Cited by 129School Choice and PerformanceEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessEducational Environments and Student Outcomes

Accurate, inaccurate, or biased teacher expectations: Do D utch teachers differ in their expectations at the end of primary education?

Open access
Timmermans, Anneke C., Kuyper, Hans, van der Werf, Greetje·2015·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Background: In several tracked educational systems, realizing optimal placements in classes in the first year of secondary education depends on the accuracy of teacher expectations. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate between‐teacher differences in their expectations regarding the academic aptitude of their students. Sample: The sample consisted of 500 teachers (classes) who provided their expectations of 7,550 students in the final grade of D utch primary education. Methods: We analysed the extent to which teachers differed in their expectations and in what contexts their expectations were biased, using multilevel random slope models. Results: Multilevel analysis showed teacher expectation bias to be related to gender and socio‐ethnic background of students. The differences among teachers in expectations for T urkish, Moroccan, and other foreign students with low‐educated parents were larger than the average teacher expectation bias for these groups in the sample. When student characteristics were controlled for, we found that the teachers in our sample had higher expectations for students in high‐performing classes or classes with only a small proportion of students from low‐ SES families. Teacher expectation bias for demographic groups, however, was found to be independent of the class population. Conclusions: The results indicate the importance of the teacher and the necessity of using multilevel models when investigating the complex nature of between‐teacher differences in expectations of student performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjep.12087

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Timmermans, A. C., Kuyper, H., & van der Werf, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • GION Education/Research University of Groningen The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Timmermans, Anneke C.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-14
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
459-478
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W1564674661
Cited by
129
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
38.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
Keywords
teacher expectations, academic aptitude, primary education, educational tracking, student gender, socioeconomic status
MeSH terms
School Teachers, Achievement, Adolescent, Child, Education, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Schools, Social Support, Students, Bias, Multilevel Analysis

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