aim: whether teachers’ expectations of students’ performance have any effect on how well the students learned throughout the year.
1. randomly select 18 classes of students (from kindergarten to sixth grade)
2. give them an intelligence test
3. chose 20% of the students at random and tells teachers that “these children showed “unusual potential for intellectual growth, and that they could be expected to “bloom” during the year.”
4. retest the 18 classes of students’ intelligence at the end of the year
5. analyze the data
findings: the 20% that labelled intelligent showed a significantly greater increase in the test scores than the other children who were not singled out for the teacher’s attention.
2. I do not think that the teachers were informed by this. Without the information, it is easier to focus on the ‘labelled’ intelligent students and therefore show they complete enthusiasm towards them. This is unethical base on the guideline, where the participants were not informed the aim of the study. However, this could be interpreted as slight deception, and if at the end of the experiment Rosenthal and Jacobson inform all of the participants, this experiment can be classified as ethical.
- if i use an opportunity sample at a local fitness centre, there will definitely be some group of people overrepresented and some underrepresented. For example, the people who are more frequent in the fitness centre (thus bigger chance to be interviewed) has a stronger motivation; while the people who are less frequent in the fitness centre (thus less chance to be interviewed) has a weaker motivation, yet they are still important to the research.
- No I would not get a more representative sample if i advertised for participants in my school. At fitness centre, it can be assumed that most people engage in exercise with motivation (reason), while in school it is hard to determine who exercises and who does not.
- After rereading the research carried out by Rosenthal and Jacobson, i think the experiment is unethical to the sense that they used deception and did not inform the participants their consents and rights to withdrawal and confidentiality of the data.