing teachers with personalised information, based on observations in the classroom, about their own di ff erential behaviours towards di ff erent students, and how this a ff ected the students.”
From The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers' expectations and student achievement: narrative review and meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as Good and Brophy (1974)
Good and Brophy (1974) found that teacher behaviour improved towards target students labelled as low participants, but not towards another group of target students for whom teachers lacked willingness to give a second response opportunity.
“teacher behaviour improved towards target students who were labelled as low participants (low rates of interaction with teachers). However, teacher behaviour towards another group of target students, for whom teachers seemed to lack the willingness to give them a second response opportunity when they failed on the fi rst opportunity, did not improve.”
From The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers' expectations and student achievement: narrative review and meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as Good and Brophy (1974)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention
Martin, A. J. (2008) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
A teacher expectation intervention: Modelling the practices of high expectation teachers
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Sibley, C. G., & Rosenthal, R. (2015) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
de Boer, H., Timmermans, A. C., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2018) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1080/13803611.2018.1550834 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
- Authors
- Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 1974-06
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 390-405
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W2076729498
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 48.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
- Keywords
- teacher behavior, student behavior, behavior change, teacher-student relationship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
