Introduction
Motivation is an incredibly important factor in education; it plays a critical role in student learning. This motivation can be intrinsic; namely, the motivation comes from a student’s own desire to learn. However, two other major motivating factors for students include extrinsic motivation from parents and teachers. These outside forces place a great deal of pressure on these students, placing expectations on them to perform in a certain way. However, these expectations may have unknown effects on these students. Students from ages 5 to 7 are in the early stages of education, and so trends and expectations established here can carry through their entire education career. With that in mind, examining the effects of these expectations placed on authority figures such as teachers and parents is important to determining the best way to start their journey toward a full education.
Literature Review
Unlike students in secondary school, junior high or high school, elementary school students (particularly of ages 5 to 7) do not have the same level of disengagement with their instructors (Marks, 2000). At the same time, there are questions to be raised about the efficacy of the activities and their ability to motivate students; primary schools are indicted for having “meaningless instructional activities that disillusion students about the usefulness of school, and failing to equip them with the skills they need to succeed in later grades” (p. 156).
One possible route to directly enhancing the improvement of under-achieving elementary-school students is self-regulated learning. In self-regulated learning, learners establish their own learning goals, and control their own motivation and behavior through extremely self-reflexive techniques (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). Even among elementary school students, this theoretical framework has been shown to have positive outcomes in dealing with underachievement, and students reported a distinct lack of stress or frustration with their tasks when they were self-regulated (Ibid.). Self-regulated learning places expectations on oneself, rather than set them against those of parents and teachers; to that end, it permits realistic understandings of where a student is strong or weak, and encourages a more realistic self-concept (Ibid.). Students become managers of their own learning process and work on what they need to do better.
Even at this young age, socioeconomic factors can play a part in student motivation. Lowered expectations from parents and teachers of academic performance for minorities often leads to a smaller level of academic engagement than is normally found in white students (Marks, 2000). Academic achievement is typically correlated with social class; teachers’ expectations of a student’s abilities are often in line with pervasive racial and gender-based stereotypes of how minorities are thought to do academically (Rist, 1970). Rist (1970) examined a classroom of children from the ghetto, whose teacher placed them in reading groups reflecting how the student body was composed in terms of social class; those who were whiter and more well-off were considered “good learners” while lower-class Latinos and blacks were considered “poor learners”. This created a caste system within the classroom that became incredibly important in determining the achievement levels of the children (Rist, 1970). This also revealed a distinct teacher bias towards those she expected to do well, relying on these high-class students to carry the rest of the class and all but abandoning the lower-class students.
The Influence of Teachers on Expectations
One of the primary sources of extrinsic motivation for students is the expectations placed upon them by teachers: “the teacher is without question the key to a successful classroom learning experience” (Braun 1976, p, 185). This depends greatly on the relationship the student has with teachers, which at ages 5 to 7 is a very dependent one. At this age, teachers often must press hard for student engagement, especially in subjects such as mathematics where there is not much student motivation to succeed or excel. Students depend greatly on instruction for gaining this kind of knowledge, while social studies and similar subjects depend much more on applying knowledge learned in-class outside of the classroom environment (Marks, 2000).
Influential studies on teachers’ expectations and student motivation have demonstrated a clear link between inflated expectations of teacher toward students and faster intellectual growth, including the Rosenthal/Jacobson Pygmalion study (Cotton, 1989). In this study, teachers were informed that their (randomly assigned) students were actually selected for their high learning potential. This created an ‘expectation effect’ in the students, where they were expected to do well, so they met the challenge equally (Cotton, 1989). Teacher’s expectations have, therefore, been proven to have a substantial effect on students’ attitudes toward their classwork and their respective achievements.
In the light of Pygmalion, researchers have attempted to determine exactly what models they can use to enhance student achievement given the correct application and communication of expectation. Cooper (1979) suggests a cognitive-behavioral model of expectation delivery, noting the cognitive processes that show teacher expectations inspire equivalent levels of achievement. In essence, teachers frequently give more feedback to high-expectation students given the amount of effort they expend than low-expectation students, even if they work as hard. This creates the expectation that hard work does not yield positive results, and will discourage that effort (Ibid.).
The Influence of Parents on Expectations
Being the primary caretakers of children, and the individuals with the most authority over their children, parents also play a big part in the expectations placed on children for academic achievement (Marks, 2000). Many initiatives have been taken to involve parents in student learning, as well as the governance and activities of the school (Ibid.). Studies indicate that the influence and presence of parents in their education has led to positive outcomes in elementary school students (Marks, 2000). Parents’ expectations and encouragement are thought to be incredibly important when it comes to building students’ appraisal of their own abilities. Studies of boarding schools (where students have little home encouragement) show the need for the intimate contact of loving, encouraging parents in an education on a regular basis; those who do not experience it end up experiencing decreased grades and lower performance (Pidgeon, 1970).
One of the strategies both parents and teachers use to increase children’s intrinsic motivation is praise - verbal positive reinforcement of their actions to encourage further learning and behavior (Henderlong and Lepper, 2002). However, despite the positive effects on praise, it must be administered carefully in order to have a proper effect; given conceptual variables such as children’s perceptions of praise, it may actually have negative or stifling effects on children’s motivation to learn. Praise and reward might be seen as a good thing, but some students may also interpret this overt praise as a controlling action that will stifle their sense of autonomy; praise that evaluates can serve to make students uncomfortable (Ibid.). The consequences of praise on motivation, just like any other expectation, depend greatly on the student’s culture, age and gender, but the practice works best when the student can attribute the praise to a cause they can control, while still encouraging this autonomy and avoiding an invitation to social comparisons (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002).
Conclusion
In light of the existing literature on teacher and parent expectations on students in the classroom, that there is a great deal of validity to the notion that teacher and parent expectations largely inform student performance. Students aged 5-7 are much more reliant on teachers and parents to provide authority, while also demonstrating a lesser degree of control over their actions and understanding of consequences. The self-fulfilling prophecy of high and low teacher expectations is strongly supported (with a few exceptions), indicating that high expectations for students encourage them to work harder to meet those expectations. Differences in expectations stem from a lack of parental attention, the teachers’ appraisal of the students’ socioeconomic status or role in the classroom, and more help to shape these expectations, which students then respond to very clearly. At the same time, some research indicates that misplaced expectations or overly-used praise can lead to negative outcomes for student interaction. Further research is needed, therefore, to determine whether or not high expectations are truly a boon or a frustration for elementary school students.
References
Blumenfeld, PC, Pintrich PR, Meece J, & Wessels K 1982, ‘The formation and role of self
perceptions of ability in elementary classrooms’, The Elementary School Journal, 82,5, pp. 401-420.
Braun C 1976, ‘Teacher expectation: Sociopsychological dynamics’, Review of Educational
Research, 46,2, pp. 185-213.
Cohen EG 1972, ‘Sociology and the classroom: Setting the conditions for teacher-student
interaction’, Review of Educational Research, 42,4, pp. 441-452.
Cooper HM 1979, ‘Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and
performance influence’, Review of Educational Research, 49,3, pp. 389-410.
Cotton K 1989, Expectations and student outcomes, Northwest Regional Educational
Henderlong J, & Lepper MR 2002, ‘The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: a
review and synthesis’, Psychological bulletin, 128,5, pp. 774.
Jussim L & Harber KD 2005, ‘Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and
unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9,2, pp. 131-155.
Lane KL, Wehby JH & Cooley C 2006,’Teacher expectations of students' classroom behavior
across the grade span: Which social skills are necessary for success?’ Exceptional Children, 72,2, pp. 153-167.
Marks HM 2000, ‘Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary,
Middle, and High School Years’, American Educational Research Journal 37,1, pp. 153-184.
Marshall HH & Weinstein RS, 1984, ‘Classroom factors affecting students’ self-evaluations: An
interactional model’, Review of Educational Research, 54,3, pp. 301-325.
Pidgeon DA 1970, Expectation and pupil performance, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Proctor CP, 1984, ‘Teacher Expectations: A Model for School Improvement’, Elementary School
Rist RC 1970, ‘Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education’, Harvard educational review, 40,3, pp. 411-451.
Stoeger H & Ziegler A 2005, ‘Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-regulated learning
program for gifted mathematics underachievers’, International Education Journal 6,2,
pp. 261-271.
