Educational Psychologist

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hedp20

Reflecting on decades of teacher expectations and

teacher effectiveness research: Considerations for
current and future research

Thomas L. Good

To cite this article: Thomas L. Good (2024) Reflecting on decades of teacher expectations and
teacher effectiveness research: Considerations for current and future research, Educational
Psychologist, 59:2, 111-141, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2024.2324386

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2324386

Published online: 27 Mar 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 550

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
2024, VOL. 59, NO. 2, 111–141
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2324386

APA DIVISION 15 CAREER ACHIEVEMENT ADDRESS

Reflecting on decades of teacher expectations and teacher effectiveness

research: Considerations for current and future research
Thomas L. Good
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

ABSTRACT
This article reviews over 50 years of research on teacher expectations and teacher effectiveness. In
addition to describing these research traditions and findings, I tie the research in these evolving
fields to the societal issues in play when the research was conducted and connect historical and
emerging work. I describe the enormous growth of knowledge in both fields and its potential for
practice. Among many outcomes, these two research traditions yielded clear evidence that teach­
ers impact student achievement. Despite the potential value of this research, it has largely been
ignored by policy makers, and when used, has been misused. I contend that policy makers have
focused on the weaknesses of normative teaching and have ignored teachers’ strengths and
knowledge. Of course, aspects of normative teaching can be improved, as can teacher expecta­
tions and teacher effectiveness research. Current and continuing research has some capacity for
addressing the opportunity and achievement gaps that separate more advantaged and marginal­
ized students; however, teachers and schools alone cannot resolve these vast opportunity differen­
ces that are available to American students.

In 1961, I graduated from high school in Owensboro, First, I provide an historical perspective about my
Kentucky. At that time, it was beyond my wildest imagin­ research, tying it to the societal issues in play when that
ation that 60 years later I would be honored with a lifetime research was conducted. Second, I discuss some of the major
achievement award. Nor did I realize then that I would research findings from research on teacher expectations and
never leave school, but that also happened. I went directly effectiveness. Third, I discuss some surprises that occurred
from high school to the University of Illinois, after which I along the way, including serendipitous findings and over­
began graduate school at Indiana University. In 1968, seven looked information in the data. Fourth, I include a few
years after graduating from high school, I found myself as a research questions a graduate student might find sufficiently
24-year-old assistant professor at the University of Texas. interesting for dissertation work. Finally, I link historical
Even then, I never expected a lifetime award. research to contemporary issues, such as emerging research
I still recall my joy upon receiving the email (June 14, interest in teachers’ implicit biases.
2020) announcing the award and yelling the news, “Mary, In addition, throughout the article, I mention factors that
Mary, I won … ” to my wife, Mary McCaslin. After the glow have influenced the research questions that have been asked.
of winning the award, I reflected favorably on my career Much research has been conducted due to the beliefs of
and my research colleagues. Then, however, my happy individual researchers. However, I submit that a substantial
thoughts became concerns. Consider the then-raging pan­ amount of work occurred because it was research that fund­
demic that mandated a virtual conference, with the lost ing agencies such as the federal government and public
opportunity to see friends. From warm reflection and con­ foundations wanted. Funder-driven research, although well-
cern, I moved to anxiety. What to talk about? Where the intentioned, has often been spurred by the conception that
field has been? Where is it headed? Then finally, how can I U.S. public schools are failing. This idea has motivated
fit all I want to say into a single article? researchers to look for transformative rather than incremen­
Although other research is discussed here, I decided to tal strategies. This problem and solution orientation has
reflect primarily on my research about teacher expectations resulted in reform efforts that feature undifferentiated prob­
and teacher effectiveness and to consider what my colleagues lems and over-generalized solutions.
and I got right and what we got wrong. I wanted my com­ To the extent that my work with colleagues has value for
mentary to be more than a description of research. Thus, the field, I think it is due to three factors: (1) a continuing
my focus is on my thinking, the context that influenced my interest in replicating, revising, and extending my research
research, and ultimately, on providing productive comments and integrating it with the research of others; (2) a respect
for nudging future research. for ecological validity and the complexity of teaching and

CONTACT Thomas L. Good [email protected] University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
� 2024 Division 15, American Psychological Association
112 T. L. GOOD

classrooms; and (3) the need for in-classroom observations Pygmalion in the classroom
to understand the dynamics therein. By appreciating the In 1968, Robert Rosenthal and Lenora Jacobson published
complexity of classrooms and through continuing attempts Pygmalion in the Classroom. They claimed that increased
to replicate initial findings, my colleagues and I were able to teachers’ beliefs about students’ potential led those students
correct some of our misunderstandings and mistakes. to higher achievement. In an era in which most believed
that teachers had little impact on student achievement, the
Pygmalion findings—arguing a direct link between teacher
beliefs and student achievement—attracted national atten­
Teacher expectations research tion. Understandably, policy makers and the media were
Early research on teacher expectations effects captivated by the possibility that students might achieve
higher if more was expected of them. However, the findings
Hundreds of studies have addressed teacher expectations. I of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) were challenged by many
provide a path of where the field has been and the direction social scientists, and their findings remain controversial even
in which it seems to be headed. I place most of my attention today. Despite its methodological concerns, the study gener­
on the early years because much of this work has been for­ ated considerable research attention. Among the first, if not
gotten or is misunderstood in current literature, and if bet­ the first research study, was my dissertation (Good, 1968).
ter understood, historical knowledge can be applied to The Pygmalion work was conducted at a public elemen­
present concerns. Subsequently, I discuss current research tary school that enrolled 650 students from a lower-class
and implications for future research. community. White children were the majority of the sample,
with Mexican American children composing one-sixth of
the school’s population. Teachers were given false informa­
tion. The researchers told teachers they had identified chil­
Societal context: 1968
dren who were expected to bloom in the coming year, based
I conducted my dissertation research in 1968, a year marked
on a test developed at Harvard University. In fact, no such
by notable political and cultural turmoil. Society was rocked
test existed. Students reported to teachers as likely to bloom
by the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert
were randomly generated; thus, there was no reason to
F. Kennedy and the increased intensity of the war in
believe these students would perform better than other stu­
Vietnam. That year witnessed a turbulent and growing civil dents. Therefore, if students reported as bloomers achieved
rights movement punctuated by massive demonstrations. In more than other students, it would be because their teachers
sharp contrast, public schools attracted little attention from believed they had potential.
citizens. To test their hypothesis that increasing teacher expecta­
The invisibility of schools was likely due to their per­ tions for students would lead those students to achieve at a
ceived insignificance. Citizens, policy makers, and research­ higher level, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) used Flanagan’s
ers did not believe teachers had much, if any, impact on Flanagan (1960) Test of General Ability (TOGA), and they
student achievement. The massive Coleman et al. (1966) collected pre- and post-test assessments of student ability.
report provided extensive data arguing that differences in Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) concluded that students
student achievement were primarily explained by family and reported as bloomers achieved more than other students,
social economic factors. As such, school and teacher effects especially in the first and second grade. Their claims that
were thought to be exceedingly small. higher teacher expectations led to higher achievement were
In 1968, teachers were generally viewed positively by citi­ quickly challenged by social scientists, including Barber and
zens; however, citizens were largely indifferent to what Silver (1968), Snow (1969), and Thorndike (1968). Those
occurred in schools. It is not surprising then that given the scholars criticized the study by noting various methodo­
dramatic issues being fought and debated in 1968, what hap­ logical and data analysis deficiencies. One compelling criti­
pened in schools was not among them. Educational research cism was that the TOGA did not have adequate norms for
involving classroom observation was exceedingly rare, so lit­ assessing young children, most notably for students from
tle was known about what happened in schools. low-income homes. Snow (1969) argued that the flawed test
Despite the prevailing perception that student achieve­ made it impossible to determine if students described as
ment was determined by family circumstances, there was bloomers achieved higher than other students.
hope that the school performance of children from lower
income homes might be increased by significant infusions of My reaction to the Pygmalion study
funds for educational interventions before children began I was intrigued by the suggestion that teachers’ perception
formal school. For example, under President Lyndon of student ability might impact teachers’ interactions with
Johnson’s leadership, Congress passed the Elementary and students. I had recently read Jackson’s Jackson (1968) Life in
Secondary Education Act, which provided $1 billion for Classrooms and was impressed by his description of the
educational funding, including new educational programs complexity of classroom events. I thought it possible that
for young children from low-income homes. However, a some teachers might treat some students more favorably
groundbreaking study in 1968 would bring attention to than other students partly due to the speed and ambiguity
teachers and their interactions with students in classrooms. of interactions that occur in classroom settings. However, I
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 113

was also a recent graduate of the public school system, and I opportunities, students described as middle achievers
held a favorable view of teachers. Thus, when I conducted received 274 response opportunities, and students ranked as
my dissertation, I had an open mind about whether teachers low achievers received 162 response opportunities. I also
would notably differentiate their interactions with students found that teachers engaged students they thought were
believed to be more/less capable. higher achievers in warmer and more supportive ways than
I was especially interested in determining if teachers com­ they did with other students. Students reported as higher
municated different expectations—some high and some low, achieving received more positive feedback than other stu­
and if so, how does this happen? Classroom teaching was dents and less negative feedback than other students.
not addressed in the Pygmalion in the Classroom study, and In addition to coding the number of questions students
I wanted to address this deficiency. I was also concerned received, I also determined if the response opportunity was
that fictitious information was given to teachers. I wanted to narrow or broad. Students reported as higher in achieve­
respect both the ecological validity of classrooms and teach­ ment rank received significantly both more narrow and
ers by studying the teachers’ naturalistically formed expecta­ more broad questions than did other students. Initially, I
tions, not artificially induced expectations. did not place much emphasis on the fact that students
reported as low achieving received significantly fewer broad
response opportunities than did high achieving students,
Student achievement level and differential response
because sometimes, it seemed the distinction between a
opportunities
broad and a narrow response opportunity was dependent on
My dissertation data were collected in April of the same
knowledge of previous instruction. Subsequently, I have
year Pygmalion in the Classroom was published. To my
come to accept that narrow versus broad opportunities, as
knowledge, my dissertation was the first study to examine
coded, did represent distinctly different response opportuni­
the possibility that teacher expectations about the level of
ties. Thus, low achievers not only received fewer response
student achievement might lead classroom teachers to treat
opportunities but also fewer opportunities that allowed for
students differently based on their perceived achievement
expression of an opinion or to integrate information.1
level (Good, 1968). My dissertation asked, “Do students
I was initially concerned that teachers did not provide
ranked higher in achievement receive more response oppor­
sufficient response opportunities for their lower achieving
tunities from teachers than those they rank lower?” Given
students. I briefly considered that teachers were part of a
that my study occurred immediately after the publication of
process that sustained, and perhaps even increased, the
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) work, it is unlikely teachers
achievement gap between high achieving and low achieving
in my study had any knowledge of “Pygmalion Effects.”
students. I assumed I was beginning to understand a major
My first task was to decide how to measure teacher expecta­
policy issue by helping explain the extant achievement gap
tions for individual students. Extant studies of teaching offered
between more and less advantaged students. Perhaps, for a
little help because the few studies of teaching process had
moment, I might have thought I could win an award!
examined how teachers interacted with the whole class.
My naïve view quickly changed. When I presented my
Teacher interactions with individual students had been ignored.
results in a graduate seminar, Myron Dembo, a fellow graduate
To conduct my research, I constructed an observation system
student (who went on to a distinguished career as a professor
to code teacher interactions with individual students, including
of educational psychology at the University of Southern
which students received opportunities to respond in whole
California), asked me how I knew the differences in response
class settings and/or in reading groups. Student response
opportunities were due solely to the teacher. After trying to
opportunities were coded as narrow (calling for a correct
explain, I realized I did not have a good answer. I eventually
answer) or broad; also coded were the number of positive or
recognized that perhaps some students received more opportu­
negative teacher comments about student responses.
nities than others because they seized more opportunities. I
I studied four first-grade teachers from schools in working
learned the language for this many years later; that is, class­
class neighborhoods populated by white students. Students
room events are co-regulated (McCaslin, 2004, 2009). Teachers
were taught in heterogenous untracked classes, and no students
were enrolled in special pull-out programs. To study teachers’ and students exert reciprocal influences on one another.
My data were more complex than I initially thought. I
naturistically formed expectations, I asked teachers to rank stu­
dents in order of student achievement. I provided no definition focused on within-classroom differences in classroom oppor­
or criteria for achievement, allowing teachers to define achieve­ tunities and found significant differences based on student
ment in their own way. I observed 12 students, four who were
1
ranked at the top, four who were ranked in the middle, and The coding reliability for distinguishing broad from narrow questions was
high, but I worried about the validity of this distinction. At times, I wondered
four who were ranked at the bottom. I observed for two days if a broad question was a request for students to summarize something
and collected 10 hours of observational data that included previously discussed. Thus, I did not initially emphasize that students believed
reading group time and whole class instruction. to be low achievers received fewer broad questions than other students in my
dissertation (Good, 1968) or when I published these results in The Elementary
Students reported as higher achieving received statistically School Journal (Good, 1970). After reflecting on the fact that borderline
significantly more response opportunities than students decisions were always coded as narrow questions, I have come to accept the
ranked lower, both in whole class and reading group set­ distinction between broad and narrow questions as valid. As a young
researcher, I learned that many classroom actions are subject to interpretation,
tings. Combining data across settings, I found that students as others learned (e.g., Medley & Hill, 1969) and continue to report (e.g.,
ranked as high achievers received 479 response White & Klette, 2024).
114 T. L. GOOD

achievement level. However, my findings also indicated that Teacher expectations work at the University of Texas
student opportunities varied notably between classrooms as
In 1968, Jere Brophy and I arrived at the University of Texas
well. Although the between classroom disparities were not
as assistant professors. I had been studying teacher-student
as large as within-classroom differences, they were still large.
dyadic interactions, and Jere had researched mother-child
For example, one teacher provided twice as many response
dyadic interactions at the University of Chicago. We collabo­
opportunities as did other teachers. Unfortunately, I over­
rated on a study to explore the possible influence of teacher
looked how sharply classroom opportunities varied between
expectations on their dyadic contacts with students. The pur­
classrooms, even when they are not organized by tracking
pose of our initial study was the same as my dissertation,
(Good, 1968). Upon reexamination, I found that response allowing us to assess if my findings would replicate in
opportunities, albeit less frequent, were more equitable in another context. Our revised coding system (i.e., the Brophy-
one class than in the others. Clearly, researchers may suffer Good Dyadic; Good & Brophy, 1970) was more elaborate.
from selective attention. The new system made it possible to differentiate between
Subsequently, I found that Krantz et al. (1970) had repli­ response opportunities that were directly controlled by the
cated (likely unknowingly) my dissertation. In 10 of 11 teacher and those that were influenced by students.
classrooms, high achieving students received more response Data were collected in four first grade classrooms in a
opportunities than did other students. In five classrooms, school district serving a generally rural and lower income
high achieving students received three times more response population. The student population was 75 percent white
opportunities than low achieving students. people, 15 percent Latino/a people, and 10 percent Black
Krantz et al. (1970) also replicated my inattention to the people. Students were taught in homogenously grouped
absolute differences of opportunities between classrooms. classrooms, whereas students in the Good (1968, 1970) study
Data from this study showed multiple types of variability were in heterogenous classrooms. The findings from the
across classrooms. Some teachers asked twice as many ques­ Brophy and Good (1970) study both replicated and extended
tions as other teachers. The teacher who asked the most my dissertation (Good, 1968, 1970).
questions overall was also the only teacher who asked low Whether teacher expectations are based upon absolute or
achieving students more questions than high achieving stu­ relative student differences are still debated today. However
dents. In three classes, low achieving students received more given that teacher expectations were found in heteroge­
response opportunities than high achieving students. neously (Good, 1968, 1970) and in homogenously grouped
In another related study, Jeter and Davis (1973) studied classrooms (Brophy & Good, 1970), suggests that we have
teacher-student interactions during fourth grade social stud­ long known that even minor differences in students can
ies instruction in 10 suburban schools. They found that in prompt different teacher actions.
nine of the 10 classrooms, high achieving students received In all classrooms, students reported as high achieving had
more response opportunities than low achieving students. In more response opportunities than students ranked lower.
four classrooms, high achieving students received twice as However, some of the differences in response opportunities
many response opportunities as low achieving students, and between higher and lower ranked students were due to stu­
in one classroom, high achieving students received more dents’ initiative. Knowledge that some students dominate
than three times the response opportunities than low achiev­ class discussions is important; however, it is not evidence
ing students. In both studies, differences in between class­ that teacher expectations act as self-fulling prophecies.
room response opportunities were not discussed, even Unfortunately, even today, research studying teachers’
though they were large. expectations often fails to distinguish whether response
My dissertation (Good, 1968 [subsequently published in opportunities are teacher afforded or student initiated.
The Elementary School Journal]; Good, 1970) found that stu­ Nonetheless, accounting for differences in the absolute fre­
dents identified by their teachers as low achievers had fewer quencies in the measures being compared, teachers were more
opportunities to respond to academic questions, received demanding and more supportive of students they perceived to
less demanding questions, and were criticized more often be higher achieving compared to lower achieving students. For
when they did respond than were other students. These example, when the higher achievers responded incorrectly or
findings led me to question the wisdom of classroom practi­ did not respond, teachers were more likely to provide a second
ces that provide fewer participation opportunities for low response opportunity by repeating or rephrasing the question
achieving students, who typically enter school with fewer or by providing a clue than they did with lower achieving stu­
vocabulary/literacy skills than do other students. dents in a similar circumstance. Teachers failed to provide any
feedback to student responses for low achievers more often
than they did for high achievers. We also found that, compared
Dissertation bonus to low achieving students, high achieving students were more
Most research has focused on how teachers unevenly distrib­ frequently praised when correct and less frequently criticized
ute response opportunities within classrooms. However, the when incorrect or when they failed to respond.
variation in question-asking behavior between classrooms is Collectively, these findings supported the possibility that
often huge, and yet remains unstudied. Do teacher beliefs teacher performance expectations might lead teachers to
about teaching/learning predict why some teachers ask more treat students differently whom they believed to be more/
questions than other teachers? less capable. Despite consistency in effects, there were
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 115

differences in degree. One teacher stood out as extreme, change that treatment in some way, it tends to shape their
whereas one teacher showed relatively small differences. achievement and behavior. High expectations students will
In the classroom that exhibited fewer teacher expectations be led to achieve at high levels, whereas the achievement of
effects, students were not seated by ability, except in reading low expectations students will be less than it could be. Finally,
groups, as they were in other classrooms. The effects of in time, a student’s achievement and behavior will conform
these seat placements are unknown, but it suggests the pos­ increasingly more closely to that originally expected of them.
sibility that students can learn about their academic poten­ This model suggests that teacher expectations are not
tial in many ways. For example, Eder (1981) found that automatically self-fulfilling and that expectations must be
higher achieving students often interrupted lower achieving communicated to students through consistent teacher
students during reading group instruction, whereas lower actions if they are to influence student beliefs and achieve­
achieving students did not interrupt their higher achieving ment. This model has guided much research conducted in
peers. Thus, students also communicate expectations to their the past, and it continues to be used (e.g., Andrews &
peers. Gutwein, 2017; Ortega et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2017).
We conducted several replication studies (described in
Brophy & Good, 1974). In the first study, data were col­
lected in nine first-grade classes drawn from three schools Connecting the past and future directions
that differed in student populations. One school served pri­ My early collaboration with Jere Brophy, presented in
marily Black students from low-income homes. The other Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences
two schools were composed primarily of white students (Brophy & Good, 1974), provides an accounting of the com­
from middle and upper class homes. Forty hours of class­ plex settings inherent in classroom research and set forth
room interaction data were collected in each classroom. descriptions of what was known about how teachers inter­
These findings provided a more differentiated set of rela­ acted with students based upon many individual differences,
tionships between teacher expectations and student response including achievement level, ethnicity, gender, and socioeco­
opportunities. In some classrooms, these effects did not nomic class. In our book, Looking in Classrooms (Good &
occur, whereas they did occur in other classrooms. Thus, Brophy, 1973), we discussed our research findings and rec­
the strong effects of differential teacher behavior were likely ommendations as considerations for teachers, not explicit
less prevalent than we reported in 1970. ways to teach. We recognized that classroom context and
We completed three additional replication studies teacher decision-making are essential. These themes have
(Brophy & Good, 1974). That research extended the range persisted in my work, most recently in the eleventh edition
of grade levels studied and broadened the range of schools of Looking in Classrooms (Good & Lavigne, 2017), which
in terms of student race and social class. Those studies emphasized that teachers are decision-makers, and that
showed that some teachers engaged in more favorable research findings and concepts need to be adjusted to their
responses with students reported as high achievers, but classroom context.
others did not. Given these findings, we suggested that
teachers may react differently to perceived differences in stu­
dent achievement levels in different ways—proactive (i.e., Reflection
work to reduce student differences), reactive (i.e., react to
In retrospect, I wish I had commented more explicitly on
students in ways that sustain extant students), and overreac­
poverty issues and teaching. Some teachers interacted in
tive (i.e., react to student differences in ways that might
ways that allowed some students fewer opportunities to par­
widen the gap). The viability of these different expectations/
ticipate in classrooms but left unstated was the recognition
teaching styles, as demonstrated by current research, is dis­
that many students who teachers taught were significantly
cussed later.
behind their peers in vocabulary, academic knowledge, and
skills in working in crowded social settings. Given that these
How teacher expectations are communicated: a model vast gaps among students were associated with issues of
Jere Brophy and I provided a comprehensive model detailing poverty, our writings may have inadvertently overestimated
the process describing how teachers communicated their what teachers alone can do.
expectations to students (Brophy & Good, 1970), which we I have described the work Jere Brophy and I did at length
updated in Looking in Classrooms (Good & Brophy, 1973). because early research on the effect of teacher expectations
Based upon the insight that student actions influence teach­ is often ignored in current research, which works against
ers, our model had five claims. integrating a knowledge base that presents current efforts in
First, teachers expect specific behavior and achievement light of historical understandings. I also present this infor­
from some students. Second, due to these different expecta­ mation because currently, critics in the field, including edu­
tions, the teacher behaves differently toward different stu­ cational psychologists, disparage the field of educational
dents. Third, the teacher’s treatment tells each student what psychology for its supposed lack of research on classroom
behavior and achievement the teacher expects from them teaching and desire to inform policy issues of equity, as well
and affects their self-concept, achievement motivation, and as for its purported failure to consider the needs of minority
level of aspiration. Fourth, if a teacher’s treatment is consist­ students and those from low-income homes. In hindsight, I
ent over time, and if the student does not actively resist or regret the fact that our work was so focused on teachers
116 T. L. GOOD

that some have overlooked that our work—and that of even their causality. Today, there is still discussion about
many others who studied teacher expectations in the 1970s how to best define teacher expectations, and various defini­
and 1980s—was typically collected in classrooms that tions are used (Wang et al., 2018).
included a diverse range of students in terms of socioeco­ An especially important advance in this era was the role
nomic status and race/ethnicity. student perceptions play in mediating teacher expectations.
Research in classrooms is inherently located in the social/ Research quickly found that students see classroom events
political context within which it is conducted. Much of the in different ways (Rohrkemper, 1981, 1984, 1985). Weinstein
early teacher expectations work occurred in an area era of and colleagues (Brattesani et al., 1984; Weinstein, 1983,
civil rights concerns juxtaposed with some social science 2002; Weinstein & Middlestadt, 1979) demonstrated that
arguments that differences in student achievement were due many students were aware that teachers treated students dif­
to differences in innate intelligence linked to race (e.g., ferently based on student achievement level. Importantly,
Jensen, 1969). Hence, emphasis on racial differences in edu­ they found plausible evidence that teacher expectations
cational research were considered by some to be implicitly could impact student achievement. Rhona Weinstein and
racist; better to focus on the types of classroom teaching colleagues artfully illustrated that, to the extent that teacher
and teachers who might make a difference for all students. expectations affect students, it is, in part, dependent on how
Current researchers face their own struggles in locating their students interpret teacher actions. Bringing the student per­
work in current socio/political dynamics and understandings spective into teacher expectations research was important.
in the work of schools. I do not mean to diminish the enor­ Two recent reviews provide detailed analyses of the
mities of their tasks; however, to suggest that educational teacher expectations literature (Johnston et al., 2019; Wang
psychologists have not been interested in issues of equity or et al., 2018). Wang et al. (2018) reviewed teacher expecta­
in the study of classroom teaching of students from lower tions research from the late 1980s to 2018. Their review
income homes is either disingenuous, or it reflects an inad­ confirmed that themes established in earlier research were
equate understanding of research in the field. These are not largely replicated. Wang and colleagues noted that the field
new concerns. I revisit the relationship between the field of had advanced in terms of methodology and in the range
educational psychology and policy later in the article. and context of issues explored. They noted the increasing
number and value of studies addressing student perspectives
Teacher expectations research: from 1968 to today and the increase in studies documenting the relationship
between teacher expectations and student achievement. They
Important findings in recent teacher expectations commented on a successful intervention, an innovative in-
research service program, by Rubie-Davies et al. (2015) that success­
I comment only briefly on work during this period as sev­ fully changed teacher expectations and student achievement.
eral reviews are available (see, for example, Cooper, 1979; Finally, Wang et al. (2018) drew attention to new research
Cooper & Good, 1983; Cooper & Tom, 1984; Dusek, 1975; examining student socio-psychological factors as mediators
Dusek & Joseph, 1983; Good, 1987; Good et al., 2018; of teacher expectations, including student factors such as
Harris & Rosenthal, 1985; Jussim, 1986, 1989; Raudenbush, self-concept, expectations for success, and so forth. The
1984; West & Anderson, 1976). During this time, much study of socio-psychological variables was an important
work continued to correlate teacher expectations with expansion of the field.
teacher behavior. Several models appeared to explain how Johnston et al. (2019) provided a review of teacher
teachers formed and communicated expectations to students, expectations research during the decade 2008–2018, focusing
if teacher expectations were stable, and the accuracy of on the student perspective. One interesting dimension of the
teachers’ expectations and grade level effects. Notable contri­ student perspective concerns students’ beliefs about how
butions during this time included a summary of the explicit teachers develop expectations about them and their perform­
ways teachers communicate expectations to students. ance. Also, Johnston et al. provided informative discussions
Cooper (1979) made an important contribution in distin­ about how students themselves react to their teacher. This
guishing sustaining from self-fulling prophecies. He argued emphasis adds to previous literature by integrating student
that teachers, for the most part, did not create the expecta­ perception beliefs and interpretations of teacher actions and
tions but simply sustained the judgments that were made teacher beliefs. Finally, Johnston et al. (2019) noted the his­
earlier (see Cooper et al., 1982, for more discussion). tory of research on student perspective using qualitative
Some research examined the degree of overlap among methods and acknowledged its value. They argued that
teachers, students, and observer reports of classroom inter­ more research using qualitative methods is necessary to
actions. Cooper et al. (1982) noted some convergence but explore why student beliefs may result in different teacher
also some differences in how classrooms were perceived and expectations effects for different students.
reported. Such findings reinforced the complexity that I am pleased about the vast number of studies that have
Jackson (1968) reported by noting that classroom partici­ been conducted and the growing sophistication of the
pants often perceive events differently. There were also pro­ research methodology used to study relations between
ductive exchanges, some still unresolved, concerning the teacher expectations and student outcomes. The new and
accuracy of teacher expectations effects—their stability, the expanded directions in the field, including experimental
size of their effects, their cumulative effect over time, and research, growing interest in student perspectives, and
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 117

attention to studying student outcomes other their achieve­ Rubie-Davies et al. (2015) provided an important founda­
ment, are exciting and important. The most vital recent tion. I hope that the field build on the knowledge of this
advance in the field is a demonstration that knowledge gar­ study and offer new intervention strategies for enhancing
nered from teacher expectations research can be used to teaching and learning. Unfortunately, this has not happened.
improve teaching and learning.
Enhancing the informative value of teacher
Using knowledge of teacher expectations to improve expectation research
classroom learning
Teacher expectations research has yielded findings with rich
Roughly 50 years after the publication of Pygmalion in the implications for practice. This body of knowledge might be
Classroom, the field obtained evidence that the knowledge strengthened in two ways—first, by integrating this know­
derived from teacher expectations research could be related ledge with research from other research traditions, and
to improvements in student learning (Rubie-Davies & second, by collecting new teacher expectations research.
Rosenthal, 2016; Rubie-Davies et al., 2015). Accumulated
evidence revealed how some teachers offered more favorable
Integrating teacher expectations findings with
learning opportunities to some students and to some classes
knowledge from related research traditions
of students than did other teachers. The field obtained this
knowledge through programmatic research that sometimes Integrating teacher expectations findings with evidence from
included observational research. other research areas might yield more strategic ways for
Learning how to share this knowledge also involved enhancing classroom learning. This is particularly true for
learning and development activities over time. Others had those research traditions that have attempted to understand
shared research knowledge about teacher expectations with students’ differential opportunities for classroom learning.
teachers, with varying levels of success (e.g., Cooper, 1979; For example, the informal curriculum and classroom dis­
Good & Brophy, 1974; Weinstein et al., 1991). de Boer et al. course traditions are research areas that could inform
(2018) reviewed 18 intervention studies between 1973 and teacher expectations research. In particular, they offer prom­
2018 and concluded that one aspect of successful interven­ ise for better understanding the role that students play in
tions was the provision of information to teachers about establishing and maintaining differential opportunities in the
their teaching. classroom.
Rubie-Davies et al. (2015; see also Rubie-Davies &
Rosenthal, 2016) integrated information about how success­
ful teachers interacted with individual students and classes The informal curriculum
of students and shared this with teachers. Teachers partici­ This research tradition has long been viewed as a powerful
source for examining classroom dynamics that allow some
pated in four workshops that provided information derived
students to be more salient and adaptive than other stu­
from teacher expectations research. Teachers were active
dents. The currents of classroom life often flow in different
participants as they planned instructional strategies related
channels for poor and more advantaged students. Some stu­
to how high expectations teachers taught. Participating
dents achieve or are awarded power and obtain status;
teachers had the opportunity to view videotapes of their
others do not. For discussion of some useful concepts
teaching, as well as opportunities to interact with other
emerging from this field, see Doja et al. (2016), Eder (1981),
teachers and to discuss information about teacher expecta­
Giroux and Penna (1979), Jackson (1968), and McCaslin
tions and classroom instruction. Follow-up observational
and Good (1992, 1996).
data provided evidence that treatment condition teachers
were communicating high and appropriate expectations.
Although the treatment did not have an impact on students’ Classroom discourse
reading performance, student achievement gains in mathem­ Research on classroom discourse has thoughtfully studied
atics were substantial. Notably, these gains were consistent issues of power, equity, and participation, and this field has
for all students. provided rich concepts, useful findings, and interesting ques­
This experiment showed that knowledge of teacher tions related to why students have differential opportunities
expectations and related acts of teaching could be shared in the classroom. For discussion of some of the findings,
with other teachers in ways that influenced their teaching concepts, and interesting questions that have emerged from
and their students’ learning. Yet much remains to be done. this field, see Alexander (2008), Howe and Abedin (2013),
Can this study be replicated? Will students who increased Hattie (2003), Snell and Lefstein (2017), and Resnick et al.
their mathematic performance in this experiment carry their (2017, 2019).
increased knowledge forward into their future mathematics Below, I will suggest the need for early interventions that
classes? Are there better ways to involve teachers in using reduce differences in students’ academic skills and their
research evidence to reflect on their own teaching? Can learning how to learn skills before they enter kindergarten
gains be obtained in reading, science, and other content and first-grade classrooms. The literatures from teacher
areas? Would different types of teachers benefit from some­ expectations, classroom dialogue, and the informal curricu­
what different types of intervention strategies? The work by lum have much to offer when designing interventions for
118 T. L. GOOD

students who vary in academic knowledge and in skills and measure implicit and explicit teacher beliefs and relate them
dispositions for learning with others. to observed classroom interactions.

Expanding/integrating teacher expectations research Teacher judgment research

Teacher expectations research focuses on the prediction of
Two research traditions, implicit teacher bias and teacher
future student performance, whereas teacher judgment
judgment, have considerable overlap with teacher expecta­
research examines the accuracy of teacher assessments of
tions research, and therefore, merit discussion in attempts to
student ability compared to standardized test scores. When
link teacher beliefs to student outcomes. Space prohibits a
teacher assessments differ from test results, they are seen as
review of these fields. However, I discuss them briefly
inaccurate by judgment researchers. This judgment is prob­
because of their similarity to teacher expectations research. I
lematic as teacher assessments and standardized tests meas­
suggest that integration of teacher implicit bias, teacher
ure different things. Teacher reports provide different
judgment, and teacher expectations research might yield a
information than do standardized tests; therefore, discrepan­
better understanding of how teachers’ beliefs about student
cies between teachers and standardized measures are not
potential affect student opportunities and performance.
necessarily biased or inaccurate. Consider that public school
teachers’ grades predict student success in college better
Implicit teacher bias than do standardized tests (Allensworth & Clark, 2020).
However, this evidence is not used to claim that standar­
Much research has focused on teachers’ implicit beliefs that dized tests are inaccurate. Describing teachers as inaccurate
are unconscious or not fully realized. Research has suggested or biased, in this context, is inadvertently but inappropri­
that teachers’ implicit beliefs may lead them to treat some ately demeaning to teachers. Fortunately, some judgment
students inappropriately because of their race/ethnicity, gen­ researchers have discarded the pejorative terms of “bias”
der, or physical disability. Informative research on teachers’ and “inaccurate” and have moved toward more descriptive
implicit bias includes work by Carlana (2019), Chin et al. language when discussing teacher judgment with terms
(2020), Copur-Gencturk et al. (2019), Inan-Kaya and Rubie- such as teachers who “under” or “over” estimate (Urhahne,
Davies (2021), Peterson et al. (2016), and Quinn (2017). 2015).
DeCuir-Gunby and Bindra (2022) discussed how various Teacher judgment research continues to be an active area
pejorative attitudes in the culture may be manifest in the of inquiry (Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Urhahne & Wijnia,
classroom, and teachers should be aware of potential impli­ 2021). I have criticized the language judgment researchers
cit biases they and others may hold. Teacher expectations typically use to describe differences between teacher and test
researchers often look to external factors, such as student judgments, and I have suggested that judgment researchers
race or gender or students’ prior achievement or even their place too much emphasis on accuracy. However, the meas­
accent (Lorenz et al., 2023), that may influence teacher per­ urement strategies in the judgment field have much to offer
ceptions and subsequent actions. In contrast, the teacher to teacher expectations researchers. As noted, teacher
implicit bias literature revealed that sometimes, it may expectations researchers have, and continue to use, varying
be teachers’ internal implicit biases that limit student per­ definitions for operationalizing teacher expectations.
formance. These considerations are important. Adapting measurement techniques from judgment research­
However, as shown in the teacher expectations tradition, ers might allow teacher expectations researchers to measure
teachers’ explicit beliefs about student potential often do not teachers’ expectations more carefully and help clarify if
translate into discernible differential teacher actions toward teacher expectations effects are relative or absolute.
students believed to be more or less capable. Hence, it is Reciprocally, judgment researchers might benefit from the
reasonable to believe that teachers may hold implicit beliefs teacher expectations literature by considering issues of con­
that do not affect their classroom behavior. Research has text and studying what teacher beliefs lead them to be more
also shown that implicit beliefs are difficult to measure and or less accurate. Historically, teacher expectations and
that measures of implicit bias often yield inaccurate conclu­ teacher judgment work has pursued, isolated different paths,
sions (Clayton et al., 2019; Schimmack, 2019). Respondents despite their overlapping interest. Perhaps it is time to inte­
often report one thing but do another. Even if implicit grate aspects of these fields.
beliefs are measured accurately, it is difficult to change them
(Chin et al., 2020; Forscher et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2014).
The potential contributions of implicit bias research, like Some integration across teacher expectations and teacher
teacher expectations research, are decreased because few judgment work is emerging: an example
studies in this tradition include measures of expressed bias. Bergold and Steinmayr (2023), working in the teacher judg­
This is unfortunate because explicit teacher actions are more ment tradition, studied 100 teachers (i.e., 52 mathematics
discernible and correctable (Lavigne & Good, 2021). teachers and 48 German language teachers) and the effects
Unfortunately, many who conduct implicit bias research do of “teacher judgment accuracy” on ninth grade student
not discuss teacher expectations research and sometimes achievement. Their results showed that students who were
write in ways to suggest that implicit beliefs are more taught by overestimating teachers had higher scores in
important than explicit actions. Perhaps future research can German and mathematics than those students taught by
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 119

underestimating teachers.2 In explaining their results, solutions. The field has made significant contributions, but
Bergold and Steinmayr used findings and concepts from much work remains in learning how to improve classrooms
teacher expectations research and noted that the overesti­ to enhance learning for all students. More experimental
mating teachers were like teachers Brophy and Good (1974) research is needed to develop instructional strategies, not
described as proactive. It is instructive to see these analytical only to meet students where they are but also to move them
links between two studies reported roughly 50 years apart. forward in important ways. Identifying problems is impor­
Many have claimed that teacher expectations predict stu­ tant, but correcting them is the goal.
dent achievement only because they are accurate and agree
with standardized tests (Jussim & Harber, 2005). Bergold
Listening to teachers
and Harber’s data suggest the opposite; that is, inaccurate
teacher assessments impact student achievement. Why is it My intervention work with Jere Brophy (Good & Brophy,
that some teachers overestimate? I hypothesize that teachers 1974) convinced me that even brief teacher-researcher con­
may overestimate because they see student potential—what versations can be important. By listening to teachers, we
students can become—and proactively work to help students learned that they were more aware of their differential inter­
achieve more. As research moves forward, it seems impor­ action patterns with students of varying achievement levels
tant to understand why teachers overestimate and underesti­ when it involved frequency data. On the other hand, such
mate. Research that combines interview and observational awareness was highly unlikely if their differential interaction
research may help better conceptualize student potential and patterns involved qualitative differences; that is, how often
how their classroom interactions express their conceptions they called on a student, as opposed to how they treated a
of student potential. student when they make a mistake. Further, teachers held
reasonable hypotheses about why it may be problematic to
increase calling on certain students in certain contexts. I
Considerations for new research on teacher
submit that researchers can learn much by listening to
expectations
teachers and “seeing” with them. Teachers have rich know­
The need for more classroom observational research ledge of classrooms and students, but unfortunately, their
knowledge is often ignored. Talking and planning with
Teacher expectations research has generated hundreds of teachers may provide a more strategic understanding of
studies. However, comparatively little research has studied classroom issues and how to address them.
classroom processes that link teacher expectations for stu­
dent performance to classroom actions/opportunities that
express those expectations to students. Most teacher expecta­ More specialized interventions for different teachers
tions research has involved black box correlational studies
Given that some teachers interact differently with students
that associate teacher beliefs to student outcomes. Much is
based on their achievement and other characteristics but
known about how teachers communicate expectations, but if
that many do not, it may be useful to design more focused
researchers are to identify new ways in which students learn
interventions. For example, there may be unintended conse­
about teacher expectations, future research needs to include
quences to formally presenting teachers with research infor­
both quantitative and qualitative observational studies of
mation that some teachers call upon low-achieving students
classrooms that measure how teachers communicate high/
too infrequently or that when low achieving students make
low expectations to individual or to classes of students.
mistakes, some teachers do not continue to work with them.
For example, teachers who are successfully interacting with
The need for more experimental work low-achieving students may be inappropriately motivated to
provide even more attention to low-achieving students,
Experimental intervention studies are rare in teacher expect­ which may be unneeded or may lead to other problems.
ations research, yet we know that experimental work can Teachers who are unaware of their less effective interactions
improve classroom teaching and learning (Rubie-Davies patterns may not benefit from the research information, and
et al., 2015). As I have emphasized, Rubie-Davies et al.’s their reaction may be “I wonder why other teachers do that.”
intervention was only possible because of the numerous General intervention programs have an important place.
descriptive studies that laid the foundation for successful However, given the wide range of teacher practice, including
intervention work. Such studies still have a role in clarifying proactive, reactive, and overreactive teachers, more specialized
knowledge of how expectations influence classroom process interventions may be required in some contexts.
and outcomes. My call is not to eliminate correlational or
case study work, but rather, it is a call to increase experi­
mental work. I suggest researchers spend less attention on Studying students as multidimensional learners
finding/redefining problems and more time on finding
Students are typically studied based on one dimension, such
as achievement level, gender, or ethnicity. This research has
2
In this important study, Bergold and Steinmayr also show that teachers who been informative. However, it is time for more ambitious
“overestimated” had positive effects on several non-subject matter outcomes
(e.g., life satisfaction), suggesting that teachers’ beliefs may affect outcomes research that studies students as multidimensional people
other than achievement. who possess an array of histories, knowledge, and
120 T. L. GOOD

dispositions. I suggest that when researchers study students nutrition and lack of childcare health. Systemic change will
“as a single variable,” the application value of findings is also require expertise from many area content specialists,
more limited than commonly believed. For example, Jere especially from literacy and numeracy, as well as insights
Brophy and I studied classroom interactions and found not­ from research in child development, early education, motiv­
able differences in how teachers interacted with high and ation/interest, and learning, to mention but a few.
low-achieving students. Yet, how teachers interacted with
high versus low achieving girls and boys showed consider­
able variation to the point that successful interventions for Students have the potential to learn
low-achieving female and low-achieving male students Despite issues of poverty, evidence shows that students from
would need to differ. Much research shows that teachers low-income homes enter school participating fully in class.
react to students on the basis of multiple characteristics They raise their hands, answer questions, and ask questions.
such as race and gender (Andrews et al., 2019). Importantly, Unfortunately, over time, many students learn to disengage
other researchers have also called for the need to consider (Good et al., 1987). Importantly, children not only enter
that students are multidimensional (e.g., Ghavami & Peplau, school wanting to learn, but also, they can learn significant
2013; Pratto et al., 2006; Pit-Ten & Glock, 2023; Purdie- material. Consider that children from all socioeconomic lev­
Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). els master the linguistically difficult language of Pok�emon
(Gee, 2017).
What interferes with student learning? One explanation is
Students’ influence on teachers
that children from low-income homes do not have the
Students are more than learners. They are also social beings opportunity to learn academic skills that students from
who possess a variety of skills, histories, and dispositions more affluent homes do. Consider that many three-year-old
(Johnston et al., 2019, 2022; Rohrkemper, 1981, 1984, 1985). children from affluent homes frequently play board games
Teachers react to students both as learners and as social that require them to take turns, to count, to develop vocabu­
beings. For example, Jackson et al. (1969) interviewed teach­ lary, and perhaps most importantly, to keep playing after
ers about four students (i.e., the first and last girl and boy losing and to learn that they can and do get better. In con­
teachers mentioned when listing students) and reported trast, students from low-income families have fewer oppor­
teacher comments that showed their emotional involvement tunities to learn these skills. There is considerable evidence
with students. Silberman (1969) found that teachers that playing board and card games produces significant
expressed different attitudes toward students he described as learning gains in skills that transfer to school settings
attachment, indifference, concern, and rejection. His obser­ (Balladares et al., 2023; Craig, 2023).
vational data confirmed that teachers interacted differently Given the many opportunities available to some students,
with students toward whom they held different attitudes. kindergarten and first grade learning is essentially a review
Other studies followed (Good & Brophy, 1972; Jenkins, and a formalization of skills previously learned. For students
1972; McDonald, 1972), replicating the findings that teach­ who have not had these ample learning opportunities, enter­
ers hold different attitudes toward students and that those ing school presents new and often daunting challenges.
attitudes are sometimes manifest in interactions with those Understandably, after repeated failure, students who have
students. This recognition of teacher/student reciprocal not developed strategies for coping with failure are likely to
influence led McCaslin (2009) to articulate a theory of co- lower their beliefs that they can learn and thus, give up
regulation. Future research might pay more attention to when they cannot quickly find a solution.
reciprocal classroom actions. Educators once believed that students, especially young
students, needed a steady set of success experiences. This
perspective has changed, in part due to Rohrkemper and
Focused interventions in preschool, kindergarten, and
Corno (1988) call for adaptive learning. They persuasively
first grade
argued that students needed supportive environments but
Research on teacher expectations can be used to intervene at that they also needed to learn how to deal with the frustra­
any point in the educational system; however, I believe that tion, boredom, and failures that are inevitable aspects of
early interventions are important because many students classroom life. They contended that students needed to learn
from low-income homes enter school behind their peers in from failure and how to adaptively move on.
academic skills and, tragically, never catch up. This is a dev­ Rohrkemper and Corno (1988) conclusion that students
astating loss for these children and society. This is especially need to learn how to cope with academic difficulty has been
vexing as research shows that good childcare and preschool increasingly expressed by others. For example, Hiebert and
experiences can enhance the learning abilities of all children, Grouws (2007) called for productive struggle and believed
especially those from low socioeconomic homes (American that students can benefit from working on problems they
Psychological Association, 2023; Bustamante et al., 2023; cannot immediately solve. Today, the adaptive benefits of
Jirout et al., 2019; Kruzik et al., 2023). failure are widely expressed (see Bradatan, 2023; Donaldson
Poverty conditions deny many children the nutrition and et al., 2023; Strauss, 2015). Some have suggested that delib­
health care they need to be active learners. Thus, any signifi­ erate errors can promote student learning (Wong & Lim,
cant intervention must address issues of insufficient 2022). However, there can be too much failure or the wrong
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 121

kind of failure (Rohrkemper & Corno, 1988). Thus, helping As educational psychologists and others conduct policy
students become more adaptive learners will call for teacher research, I urge that educational psychologists consider how
co-regulation skills that allow for failure to be informative they talk about teachers. Research-based descriptions of teach­
rather than debilitating (McCaslin, 2009). ing can have unintended but harmful consequences on the
teaching profession. Elsewhere, I have been critical of many
policy makers, media reports, and sometimes teacher educators
Bridging home and school that have needlessly exaggerated the weaknesses of teachers
Noddings (2002) argued that schools could usefully become and normative practice (see Good, 2011). My point is not to
more home-like in some respects. Sharon Nichols and I limit critical inquiry and comment. I agree with Carter et al.
(Good & Nichols, 2001) called for early interventions for (2017) succinct and eloquent conclusion, “you can’t fix what
Black students and minority students, as, or before, they you don’t look at.” Research may lead to critical conclusions
enter first grade. We suggested two structural changes. First, (e.g., some teachers cope better with difficult situations than
first grade classrooms need to be smaller. Second, more do others), but in reports, I suggest researchers remind policy
attention needs to be placed on the difficult transition issues makers that teachers are underpaid, frequently (and often
marginalized children face when they start school. We con­ unfairly) criticized, work in difficult conditions, have limited
tended that students from low-income homes need school- control of the curriculum, and are increasingly leaving the
like skills (e.g., when to ask questions) and experiences field, in part, because they feel unvalued. Obtaining and retain­
before they enter classrooms and that better home/school ing good teachers remains a major policy issue, especially in
communication might help both teachers and parents more urban schools. As the field places more attention on policy
effectively share/communicate school expectations for stu­ issues, I remind educational psychologists that the goal is not
just to find problems but to understand those problems and to
dents. Timmons et al. (2022) reviewed recent (i.e., 2000–
work, with teachers, for better solutions for all students.
2021) teacher expectations research in K–2 classrooms and
Researchers should avoid writing in ways that pejoratively
found that teachers emphasized that their students need
describe teachers. Unfortunately, policy makers and the
school readiness skills including: following instruction, turn-
media have created exaggerated expectations about the
taking, self-management skills, self-expression, willingness to
extent to which teachers can enhance student achievement.
learn, perspective-taking abilities, and academic skills in
These excessive and unrealistic demands for teachers to sub­
mathematics and literacy. Perhaps researchers, educators,
stantially improve student achievement inevitably led to
and policy-makers should listen to teachers and address
blaming teachers when these unrealistically high expecta­
these critical issues and help students develop school readi­
tions are not fulfilled. These societal frustrations may well
ness skills before they enter school. contribute to low pay and exceedingly difficult working con­
ditions that erode the willingness of many teachers to
Educational psychology and policy research remain and others to enter the profession. Researchers must
take care to prevent societal low expectations for teachers
Research in educational psychology has had little influence from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
on educational policy. This is true even though some educa­
tional psychologists have conducted policy relevant research.
Consider that the vast teacher expectations literature was Teacher effectiveness research
not used in federal law, Race to the Top (RTTT), which Here, I review effective elementary school teaching, primar­
focused on improving teaching. It is instructive to see that ily in mathematics. Reviewing this literature is difficult
leadership in APA Division 15 and its networking with because it includes more research and diverse traditions
members is increasingly obtaining information that division than the teacher expectations literature. My reporting is fil­
members want to have more impact on educational policy tered through my contributions, but I do so to represent the
(Nichols & Herrick, 2023). Some current research and argu­ type of research and the societal interest in teaching and
ments reflect this interest and its potential (see Gray et al., research in different eras. I briefly review school effective­
2020; Kaplan, 2023; Nichols & Berliner, 2023). ness research and its productive contributions, and I discuss
I believe placing more attention on policy issues focused the failures of the many school reforms that attempted to
on teaching-learning in public school classrooms is a good overhaul American public schools.
decision. Educational psychologists have the skills and dis­ Despite its contributions, research on teaching has had lim­
positions to bring precision to the study of classroom learn­ ited impact on policy. Policy makers rarely use research and, if
ing. However, this research will have positive influence only used, it is typically misused. School reforms failed in part
if research is programmatic and respectful of teachers and because they ignored or misused research on teacher effects. I
the ecological integrity of classroom environments. argue that it is time for researchers to help policy makers stop
Intervening successfully in classrooms is not easy. At the their simplistic, expensive, and disruptive interventions.
risk of being gratuitous, I note that the goal is not simply to The teacher effectiveness research tradition has made not­
gain the attention of policy makers, but to improve class­ able progress from 1968 to 2024. This research has docu­
rooms. I believe the goal of improving classrooms is best mented that teachers differentially influence student
done through rigorous programmatic research. achievement and has also identified some of the teacher
122 T. L. GOOD

actions that enhance student learning. Still much remains to his interest in mathematics learning with my interest in
be learned about effective teaching. I advance considerations instructional psychology. We believed that teachers could
for improving research on teaching. improve students’ mathematics achievement, and we asked
four questions: (1) Do some teachers impact student
achievement more than other teachers, when teaching simi­
Teachers make a difference
lar students under similar conditions? (2) Are teacher effects
After moving to the University of Missouri in 1971, my stable? (3) How do teachers who are both effective and sta­
interest shifted to questions about teachers’ ability to ble teach, and how does their instruction differ from other
increase student achievement. At that time, most social sci­ teachers? (4) Can findings describing effective teaching be
entists believed that student achievement was primarily due conveyed to other teachers to improve their teaching?
to heredity and social class. The Coleman et al. (1966)
report provided universally accepted evidence that schools
Good and Grouws naturalistic study (1977)
and teachers have little impact on student achievement.
We studied achievement test results in a school district that
Based on my own school experience and the enormous vari­
skirted the core of a major city. The student population was
ation in teaching reported in the teacher expectations litera­
middle class, teachers used the same textbook, and the stu­
ture, I doubted the report’s conclusion.
dent population in the district was stable. We studied 103
Bruce Biddle, Jere Brophy, and I reviewed research on
fourth grade teachers and used residual gains scores from
teacher effects (Good et al., 1975). In doing so, we examined
the Iowa test of basic skills to determine teacher effective­
the Coleman et al. (1966) report and its claim that teachers
did not impact student achievement. The Coleman et al. ness. Notably, even within these stable circumstances, year-
report was a massive and generally well-conducted study to-year stability of teachers and residual mean achievement
that examined school inputs (e.g., levels of funding) and was only .20 (Good & Grouws, 1977).
school output (i.e., student achievement). However, it was a Next, we identified 18 teachers whose class mathematics
black box study that ignored within school differences, scores were stable over two years (i.e., nine relatively effect­
including teaching processes. We argued that the study’s ive teachers and nine unsuccessful teachers). Through class­
findings were flawed because they failed to consider that room observation, effective teachers were characterized as
some teachers within the same school had more impact on warm, relatively non-evaluative, clear, and task focused.
student achievement than did other teachers. They made good use of instructional time, held high expect­
We reviewed available research on teaching. Although the ations for students, and actively involved students in
number of studies that included observational data on teach­ assigned tasks. These teachers were excellent classroom
ers was small, it was sufficient for us to hypothesize that managers, and their instruction attended to both conceptual
teachers differentially influence student achievement (Good and procedural aspects of mathematics learning (Good &
et al., 1975). Although we concluded that teachers make a Grouws, 1977).
difference in student achievement, we offered an important The instructional format did not predict teacher effective­
caveat that proved to be prescient: ness. Some teachers using whole class teaching methods did
it well; others, less so. We demonstrated that some teachers
Just as data suggesting that teachers do not make a difference
obtained more student achievement than other teachers
frequently have been overgeneralized and accepted uncritically,
there is a danger that these same mistakes can be made with the teaching similar students. Although our data were correl­
kinds of data as cited in this chapter (Good et al., 1975, p. 85). ational, they were uniquely important. This was a promising
start.
Time confirmed our concerns. For example, policy mak­
ers enacting the federal law Race to the Top (RTTT) (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009) attempted to hold teachers Good and Grouws: an experimental study (1979)
accountable for student achievement even though teachers Next, we needed to convey knowledge about effective math­
taught in conditions they could not control (Lavigne & ematics teaching to other teachers. Our synthetic work
Good, 2019; Stecher et al., 2018). yielded a training workshop and a manual that combined
By 1975, there was much research on effective teaching. our correlation findings, other recent work on correlates of
Indeed, Dunkin and Biddle (1974) reported that more than effective teaching, and experimental work in mathematics
10,000 studies had been conducted, although they noted that learning to create an instructional model we called active
most research was inadequate and lacked observational data. teaching (see Good & Grouws, 1979).
Teaching was discussed but not observed. We sought to We subsequently designed an experimental intervention
change that. to see if we could improve teaching and learning. We imple­
mented our active teaching model in a school district with a
voluntary sample of teachers where 80 percent of the teach­
Missouri mathematics: an example of teacher
ers volunteered for the program. Teachers were assigned
effectiveness research
randomly by school to treatment conditions. All teachers,
Doug Grouws, a then-recent graduate from the University control and treatment, attended an orientation workshop
of Wisconsin, and I arrived at the University of Missouri at and were informed that we had been studying effective
the same time. We began a program of research combining mathematics teachers. They were told we believed our
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 123

program would improve teaching, but we did not know that improve student learning. Our study was, and remains, one
for sure, and that the purpose of the study was to determine of the strongest demonstrations that teacher actions can
if the strategies worked. improve student achievement. So far, so good!
After questions, the control teachers were dismissed and
were encouraged to continue teaching as they had. They
knew that classroom observations would soon begin and Ebmeier and Good (1979)
that they would receive information about their teaching, as Was the program a better fit for some teachers/students? To
well as information about the effectiveness of the treatment address this, Howard Ebmeier, as part of his dissertation,
at the end of the study. Given that control teachers were developed extensive questionnaires for teachers and students
observed and that they knew the study focused on mathem­ to assess their preferences about classroom process, as well
atics, we think we created a strong Hawthorne control as their beliefs about teaching or learning of mathematics.
group. We believed that a strong control group (i.e., teachers Through cluster analysis procedures, Ebmeier developed
motivated to teach well) would allow more confidence in four student types and four teacher types to assess the possi­
our findings and, if successful, support a conclusion that the bility of different interactions between the treatment and
recommended teaching strategies caused achievement gains, different combinations of students/teachers.
not because of other factors (e.g., teachers work harder or Despite the large main effects, there were interactions
more carefully). among student type, teacher type, and treatment condition
Treatment teachers attended a 90-min active demonstra­ that produced interpretable findings suggesting that different
tion/explanation of the program and were given a 45-page types of students benefited more from the treatment with
manual that included examples of program components and some types of teachers than others (Ebmeier & Good, 1979).
recommended teaching activities. Special attention was given These data suggest there were likely ways to make the pro­
to the development stage of the lesson in which teachers gram more useful for some combinations of teachers and
worked with students to understand the meaning of the students.
concepts being studied. A few weeks later, treatment teach­
ers attended another 90-min workshop to discuss implemen­ Unfinished business
tation issues. That students learn different things from a lesson or unit of
Observers collected data in six lessons in treatment and instruction is likely common (e.g., Nuthall, 1999), yet fol­
control classrooms. These data showed that the program low-up efforts that build on that knowledge to make learn­
was generally implemented but more so in some classrooms ing and teaching more effective are uncommon. For
than in others. The amount of time some teachers spent on example, continuing work on the Missouri Mathematics
the development phase was less than we recommended. Effectiveness Program might have yielded program modifi­
Unfortunately, we did not measure the quality of the treat­ cations that allowed teachers to implement it better and that
ment teachers’ lesson development, and it is possible the increased meaningful learning for more students. However,
quality of their lesson development was higher than that of in my experience, it is very difficult to obtain funding for
control teachers. Despite this possibility, we hypothesized fine tuning research but much easier to obtain funding for
that some experimental teachers may not have had sufficient research that addresses new questions.
mathematics knowledge to conduct a lengthy discussion of
the meaning of the mathematics being studied.
The Science Research Associates (SRA) achievement test Recognition of the Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness
was administered pre- and post-program. We also adminis­ Program
tered a content test, post-program only, based on the text­ The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Program was cited
book content teachers used. Pre- and post-testing indicated frequently and used in various school districts. The study
that achievement was higher in the control group than was designated “a classic study” in mathematics by the
would have been expected. This increased achievement may National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (see Carpenter
have been because teachers knew they were being observed et al., 2004). This research has been replicated (e.g., Slavin &
teaching mathematics and they spent more time preparing Karweit, 1985), sometimes with creative adaptations based
for this subject than for other subjects they taught. It is on students’ mathematical knowledge, age, or the mathemat­
noteworthy that we found student achievement in the treat­ ics content taught. For example, Sigurdson and Olson
ment group exceeded that of control group students in ways (1992) used the model in eighth grade classrooms where
that were both statistically and practically significant. The teachers taught lessons on ratios, fractions, and geometry.
content assessment also revealed that treatment group stu­ Later, Sigurdson et al. (1994) extended and replicated
dents learned more mathematics than did control group our model by adding a problem-solving dimension.
students. The research continues to be replicated today (Aulia et al.,
In summary, we found that in naturalistic settings, some 2020; Faradillah & Purwitasari, 2022; Winardi & Dwijanto,
teachers teach mathematics more effectively than other 2018).
teachers. Further, in an experimental setting, we docu­ My favorable comments about our research are not advo­
mented that knowledge of effective teaching could be con­ cacy for whole class teaching or our active teaching model.
veyed to other teachers in ways that enabled them to Research has shown that the quality of whole class teaching
124 T. L. GOOD

varies widely.3 Rather, I stress that our work was replicated A summary of teacher effects research: Brophy and
by others and that issues of replication are an important Good (1986)
part of research, as reflected in the on-going debate about
My work with Doug Grouws was part of a larger body of
the role of replication in the social sciences (Camerer et al.,
work. During the 1980s, many researchers conducted correl­
2018; Makel et al., 2021; Maxwell et al., 2015; Nosek et al.,
ational and experimental research on teaching, and both the
2015; Plucker & Makel, 2021).
amount and forms of observational work on teaching greatly
To the extent our research has value, it is because it is
expanded. Qualitative researchers joined observational
programmatic, it includes observational research, and it is
researchers, and various approaches emerged for collecting
respectful to teachers and the ecological validity of
observational data. For an excellent description of the quali­
classrooms.
tative and quantitative observational systems of that era, see
Evertson and Green (1986).
Reflections and regrets Jere Brophy and I (Brophy & Good, 1986) comprehen­
I have fond memories of working with Doug and the tal­ sively reviewed extant research on teaching effects. Our syn­
ented graduate students who worked with us. We made mis­ thesis has endured over time and continues to be frequently
takes, but on balance, we made useful contributions. referenced. I suspect the work remains viable because it ana­
However, there are always regrets—things that could have lyzed and synthesized many studies that: (1) contained large
been done better. samples of teachers and students; (2) employed careful
I regret that Doug and I did not emphasize the small research designs; and (3) used then state-of-the-art measure­
number of teachers who were effective over consecutive ment and statistical procedures to examine teacher effects
years. Only 10 percent of the teachers in our initial study on students. Many large studies combined both process data
were differentially effective over time. Although we noted (i.e., what happens in classrooms) and product outcomes
that stability was an issue in studying effective teaching, I (i.e., the effects of classroom process on student achievement
wish we had emphasized more that very few teachers were and attitudes). Thus, for the first time, large numbers of
consistently effective. studies provided information linking teaching process and
We found that some experimental teachers spent less student learning outcomes. The studies we reviewed typically
time on development than we recommended. It is unfortu­ included a focus on instruction, management, and classroom
nate we did not work to improve that aspect of our inter­ climate. Our review also has continuing influence on the
vention program. Ironically, at a time when the field was field because it focused on generic aspects of effective teach­
achieving some understanding about how teachers’ actions ing—those that apply across many subjects, including math­
influenced learning (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986), teacher ematics, reading, science, and history, as well as teaching
educators, especially mathematics educators, were beginning contexts. Then and now, the potential audience for general
to argue strongly that due to theoretical conceptions of how aspects of teaching is significant.
students learn (i.e., they construct knowledge), teacher talk Research continues to show that active, explicit teaching
should be minimized, as though careful teaching was inher­ is associated with increased student learning. For examples
ently detrimental to students’ construction of knowledge of this research, see Cohen (2018), Cohen and Grossman
(see, for example, Draper, 2002; Grant, 1998). In the face of (2016), Connor et al. (2011), de la Paz and Graham (2002),
this mounting advocacy to reduce the teacher role in class­ Hamre and Pianta (2001), Hamre et al. (2013), Hughes et al.
room learning, I regret I was not a more active voice noting (2017), McLeskey and Brownell (2015), McLeskey et al.
the importance of teaching in student learning. (2018), Panayiotou et al. (2021), Patall et al. (2023),
Praetorius et al. (2018), Rastle et al. (2021), and Vaughn and
Fletcher (2021).
Dissertation bonus
Why do many teachers vary from year-to-year in effective­
ness? Several explanations are possible. For example, major Teacher effectiveness research moves on to new
events, requiring different amounts of time and energy, in directions
teachers’ lives vary from year to year. Further, classroom
Research on teaching from roughly the late 1980s to the
compositions may look the same on article, but subtle shifts
early 2000s moved from the study of whole class teaching
(e.g., one or two students) can increase or decrease the
and interest in generic variables to subject-specific teaching
degree of teaching difficulty. Teacher interviews might find
and subject-specific outcomes. In the 1990s, subject matter
that they see some compositions as more teachable or
specialists increasingly argued that student learning, espe­
enjoyable.
cially their understanding of content, was primarily deter­
mined by teachers’ subject matter knowledge (Shulman,
3
When done well, whole class teaching can meaningfully involve a 1986, 1987; Tobin & Garnett, 1988). The claim that teacher
heterogeneous group of students in ways that help students not only acquire
new knowledge but also to question that knowledge and to put it in a effectiveness was largely subject specific was accompanied by
personal perspective. Effective whole class teaching is replete with questions learning theorist arguments that students constructed know­
like, what does that remind you of? Given that we know this, what do you ledge and that teacher-directed instruction did not foster
think will happen next? Mary Beth, that is a good analysis, but is there
anything else we can add to that? What would you like to know now? Do student understanding (Draper, 2002; Grant, 1998). Issues of
you agree or not?. proclaimed teacher dominance were not new, as educators
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 125

had long contended that teachers talk too much (Bellack, Subject matter knowledge
1973; Cross & Nagle, 1969; Flanders, 1968; Stevens, 1912). Interest in differences in how subjects were taught soon led
However, these calls for more active student learning over­ to interest in teachers’ subject matter knowledge. Do teach­
lapped with policy makers’ growing dissatisfaction with nor­ ers know the subject well enough to teach it? Many educa­
mative classroom practice. Policy makers’ concerns about tors argued that more effective teachers would be those with
normative practice stemmed from the low performance of more subject matter knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987;
American students in international comparisons. In combin­ Tobin & Garnett, 1988). Because of the enthusiasm associ­
ation, these forces led to considerable interest in conceptual­ ated with obtaining new knowledge, some calls for more
izing effective teaching as subject specific and in exploring knowledge of subject matter were sufficiently strident as to
different learning formats such as small group earning and suggest that successful teaching was subject matter specific.
project-based learning because of perceived deficiencies in The argument that substantial subject matter knowledge
teaching practice. Also in the 1990s, federal funding, is a fundamental aspect of effective teaching appears logical
National Science Foundation, and other foundational grants in secondary education but less convincing in elementary
shifted research focus to explore subject-specific teaching schools. Elementary school teachers necessarily teach mul­
and small group instruction (see National Council of tiple subjects, and it is arguable that teacher relationships
Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1991). with students, and managerial and instructional skills are as,
if not more, important considerations than subject matter
knowledge.
Research on subject matter teaching becomes popular
How does one assess elementary teachers’ knowledge of
In the late 1980s, subject matter teaching research emerged.
subject matter? Teachers may know a great deal about
In the 1970s and 1980s, subject-specific teaching had
received scant attention. Susan Stodolsky (1988) gained multiplication, whereas their knowledge of division may be
much attention when she compared how social studies and more limited. Researchers can assess teachers’ aggregate
mathematics teachers taught. Stodolsky did not study subject knowledge of mathematics, but what does an average score
matter content (e.g., division with remainders or why state mean when some teachers fully understand multiplication
capital cities located where they did). Rather, she studied but have spotty knowledge of division or fractions? My
features of instructional variables and formats, such as feed­ comments are not intended to be unduly critical of research
back, pacing, and social interaction. She found that social on teachers’ knowledge of subject matter but rather, to sug­
studies teachers differed from mathematics teachers in using gest how complicated it is to measure teachers’ knowledge
some common classroom activities and structures and noted of mathematics and to suggest that teachers need other types
that social studies teachers were not as tied to whole group of knowledge as well.
teaching as were mathematics teachers. However, her data I present a few examples to illustrate the impact and lim­
also indicated that variation within both social studies teach­ its of this research. First, consider an excellent study con­
ers and mathematics teachers was considerable (i.e., some ducted by Hill et al. (2012). They found that teachers’ poor
social studies teachers and mathematics teachers taught the knowledge of mathematics predicted poor teaching.
same way). However, efforts to predict the quality of teaching for teach­
Just as I had overlooked between classroom differences in ers who possessed high or average mathematics knowledge
teachers in my dissertation, Stodolsky (1988) overlooked were less successful, as several teachers who scored average
within subject matter teacher differences in her study. on knowledge tests displayed strong instructional skills.
Further, she did not associate between subject matter teach­ Other research has shown that more knowledge of math­
ing differences with student outcomes (e.g., satisfaction or ematics does not lead to better teaching or more learning.
achievement). Her data showed that some teachers teach Pellegrini et al. (2021) completed a meta-analysis of 87 stud­
mathematics and social studies differently; unfortunately, ies, comparing the effectiveness of various programs
they provided no information about the impact of these dif­ designed to improve mathematics learning in elementary
ferences (i.e., are some types of social studies teaching more schools. They found that professional development programs
effective than others?). Nonetheless, Stodolsky’s findings that focused on helping students be active learners were
(1988) were an important demonstration that some teachers more successful in impacting student achievement than pro­
teach subjects differently. She was very successful in convey­ grams trying to improve teachers’ knowledge of
ing this and attracting other researchers to this topic. mathematics.
The work that followed generally continued to treat sub­ Garet et al. (2017) conducted a study that involved
ject-specific teaching as a new field and ignored earlier 93 hours of in-service for grades K–8 teachers to improve
research on the topic, such as Hughes (1959) and Good teachers’ understanding of mathematics content and peda­
et al. (1973). Although there had been some research exam­ gogy. They studied 165 teachers who were randomly
ining subject teaching, the new tradition did not draw upon assigned to conditions and found a small but significantly
this literature. This pattern—emerging paradigms that ignore negative impact of teacher subject matter knowledge on stu­
or reject previous traditions—is common in educational dent achievement. They also reported that several studies
research, as research interest typically gravitates toward the found significant positive impacts on teacher knowledge of
new, and uniqueness is valued over integration (Makel et al., mathematics, but this increased knowledge did not improve
2021; Plucker & Makel, 2021). student achievement. In another content area, Carlisle et al.
126 T. L. GOOD

(2011) found that teachers’ advanced knowledge of reading for understanding curriculum, see Cofr�e et al. (2019) and
did not influence students’ reading achievement. Zhang (2021).
Teachers need an adequate level of subject matter know­ A major problem inherent in teaching for understanding
ledge to teach well. Indeed, Grouws and I (Good & Grouws, is the tradeoff between the amount of content studied and
1979) had hypothesized that some teachers likely needed the degree to which the content is fully understood. Many
more subject matter knowledge to successfully teach the critics of the school curriculum claim it is a mile wide but
development portion of the lesson (i.e., the initial part of an inch deep. If this criticism is taken at face value, then to
the lesson where the focus in placed on the meaning of the increase depth of understanding, the breadth of the curricu­
content being studied). More recently, Hill and Papay lum must be reduced. Serious recommendations have occa­
(2022) discussed the need for, and benefits of, in-service sionally been advanced to reduce aspects of the curriculum
work with teachers that integrate considerations of day-to- (see National Education Commission on Time & Learning,
day teacher actions with teachers’ knowledge of subject mat­ 1994). However, contradictory pressures work to keep the
ter. I agree that combining knowledge of subject matter and existing curriculum in place.
knowledge of good teaching practice is a good strategy for To understand something requires that students possess
enhancing teaching, and more broadly, that integrating sufficient knowledge of discrete events to link and integrate
research knowledge across research traditions is important. them into understanding. For example, overall understand­
ing of what constituted successful Civil War battle strategies
is more likely obtained by general knowledge of several bat­
Teaching for understanding tles rather than the in-depth knowledge of one battle. Some
In the 1990s and since, there has been renewed emphasis might wonder if understanding successful Civil War battles
that teachers need to incorporate constructivists theories of is an important goal. What is worth understanding merits
students learning in their teaching. Constructivist concep­ serious attention. For example, even today, years after leav­
tions of teaching have been described differently, but one ing Longfellow Elementary School in Owensboro, Kentucky,
common expression is teaching for understanding. However, I still do not fully understand the implications of choosing
teaching for student understanding is not new. Long ago, to use a comma, a dash, a semicolon, or a colon. Should
Brownell (1945, 1947, 1956) argued for meaningful teaching. more time at Longfellow Elementary School have been spent
Instructively, Brownell lamented that meaningful teaching on understanding grammar? Perhaps, but what content
had been rediscovered. Seemingly, a need for meaningful would have received less coverage?
teaching is often rediscovered. Yes, helping students understand what they study is
Many teachers in the 1990s, and today, believe they teach important. Too much time in some classrooms is spent
for understanding and some do. To be fair to those urging doing work without understanding or valuing that work. To
more teaching for understanding, in too many classrooms, date, many attempts to teach for understanding implicitly,
there is undue attention to drill activities and narrow curric­ and sometimes explicitly, are intended to replace normative
ulums focused on teaching to the test. Yet, as Brownell teaching. This intent is illusionary if classroom sizes remain
(1945, 1947) contended, distinguishing meaningful from above 12 students and unless there is a more limited cur­
nonmeaningful learning is difficult. Indeed, meaningful riculum, or at least a solid consensus on those aspects of the
instruction, when it occurs, may be new and meaningful curriculum that merit full understanding. In my opinion,
learning for some learners, while simultaneously, for other primary students in elementary schools have limited physical
learners, it may be a review of previously acquired capacity for the extended debate and sustained dialogue that
understanding(s). many educators advocate. Some who argue for teaching for
Consider Nuthall’s Nuthall (1999) study of how students understanding appear to have an incomplete understanding
acquired knowledge during an integrated science and social of students and the complexities inherent in learning in
studies unit. He found that different students learn different crowded classrooms. Future research needs to consider how
things from the same classroom activities and that different to effectively blend normative practice and increased atten­
classroom activities allowed for different learning processes. tion to teaching for understanding.
His analysis of how individual students learned was fascinat­
ing. That students learned different things from the same Small group instruction in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the
lesson is important. In typical instructional practice, how 1990s, I studied small group instruction with colleagues at
does the teacher come to know the particularized nature of the University of Missouri. My research interest had shifted
what students learned, and given that students have acquired from the study of general teaching effectiveness to subject-
different knowledge from a unit, how does a teacher design specific aspects of effective teaching and to forms of instruc­
the next unit? What are the practical constraints on stu­ tion not seen in classrooms (e.g., consecutive classes devoted
dents? Can they move from one integrative unit to another to project work).
project requiring sustained thinking? Dealing with these This emerging interest by some researchers to transform
complexities of practice has been largely absent in theoret­ classroom instruction was congruent with beliefs of many
ical discussions of teaching for student understanding and policy makers who saw schools and teachers as deficient and
in empirical enactments of teaching for understanding. For that sweeping changes were required for all schools (i.e., sol­
more discussion of the difficulty of implementing a teacher utions to the instructional problems presumably existed
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 127

outside of extant teaching practices). A Nation at Risk were a successful combination of conceptual and procedural
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) learning in a cooperative learning experience.
warned that the American school system placed the United
States at risk militarily and economically. Despite the publi­
Good, McCaslin, and Reys: heterogenous small groups in
cation of books defending the public school (consider
mathematics
Berliner & Biddle, 1995), various reports and laws (e.g., No
Mary McCaslin, Barbara Reys, and I were funded by the
Child Left Behind [NCLB] in 2001) informed citizens that
National Science Foundation to conduct staff development
their schools were so deficient and flawed that they required work with teachers to increase their capacity for using small
transformative solutions. Many saw small group teaching as group instruction (for details, see Good et al., 1992). The
the solution. project involved the development of mathematical content
Like all teaching methods, cooperative small group learn­ and activities for small group lessons. Research within the
ing has a long history (see Deutsch, 1949; Homans, 1950; project was teacher-conducted action research projects and
Sherif et al., 1961), even though widespread interest in class­ was published in a special issue of The Elementary School
room use was relatively new. When I started this research, Journal (Llorens, 1994). Further, the project under Barbara’s
my expectations for the value of small group instruction leadership produced a diverse set of curriculum materials
were not high. Although I did not know the term social for small group mathematics learning. Mary’s work yielded
loafing at the time, I certainly had experienced it as both a a unique set of instruments for exploring students’ emotions
student and a faculty member. Despite these reservations, I and strategies as they learned in groups or alone (see
left this research area with more respect for the role that McCaslin, 2009; McCaslin & Burross, 2011; McCaslin et al.,
heterogenous small groups might play in improving norma­ 1994, 2016).
tive instruction. We concluded that small group instruction had strengths
With colleagues, I reviewed current literature and histor­ and weaknesses (for a discussion of advantages and disad­
ical cooperative learning research (e.g., Deutsch, 1949; vantages, see McCaslin & Good, 1996). We found that, in
Heider, 1958; Sherif et al., 1961). We found that earlier some formats, small heterogeneous work groups could be
works were more mindful of the difficulties embedded in used in ways to supplement and enhance whole class teach­
cooperative work than were contemporary authors. We also ing. However, we found little potential for using small group
conducted research to learn what teachers and administra­ work as a dominant stand-alone instructional format.
tors believed about small group instruction (Good et al.,
1988; Good et al., 1990). We conducted observational stud­
Lessons learned
ies to learn how teachers used small groups (Good et al.,
Observational/interview classroom research often leads to
1990). We were aware of then contemporary experimental
unanticipated findings. Mary McCaslin and I interviewed
work on small group instruction (e.g., Johnson et al., 1976; teachers to understand their beliefs about mathematics
Slavin, 1978), but these studies bypassed how teachers, on teaching, students, and students’ learning, and found that
their own initiative, used small group instruction. teacher expertise and interest fell into two distinct areas.
Our naturalistic study included three school districts Some teachers were primarily interested in mathematics
from a small suburban city, a large urban city, and a mid­ content and how mathematics should be taught. In contrast,
dle-sized city in three Midwestern states (Good et al., 1990). about the same number of other teachers focused more
Two-hundred and six entire mathematics periods were interest on who students were and how they felt about class­
observed, including 33 teachers in 21 schools. Data were col­ mates and their learning. Notably, all teachers had been
lected in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes of teachers nominated by their district mathematics coordinator as
who had reported frequent use of small group instruction effective mathematics teachers; our interviews suggested
on district surveys. there were at least two hypotheses about why/how that
Some teachers who reported frequent use of small group might happen (knowledge of students and knowledge of
instruction used it only occasionally, and they often inte­ teaching subject matter).
grated its use with whole class teaching. Some teachers used
two and three groups of students as a primary instructional
unit. One problem with two and three group teaching is Dissertation bonus
that teachers seldom have time to provide attention to indi­ Some teachers are more concerned with subject matter,
vidual students as they are so involved in teaching student others with students. Do these dispositions affect teaching
or learning? Research might profitably explore how teachers’
groups.
understanding of students as social beings affects teaching/
Teachers used one format that seemed effective; we called
learning.
this format work groups (see Good et al., 1989). The format
work group involved heterogeneous small student groups
working on a common task. Teachers used these formats to Small group instruction: some caveats
pursue both social and academic outcomes for students. I have reviewed small group literature selectively (for a com­
When teachers provided sufficient development of the math­ prehensive review, see Pellegrini et al., 2021; Slavin & Lake,
ematical ideas that student groups worked on, these formats 2008). I discussed this useful instruction model through my
128 T. L. GOOD

experiences with colleagues and teachers. We worked with Econometric research became salient to policy makers
talented and motivated teachers. In doing this research, I when researchers (e.g., Chetty et al., 2011; Hanushek, 2011)
realized again the need to differentiate the form of instruc­ translated teacher effects language (i.e., p-values, grade
tion and its quality. Use of small learning groups has varied equivalent scores) into economic gains (e.g., for students,
effects. Sometimes, small group instruction results in low increased annual earnings, and for society, huge gains in
achieving students being dominated by other students productivity). Econometric researchers predicted huge eco­
(Mulryan, 1992, 1995). However, under certain circumstan­ nomic gains if teaching was improved. However, this argu­
ces, small group instruction works well (Slavin & Madden, ment had two weaknesses.
2021). Small group instruction, like whole class teaching, First, extrapolations about future effects were based on
can be done well, indifferently, or poorly. The claims by questionable assumptions. One assumption was that students
many policy makers and some researchers that substantial would have an effective teacher every year. Second, these
gains in achievement would follow the use of small group studies provided no knowledge of how teachers obtained
instruction were not realized. Small group instruction has those effects. Thus, it was unknown if or how average teach­
not become a key aspect of normative instruction, perhaps ers could become effective teachers. In contrast, CPA studies
because policy makers wanted small group learning to play provided knowledge about teacher actions that could influ­
a bigger role in promoting student learning than it could. ence student learning, but unlike the econometric perspec­
tive, these studies had not translated teacher effect size into
language that policy makers valued; thus, it was largely
Teacher effectiveness: the econometric research ignored. Yet, the point remains that over several decades,
tradition research from two different traditions illustrated that some
teachers have more effects on student achievement than
Previously, I described the research Doug Grouws and I
others.
conducted to illustrate the type of evidence that supports
the claim that teachers influence student achievement. Our
work (and work by others, such as Anderson et al., 1979; School effects research and school reform failures
Berliner & Tikunoff, 1976; Evertson et al., 1983) showed
During the same time teacher effects research developed,
some of the ways teaching affected student achievement.
other researchers studied the effects of schools on student
This research has been referred to differently (i.e., direct
achievement. Although I did not conduct school effective­
instruction, active teaching, and more recently, explicit
ness research, I did review it (Good & Brophy, 1986; Good
teaching). Here, for the purpose of the following discussion,
& Weinstein, 1986). I discuss this research for two reasons.
I call this tradition the classroom practices approach (CPA),
First, it is important to note that school effects research has
because it includes classroom observational data. a long/productive history (Brookover et al., 1979; Lezotte,
There has also been extensive work by economists on 2011; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Reynolds et al., 2014;
teacher effectiveness. This work is commonly called the Rosenholtz, 1989; Rutter & Maughan, 2002; Rutter et al.,
econometric approach. Studies in this tradition do not 1979; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1985; Weber, 1971). This trad­
include observational data; however, econometric studies ition demonstrated that some schools enrolling similar stu­
include strong controls for numerous variables (e.g., student dents had more influence on student achievement than
prior achievement level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other schools (Nye et al., 2004) and has identified some of
so forth), making it likely that teaching can be associated the ways that more and less effective schools differ (e.g.,
with student achievement (Konstantopoulos, 2014; degree of teacher cooperation, school climate). Second, I
Konstantopoulos & Chung, 2011; Nye et al., 2004). note that policy makers also ignored this research base in
Nye et al. (2004) reviewed 18 econometric effects studies reforms recommended reforms such as A Nation at Risk
and concluded that teachers had notable effects on student (NCEE, 1983), Prisoners of Time (NECTL, 1994), and No
achievement. However, they found that effects were larger in Child Left Behind, upon which I elaborate below.
mathematics than in reading and larger in low socioeco­
nomic schools than in high socioeconomic schools. Nye
et al. (2004) reported that teachers account for 7–21 percent Policy makers’ use of research in school reform
of the variation in student achievement. Further, they indi­ How policy makers use, or do not use, research has long
cated that having a 75th percentile teacher (i.e., an effective been studied (Anderson & Biddle, 1991). Reviewing this lit­
teacher) compared to a 25th percentile teacher (i.e., a not as erature exceeds my reach, but that literature suggests that
effective teacher) resulted in student learning gains of about policy makers rarely use research, and when they do, it is
one-third of a standard deviation in reading and almost half often done selectively and sometimes to support positions
a standard deviation in mathematics. Clearly, teachers can already held (Newman et al., 2015; Weiss, 1979, 1980).
have important effects on student learning. Nye et al. (2004) Below, I offer evidence to support this argument.
reported that some schools affected student achievement A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) proclaimed that America
more than others but stressed that teachers accounted for was at risk economically due to its inadequate schools. First,
substantially more variance in student achievement than did the report lamented the shockingly poor performance of
schools. American students when compared with students elsewhere.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 129

Second, the report decried the decline within schools by Results vary in complex ways over time. However, two gen­
noting that high school scores on standardized tests were eral conclusions emerge from the myriad of results. First,
lower than 26 years earlier when Sputnik was launched. The U.S. specific results show huge variations from state to state,
report presented an undifferentiated problem—American with students in some states scoring considerably higher
schools were failing—and recommended the same solution than those in other states. There is typically a positive cor­
for all schools. Thus, “problems” were undifferentiated, and relation between state expenditures on education and higher
prescribed “solutions” were overgeneralized. student scores (Allegretto et al., 2022; Biddle, 1997). Second,
One core recommendation called for longer school days in international comparisons, American students are not
and years. Given research findings available then, this rec­ among the highest scoring countries, but some of the school
ommendation was problematic. Extant research showed that districts do perform at the highest level in the world, yet
teachers used time very differently (Berliner, 1979; Freeman other districts do considerably less well. To take but one
et al., 1983; Good et al., 1978). For example, some elemen­ example, in the Third International Mathematics and
tary school teachers allocated more time to teaching math­ Science Study (TIMSS), some American school districts, like
ematics than did other teachers. Further, during Naperville, Illinois, performed at the highest level (i.e., com­
mathematics instruction, some teachers allocated more time parable to the world class performance of Singapore). Yet,
to drill-like activities, whereas others allocated more time to other school districts, such as Miami-Dade County, Florida,
conceptual considerations. Distinct from how teachers allo­ performed at lower levels, more like other lower performing
cated instructional time, some teachers used time more countries (e.g., Turkey and Jordan), but still significantly
effectively (e.g., a higher percentage of their students were better than the lowest scoring nations (TIMSS, 1999).
engaged in the content and some teachers covered more Policy makers’ reforms inexplicably ignored these striking
curriculum topics) than other teachers (Berliner, 1979; disparities in school outcomes (for more discussion, see
Freeman et al., 1983; Good et al., 1978; Rosenshine, 1978). Bracey, 1996). Given these results, I wondered, why not
In addition, due to such varied teacher actions and deci­ leave Naperville alone and bring targeted reform to Dade
sions, some teachers had more impact on student achieve­ County?
ment than did others (Brophy & Good, 1986; Good & In the introduction to this article, I claimed that
Grouws, 1979). Given these conditions, simply increasing American policy makers have repeatedly failed to recognize
time in all schools would likely sustain, if not increase, stu­ the enormous variation in student achievement and teacher
dent achievement differences. effects across different school contexts. The data I just pre­
Reforms that followed continued to offer undifferenti­ sented provide clear evidence to support my conclusion that
ated problems and overgeneralized solutions. In 1994, the policy makers often fail to understand the sharp variation in
Prisoners of Time report used international data to claim student performance levels. This lack of understanding has
that American schools were failing. Germany and Japan allowed them to advance reforms based on undifferentiated
were highlighted for comparisons because their economies problems and overgeneralized solutions that do nothing to
were productive, and their students excelled on achieve­ improve student achievement. Further, policy makers’ undif­
ment tests. Attention focused on the finding that German ferentiated conceptions about student classroom learning
and Japanese schools allocated substantially more time to also mitigates against the funding of more nuanced forms of
core subjects (e.g., English, mathematics, and science) than research on teacher effectiveness.
in the U.S. Thus, Prisoners of Time argued for more time
in rigorously taught core subjects. Schools reacted in varied
ways. Some school districts ignored the advice. Some Title 1 and comprehensive school reform programs
embraced prioritizing core subjects, and in those schools, Eventually, programs offered more differentiated reforms.
they said goodbye to art, counseling, gym, homeroom, pep For example, Title 1 programs provided educational oppor­
rallies, recess, reasonable lunch periods, and safety educa­ tunities for low-income students. Funds went to schools, but
tion. Further, cross-national societal differences were the monies could only be spent on specific programs that
ignored (e.g., students’ after-school lives; McCaslin, 2006). involved only low-income students. This focus on children
American teenagers have multiple responsibilities. In other from under-resourced families was well intentioned; how­
countries, teenagers either attend school or work. In con­ ever, its enactment brought unintended consequences. For
trast, American teenagers led the world in the number of example, these programs necessarily required students to
students who both attend school and work (Nichols & miss regular classroom instruction to attend remedial
Good, 2004). instruction, leaving many to wonder if students lost more
academically when absent from class than they gained from
attending special programs.
Variation in the achievement of American students
Title 1 conceptions evolved, and concerns shifted from
It is beyond my scope to review the comparative perform­ under-resourced students and families to the under-
ance of American students over time or how students in the resourced schools that served them. In 1998 and 1999,
U.S. compared with those in other countries or the fairness Congress enacted new reform programs to enhance the per­
or the validity of the tests used to make those comparisons formance of low-income students and their schools. These
(for comment, see Bracey, 1996; Good & Braden, 2000). programs eventually became the Comprehensive School
130 T. L. GOOD

Reform (CSR) program. Now, federal funds could be allo­ Mary and I were disappointed that CSR funding forced
cated to the school to support all students’ learning. After schools to select one CSR program. The philosophy was that
ignoring research evidence for decades, federal policy rather than having pieces of various programs within the
embraced research and required schools to use research- school, a single program around which the whole school
based programs to obtain CSR funding. Mary McCaslin and was focused was more likely to bring coordinated and pro­
I entered CSR research right before the program was termi­ ductive results. However, our involvement in these settings
nated (I believe the timing was coincidental!). convinced us that students had various learning needs,
including both academic and social considerations. We felt
it would have been more strategic if schools could have
Comprehensive school reform: McCaslin and Good (2008) combined programs. For example, we felt that combining
With funding from the U.S. Department of Education, the Core Knowledge Program and the Outward Bound
Mary McCaslin and I, along with several talented graduate Program could be an effective strategy as it would allow
students, studied school reform in Arizona (see McCaslin schools to focus simultaneously on academic knowledge,
& Good, 2008). Schools could apply for CSR funds to self, and social outcomes.
implement school reform programs. These programs em­ Although CSR brought research to school reform, access
phasized whole school reform, but in ways that ultimately to this knowledge was highly controlled (e.g., pick one
converged to improve classroom teaching and student vendor program), and thereby, it continued the policy of
achievement. reducing, and eliminating local judgments in previous
In Arizona, 23 schools were awarded CSR funds. We col­ reforms, opportunities for schools to adjust reforms to their
lected data (i.e., principal interviews, repeated classroom context. Our sample included both urban and rural poverty
observation, and student surveys) in 21 of those schools. schools, and in our judgment, no single CSR program
Schools enrolled many students of poverty, with concen­ addressed the instructional needs in both types of schools.
trations ranging from 41 to 100 percent (average ¼ 73 per­ Rural poverty schools, especially, presented conditions not
cent). In virtually all schools, there was a wide range of fully considered in CSR programs.
ethnicity, including three different groups from four popula­
tions (i.e., Black people, American Indian people, Latino/a Comprehensive school reform ends, but new reform
people, or white people). In the typical school, the most emerges
prominent group was Latino/a. However, in four schools, Did CSR positively affect student achievement? In Arizona
white students were the majority, in two schools, American schools, this assessment was difficult to make as the state
Indian students were most prominent, and in one school, changed the state assessment tests mid-stream, and as
the greatest number of students were Black students. noted, teachers and students frequently changed schools.
Poverty and ethnicity were entwined. Evaluating this program nationally was also problematic
The distribution of students’ ethnicity made little differ­ because the levels of CSR implementation were often not
ence in how instruction unfolded. Poverty restricted student measured, and when they were measured, sharp differences
learning. Some students and teachers traveled long distances were found in the degree of program implementation.
to get to and from school. Students frequently lost teachers, Further, measures of student achievement varied in quality
and saw friends leave and new students enter their school (Herman, 1999). Even with these caveats, results were not
lives, creating loss and the need to adjust to strangers. In compelling. Herman (1999) examined CSR effects and
some schools, parents were unknown to teachers, but in found that only two of the 29 CSR programs had any effect
other cases, teachers were so aware of chaotic and dangerous on elementary school students in mathematics or reading.
home conditions that teachers taught children how to be Zhang et al. (2005) conducted a comprehensive review of
“unseen” in their homes during difficult times. Many chil­ CSR and found that student performance was no higher in
dren arrived at school tired and hungry. Poverty conditions mathematics or reading than students in comparison
hindered learning in all schools independent of which ethnic schools. Like previous reforms, CSR failed to achieve its
group was dominant at the school. intended goals.
Despite the pervading poverty, we found that most Yet reform continues. Legislation moved CSR funding to
teachers typically dealt with these difficult conditions in a investments in turn-around school reform in which poor
straightforward, typically pleasant, and usually predictable performing schools are taken over with, in some cases, prin­
way. Most teachers cared and worked hard. Students were cipals and teachers being removed from schools. Turn-
engaged productively in assigned tasks. This is not to sug­ around schools have taken many forms; however, a study
gest there were not areas we saw that could be improved, conducted by Mathematica (2017) of 480 of the lowest per­
as we did. For example, we suggested that perhaps too forming schools in the country found that these reform
much instruction was present oriented (i.e., what is, what models did not improve students’ reading or mathematic
do we know), and that some instructional focus could scores or high school graduation rates.
include future-oriented prediction (i.e., how can students Since A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, American
use this information, when will it be important, what else schools have periodically participated in massive, expensive,
do they need to know) to extend information toward and failed reforms. Regrettably, policy makers have not
understanding. learned from previous failures, and reform continues.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 131

Race to the top Policy makers thought it was easy to identify ineffective
teachers. After all, only two things were required: (1) look at
My next major project was an analysis of federal law called
students’ test scores; and (2) watch teachers teach. The “look
Race to the Top (RTTT) and its effects. Although I did not
at student scores” perspective ignored research showing that
conduct research on RTTT, I reviewed its implementation
linking students’ test scores to teaching was complex, and
and impact with Alyson Lavigne (Lavigne & Good, 2019).
that research revealed wide variations in teacher effects
RTTT was an abrupt shift in federal school reform. CSR
across years. Thus, teacher effectiveness based upon a single
reform focused only on low performing schools. RTTT
year might be erroneous (see Brophy, 1979; Emmer et al.,
moved “back to the future,” as it refocused reform—undif­
1979; Good & Grouws, 1979; Good & Lavigne, 2015;
ferentiated problems and general solutions—for all schools.
Konstantopoulos, 2014).
However, RTTT uniquely shifted accountability from schools
The “watch them teach” position was anchored in two
to teachers.
assumptions. First, that “good teaching” is known and that
RTTT was an enormous and expensive attempt to
improve teaching and learning (i.e., expenditures of $4.35 it is invariant across grade level and school subject. Research
billion). It involved competition among states, with winning has not yielded such knowledge, and much remains to be
states promising to implement what the law regarded as learned about what constitutes effective teaching in different
good teaching. The competition was not for better plans for contexts and for different types of learners (Good &
improving teaching, but rather, the competition focused on Lavigne, 2017). Second, there was a belief that principals
how well states could implement what RTTT defined as have the capacity, or could quickly obtain it, to identify
good teaching. RTTT intended to reward good teachers and poor teachers but were unwilling to do so. Policy makers
remove or help poor teachers. RTTT demanded that teach­ believed this, despite abundant evidence (see Lavigne &
ers be evaluated on how they taught and how their students Good, 2019) to show that principals’ training focused on
performed on standardized tests. Policy makers presumably managing the building (e.g., maintenance, safety), budgets,
knew that teachers impacted student achievement, and they transportation, food services, and parent/community out­
believed that how effective teachers taught was known. reach. Most programs did not provide principals with skills
Research has shown that teachers varied in their effective­ for instructional observation and feedback. Although RTTT
ness for decades (Good & Grouws, 1979; Hattie, 2003; mandated that principals be trained to identify poor teachers
Konstantopoulos, 2014; Nye et al., 2004); however, this (see Stecher et al., 2018 for a discussion of the training),
research had not been used by policy makers. Why now? subsequent evidence showed that principals were unable or
Why RTTT used teaching effects research likely involves unwilling to identify poor teachers. Thus, RTTT did not
reasons that are numerous, complex, and possibly unknow­ identify many inadequate teachers.
able. I hypothesize that policy makers focused accountability The belief that replacing poor teachers would be easy is
on teachers for two reasons. First, the econometric tradition problematic. Reformers assumed that many teachers who
translated differential teacher effects in terms of economic were not teaching would teach if jobs became available. This
gains. The effects of having effective teachers were extrapo­ assumption ignored the possibility that most teachers who
lated into the future, and some touted the tremendous eco­ were not teaching were unwilling to return to the classroom
nomic gains that would occur if poor performing teachers given inadequate pay or difficult working conditions. The
were replaced. Hanushek (2011) argued that if the bottom reluctance of qualified teachers to teach for low pay appears
five to eight percent of teachers were replaced with even to be reflected in the current teacher shortage (National
average teachers, U.S. economic output would increase by Center for Education Statistics, 2022a, 2022b). A related
$112 trillion. Chetty et al. (2011) estimated that replacing assumption was that replacement teachers, teaching in the
teachers in the bottom five percent of teacher effectiveness same classroom conditions, would be more effective than
with an average teacher would increase students’ lifetime the teachers they replaced. This remains untested as RTTT
income by more than $250,000. The putative economic replaced only a few poor teachers.
impact of replacing poor teachers was highlighted in the Given these flawed assumptions (and others; see Lavigne
media, and these predicted economic gains likely sparked & Good, 2019), it is not surprising RTTT failed. One com­
policy makers’ interest in teacher reform. prehensive analysis of RTTT was conducted by researchers
Concomitantly, there was widespread knowledge that from the RAND Corporation and the American Institutes
school principals rated most teachers as satisfactory, thereby for Research (Stecher et al., 2018). That report discussed
negating the opportunity to accrue predicted economic gains RTTT legislation, the competition for funding, the winning
by removing ineffective teachers. Weisberg et al. (2009) and losing states, the level of program implementation, what
reported that roughly 99 percent of teachers were rated sat­ teachers thought about the program, and the effects of the
isfactory or higher. They lamented that effective teachers program on different types of learners. These researchers
went unrecognized, whereas low performing teachers were concluded that RTTT failed to: improve teaching, remove
rated satisfactorily. Media accounts of this research may substantial numbers of poor teachers, increase student
have led policy makers to conclude that schools were replete achievement, improve graduation rates, or reduce the
with poor teachers. Erroneous assumptions about the ease of achievement gap between marginalized and non-marginal­
identifying and replacing poor teachers went unexamined. ized students.
132 T. L. GOOD

RTTT spent billions of dollars and wasted countless earlier). These general prescriptions poorly fit the needs of
amounts of time for teachers/principals. This reform ignored many schools.
much research, such as the voluminous research on teacher I hypothesize two additional “reform errors.” First, I sug­
expectations. Further, RTTT policy put teachers in competi­ gest many policy makers think teaching is easy and if teach­
tion with one another despite research showing the advan­ ers worked harder, student achievement would increase.
tages that accrue when teachers share knowledge (e.g., Such thinkings leads to “one fix” thinking rather than seeing
Rosenholtz, 1989). In addition to lost resources and oppor­ change as difficult and requiring complex, incremental pro­
tunities, RTTT may have had additional costs, including the gress. I content that significant improvement for many stu­
possibility that it reduced public confidence in teachers. dents involves multiple strategies that evolve within and
across years. For example, addressing the algebra problem
successfully would require, in some school settings, address­
Have unsuccessful school reforms affected citizens’
ing the “fraction/ratio problem” in earlier grades. Another
perceptions of teachers?
error is that many reformers confuse the form of instruction
Barnum (2023) noted that 2023 survey results show the per­ with its quality. For example, because much of normative
ceived value of public schools continues to reflect the long- teaching occurs in whole class settings, it is easy for policy
standing divide between citizens who do or do not have makers, and others, to conclude that the core of the learning
children in public schools. The most recent Gallup results problem is whole class teaching and, thus, a need for new
indicate that roughly 80 percent of parents were satisfied or instructional formats. The “problem” conception not only
partly satisfied with the schools their children attend. affects recommended reforms but also how governments
However, Barnum also reports that recent surveys agree that and foundations invest in basic research and development.
large numbers of citizens who do not have children in To the extent my hypothesis is correct, those who fund edu­
schools report considerable dissatisfaction with public cational research are more likely to invest in “new” solutions
schools (i.e., sometimes as high as 50 percent). Supporters of rather than in integrative research that attempts to improve
public schools suggest that citizens without children in normative practice.
schools have less knowledge about school quality and are Although individual researchers can, and do, pursue
biased by negative media reports. Those who doubt the topics they believe are interesting and important, large pro­
quality of public schools suggest that parents are biased (i.e., grammatic research over time requires government or sup­
dissonance effects) and note that public schools are losing port from foundations. Thus, funders have much
students to home schooling, charter public schools, and pri­ influence—likely more than realized—over what research
vate schools (NCES, 2022a, 2022b; Rock, 2023). questions are addressed. I suggest that funding patterns of
Irrespective of one’s perception of the quality of educational policy makers, heavily favor innovative and new
American teachers, school stoppages during the COVID-19 directions that limit opportunities for sustained inquiry over
pandemic provided compelling evidence of the importance time. Other researchers may reach different conclusions
of teachers and in-class instruction on student learning. For about the effects of funders on what research direction
example, Goldhaber et al. (2022) found that remote instruc­ receives funding. However, I submit that if educational psy­
tion increased achievement gaps by race and poverty. In chologists want to impact policy, they need to be concerned
schools that continued to provide in-person instruction, about how research funds and opportunity decisions are
mathematics gaps did not widen and reading gap increases made. Educational psychologists have long been concerned
were much less. The damaging effects of the elimination about how research is used, or not. I think it time to con­
and reduction of face-to-face instruction were seen in other sider what research gets funded. Conducting policy relevant
countries as well (Gambi & De Witte, 2023; Steiner, 2023). research is not simply a decision of researchers; it also
requires the conditions necessary to foster it.
Reconceptualizing reform
Federal and other major educational reforms have failed Considerations for future research
(Cuban, 2020; Elmore, 2004; Palmer, 2016; Payne, 2008;
Sarason, 1993). I have argued that this failure is because Research on teaching has been productive. It has identified
reformers define the educational achievement “problem” as useful conceptions and descriptions of teaching associated
being widespread, if not universal, across public schools. with student learning. This research has yielded concepts,
This conception is wrong because student performance findings, and language that can be used for analyzing and
varies markedly from state to state, from school district to improving teaching. It does not yield simple answers, as
school district, and from school to school. Policy makers’ research must be integrated with intended outcomes and
inability to recognize the striking differences in student per­ particular contexts (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Good &
formance within and across American schools has led to a Brophy, 1973; Good & Lavigne, 2017; Witter & Hattie,
second reform problem. Reformers’ recommend, sometimes 2023). Despite some success, research contributions to prac­
mandate, the same reforms for all schools (e.g., a longer tice have been less than many anticipated. I offer a few con­
school day/year, or suggestions to start algebra later or siderations for enhancing research on teaching.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 133

Teaching is difficult: researchers must help policy makers if traditions are abandoned, it should be with evidence, not
understand the complexities of classroom teaching assertion.
Jackson (1968) depicted the complexity of life in classrooms.
Interactions occur rapidly, and much classroom behavior is
ambiguous and must be interpreted by teachers and students, Integrate research across the teacher effectiveness and
and also by classroom observers as I found in my dissertation teacher expectations traditions
(Good, 1968, 1970). The rapid pace of interactions and the Research in education is often conducted in paradigms that
simultaneous occurrence of events makes it difficult for teach­ are isolated from other traditions. Teacher effectiveness and
ers to be aware of all classroom events, and some teachers teacher expectations research traditions have largely devel­
navigate classroom situations more adaptively than do other oped as parallel traditions. Both literatures have explored
teachers. Yet helping teachers become more adaptive is not links between teacher actions and improved student achieve­
simple, in part because the complexity of classrooms requires ment (Good & Grouws, 1979; Rubie-Davies et al., 2015).
that teachers apply their instructional, motivational, and However, these literatures have taken different approaches
group management knowledge, as well as their understand­ in pursuing related goals. Perhaps it is time to integrate
ings of students, to constantly evolving situations. these literatures.
Unfortunately, most policy makers and too many educa­ Teacher expectations researchers have placed most inter­
tors believe that teaching is simple and that changes can est on how teachers develop their expectations for students,
improve classrooms quickly and substantially. Researchers their accuracy, and their impact on student outcomes.
and educators have long known that substantial change is Historically, they have placed considerably less attention on
difficult, even when competent teachers voluntarily want to how teachers communicate those beliefs in classroom
change/improve (Withall, 1956). Beliefs that teaching is sim­ actions. In contrast, teacher effectiveness researchers have
ple, and that many poor teachers populate classrooms, are largely ignored teachers’ conceptions of learners and their
wrong and must be extinguished. Educational psychologists potential, and they have allocated much time to examining
and other social scientists have a major task in helping pol­ teacher interactions with students. However, teacher effect­
icy makers understand classroom complexity, as well as how iveness researchers have placed attention on teacher interac­
to use classroom research. However, until policy makers tions with the class, and when observational data are
appreciate the complexity of teaching, the difficulty of collected, teacher expectations researchers have primarily
meaningful change, and the need for programmatic research, studied teacher interactions with individual students. Both
they will continue to offer flawed policy solutions. traditions have primarily relied on standardized tests as
ways to characterize successful teaching and learning,
although sometimes grudgingly. Given similar goals but dif­
Teachers have good knowledge of students and fering research processes, might some opportunities exist for
classrooms informative integration of these two traditions?
Although the role of teachers as researchers and their active
involvement in research has been mentioned in the past,
this idea has never gained wide traction from researchers. Two dissertation bonuses
Perhaps it is time for policy makers to fund such research First, a synthetic review combining across traditions could
and development efforts, as researchers appear to be unlikely consolidate knowledge of actions that support or hinder stu­
to develop such partnerships without some nudging. dent learning, variables with conflicting results, variables not
Teachers have unique skills and insights that could be better studied, and promising directions for new research. Second,
utilized by the research community, both to understand and teacher expectations researchers have attended more to stu­
to improve classroom life. dents—how they see and interpret teacher actions. In con­
trast, the teacher effectiveness literature has examined what
teachers do to students. Analysis of the role students play in
Bridge established and emerging paradigms each tradition might clarify and expand current conceptions,
Teacher effectiveness research often moves abruptly from including implicit ones, of classroom learning.
topic to topic. Bringing new lines of inquiry to the study of
teaching is healthy, adaptive, and essential. However, in
“weeding the garden,” it seems useful to keep the healthy Pilot studies and incremental change
plants. Eradicating everything from a preceding paradigm At the heart of wasteful federal reform is a belief that teach­
seems unproductive and may be symbolically destructive. ing is easy and if teachers worked harder, student achieve­
Unnecessarily discordant and exaggerated claims are apt to ment would increase. Much time/money has been
discourage policy makers’ use of research or encourage them squandered because policy makers call for sweeping solu­
to pick whatever research supports their position. tions to ill-defined problems. Perhaps these monies might
It seems that reform movements emphasizing the unique­ have had a more productive effect if they had been invested
ness of the new tradition and ignoring or attacking current in a myriad of studies intended to clarify problems in spe­
practice would be more successful if they placed more atten­ cific contexts.
tion on integration and consolidation of knowledge. Of I understand that innovators sometimes rush to solutions
course, paradigms may be unproductive or wrong. However, when they perceive unproductive or harmful practices. Yet,
134 T. L. GOOD

classroom interventions can leave extant problems Research has identified some effective teaching practices
unchanged, partly improved for some, worsened for some, The field has also gained knowledge about how teacher
or improved or worsened for all. The odds that interven­ actions and classroom practices influence student outcomes.
tions will bring success for all are not overwhelmingly posi­ Brophy and Good (1986) synthesized research knowledge
tive. Federal reforms fail for the same reasons other projects about how effective teachers teach to enhance student
fail, including the failure to plan and the unproductive rush achievement. Despite its usefulness, this research was limited
to action (Flyvbjerg & Gardner, 2023). in several ways: it was primarily conducted in elementary
schools, it generally defined effectiveness as student growth
on standardized achievement tests, and it studied teachers
Sustained research who were using whole class teaching methods.
Incremental change approaches need to be continued over These limitations encouraged researchers to bring new
time. Research to date has been time bound. Even program­ questions to research on effective teaching, including subject
matic research ends (e.g., Good et al., 1978; Rubie-Davies & matter specific teaching, teacher subject matter knowledge,
Rosenthal, 2016). Perhaps it is time to engage in research small group learning, constructivist conceptions of learning
that builds on successful interventions that identify progress including teaching for understanding, and project-based
for some, perhaps many, but not all students and that con­ learning. It is important to note that new forms of teaching,
tinues to modify and improve outcomes for students. as well as related research on its effectiveness, were intended
Research has suggested an intervention that is successful for to reduce if not replace normative teaching, not to supple­
some may be the best we can do. Improvement may require ment it. To date, the study of variation in normative prac­
multiple interventions. tice has yielded more useful information than traditions
attempting to replace it. Even with its inherent weaknesses,
evidence continues to show that active or explicit whole
Teacher effectiveness research: some concluding thoughts class teaching is an effective strategy. Over time, much more
In the 1960s, citizens, policy makers, and researchers research on teacher effects has occurred, and this evidence
believed that teachers had little impact on student achieve­ shows that the type of teaching Jere Brophy and I linked to
ment, but Americans were largely satisfied with teachers. increases in student achievement are applicable to a wide
Many wanted to teach, and teachers had some control over range of teaching context (Panayiotou et al., 2021;
the curriculum they taught. Today, beliefs about teachers Praetorius et al., 2018; Witter & Hattie, 2023). Thus, the
and their impact on student achievement have dramatically study of normative teaching has, and will continue to be
changed. Citizens are less satisfied with teachers. Many useful.
reject teaching as a career and, accordingly, many commun­
ities face acute teacher shortages. Nonetheless, there are rea­
sons for optimism regarding teaching, teaching expectations Research on teaching has been misused by policy makers:
research, and teaching effectiveness research. can they be educated?
Major educational reforms have ignored or misused
research. In the federal reform RTTT, policy makers found
Research has demonstrated that teachers impact research; unfortunately, they used it selectively and misused
achievement the research they highlighted. Despite its potential for
Conceptions of teacher effects moved from research that improving practice, the impact of research on teaching has
concluded teachers did not impact student achievement been minimal. The research that teachers make a difference
(Coleman et al., 1966) to fledgling conceptions that teachers in student achievement, no matter how filtered or misunder­
likely impact student achievement (Good et al., 1975) to stood, has gained the attention of policy makers and the
compelling evidence that some teachers teaching similar stu­ media. Unfortunately, as Bruce Biddle, Jere Brophy, and I
dents under similar circumstances have more impact than forecast in 1975 (Good et al., 1975), the knowledge that
do other teachers (Good & Grouws, 1979). By at least 1986, teachers vary in their effectiveness has been misused. Many
there was clear evidence that some teachers had more other types of research have been misused. Accordingly,
impact on student achievement than did other teachers social scientists need to help policy makers better under­
(Brophy & Good, 1986). stand how research funds have been used and to realize the
Researchers in the econometrics tradition provided strong limited impact that reform efforts have had. How to do this
evidence that naturally occurring variation in teaching is not immediately clear. As a starting point, social scientists
showed that some teachers impacted student achievement need to be proactive when simplistic reforms are first dis­
more than other teachers (Konstantopoulos & Chung, 2011; cussed. The research community typically decries the reform
only after it has been implemented.
Nye et al., 2004) and that teacher effects on students were
sufficiently large to have policy implications (Chetty et al.,
2014a, 2014b). Evidence from two different research tradi­ The quality of American teachers
tions—classroom process and econometric—provided prima For decades, teachers have been treated by policy makers as
facie evidence that teachers differentially impact student below average. Arguably, aspects of normative teaching have
achievement. had a more positive impact on student achievement than
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 135

the strategies that attempted to replace it. Classroom References

instruction can be improved significantly. However, individ­
Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom
ual capacity varies across teachers, as does what is needed to talk. Dialogos.
improve classroom instruction. Thus, homogeneous solu­ Allegretto, S., Garc�ıa, E., & Weiss, E. (2022). Public education funding
tions are not helpful in addressing heterogeneous problems. in the U.S. needs an overhaul. Economic Policy Institute.
Unsuccessful teachers exist, although in most classrooms, Allensworth, E. M., & Clark, K. (2020). High school GPAs and ACT
scores as predictors of college completion: Examining assumptions
good things happen and a more productive approach would about consistency across high schools. Educational Researcher, 49(3),
be to build upon what works and to consider what teachers 198–211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20902110
believe they need. American Psychological Association. (2023). High-quality child care
Although I have observed in more classrooms than most, contributes to later success in science, math: Children with caregivers
I find it difficult to generalize about teaching. If researchers who provide warmth, cognitive stimulation do better in STEM sub­
jects in high school. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/
or policy makers do not spend much time in classrooms, releases/2023/06/230615105245.htm
those classrooms look similar, but they are not. Researchers Anderson, D. S., & Biddle, B. J. (Eds.). (1991). Knowledge for policy:
often discuss between-classroom differences such as between Improving education through research. Falmer Press.
those containing students from low versus high income Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experi­
mental study of effective teaching in first grade reading groups. The
homes. However, the teaching of students from low-income
Elementary School Journal, 79(4), 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1086/
homes can vary markedly from one classroom to another 461151
even in the same school. Andrews, D. J. C., Brown, T., Castro, E., & Id-Deen, E. (2019). The
Mary McCaslin and I spent considerable time in low impossibility of being “perfect and white”: Black girls’ racialized and
achieving schools, and there were problems (McCaslin & gendered schooling experiences. American Educational Research
Journal, 56(6), 2531–2572. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219849392
Good, 2008). However, we saw much to build on, and we Andrews, D. C., & Gutwein, M. (2017). “Maybe that concept is still
found many good teachers in these challenging conditions, with us”: Adolescents’ racialized and classed perceptions of teachers’
contrary to the beliefs of many policy makers. I submit that expectations. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/
if policy makers continue to treat American teachers as below 10.1080/15210960.2016.1263960
Aulia, F., Faizata, B. N., Utami, W. B., & Rokhman, M. S. (2020).
average, they may create a self-fulfilling prophecy effect.
Implementation of Missouri Mathematics Project learning model on
mathematical learning achievement reviewed from prior knowledge.
IndoMath: Indonesia Mathematics Education, 3(1), 20–27. https://
doi.org/10.30738/indomath.v3i1.5836
Teachers and society can make a difference in Balladares, J., Miranda, M., & Cordova, K. (2023, July 6). The effects of
improving student capacity and outcomes board games on math skills in children attending prekindergarten
and kindergarden: A systematic review. Early Years, 1–25. https://
Knowledge of differences in teaching effectiveness is impor­ doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2023.2218598
tant, and sharing information about effective practices can Barber, T. X., & Silver, M. J. (1968). Fact, fiction, and the experimenter
have meaningful effects. Teachers alone cannot compensate bias effect. Psychological Bulletin, 70(6, Pt.2), 1–29. https://doi.org/
for the loss of educational opportunities that too many chil­ 10.1037/h0026724
Barnum, M. (2023). Politicians and pundits say parents are furious with
dren experience. Vast differences in content knowledge and
schools. Polls say otherwise. Chalkbeat. https://www.chalkbeat.org/
school-related skills (e.g., how to wait, when and how to ask 2023/7/25/23806247/parents-schools-covid-anger-polling-satisfaction
for help, how to cope with failure) cannot be addressed by Bellack, A. A. (1973). The language of the classroom. Columbia
teachers alone. Although some classrooms are more success­ University.
ful than others, it is critical to understand that the large dif­ Bergold, S., & Steinmayr, R. (2023). Teacher judgments predict devel­
opments in adolescents’ school performance, motivation, and life
ferences in learning skills among children when they enter satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(4), 642–664.
school are not due to teachers or schools. These gaps in https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000786
learning skills are due to a society that allows unconscion­ Berliner, D. C. (1979). Tempus educare. In P. L. Peterson & H. J.
able disparities in economic and social resources to exist. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and impli­
cations (pp. 120–135). McCutchan Publishing Corp.
Our acute disappointment with school outcomes will con­
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis. Myths,
tinue until the vast differences in educational opportunities fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Basic Books.
afforded to students who come from low and high income Berliner, D. C., & Tikunoff, W. J. (1976). The California beginning
homes are reduced before students enter school. What teacher evaluation study: Overview of the ethnographic study.
remains to be seen is if Americans care enough about the ill Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002248717602700107
effects of poverty on too many of its young students and on Biddle, B. J. (1997). Foolishness, dangerous nonsense, and real corre­
its educational systems to direct sufficient funds to provided lates of state differences in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1),
needed health care and research that helps young children 8–13.
become school ready. Bracey, G. W. (1996). International comparisons and the condition of
American education. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 5–11. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1176722
Bradatan, C. (2023). In praise of failure: Four lessons in humility.
Disclosure statement Harvard University Press.
Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). perceptions of differential teacher treatment as moderators of
136 T. L. GOOD

teacher expectation effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), R., Scholz-Bright, R., Welch, A. T., Wolff, A. G., Zhou, A., &
236–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.2.236 Nyhan, B. (2019). Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings
Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social
(1979). School social systems and student achievement: Schools can media. Political Behavior, 42(4), 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/
make a difference. J. F. Bergin Publishers. s11109-019-09533-0
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Cofr�e, H., N� ~ez, P., Santib�an
un ~ez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., &
Educational Psychology, 71(6), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’
0022-0663.71.6.733 understanding of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3–5),
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differ­ 205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3
ential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some Cohen, J. (2018). Practices that cross disciplines?: Revisiting explicit
behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365–374. instruction in elementary mathematics and English language arts.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908 Teaching and Teacher Education, 69(1), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: 1016/j.tate.2017.10.021
Causes and consequences. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cohen, J., & Grossman, P. (2016). Respecting complexity in measures
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student of teaching: Keeping students and schools in focus. Teaching and
achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on Teacher Education, 55, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.
teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). Macmillan. 01.017
Brownell, W. A. (1945). When is arithmetic meaningful? Journal of Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood,
Educational Research, 38(7), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/ A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational
00220671.1945.10881369 opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Brownell, W. A. (1947). The place of meaning in the teaching of arith­ Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M.,
metic. The Elementary School Journal, 47(5), 256–265. https://doi. Underwood, P. S., Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C.
org/10.1086/462322 (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics x instruction
Brownell, W. A. (1956). Meaning and skill—Maintaining the balance. interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiat­
Arithmetic Teacher, 3(4), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.3.4. ing literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221.
0129 https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.1
Bustamante, A. S., Bermudez, V. N., Ochoa, K. D., Belgrave, A. B., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher
Vandell, D. L. (2023). Quality of early childcare and education pre­ expectation communication and performance influence. Review of
dicts high school STEM achievement for students from low-income Educational Research, 49(3), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.3102/
backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 59(8), 1440–1451. https:// 00346543049003389
doi.org/10.1037/dev0001546 Cooper, H. M., Findley, M., & Good, T. (1982). Relations between stu­
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T., Huber, J., dent achievement and various indexes of teacher expectations.
Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 577–579. https://doi.org/10.
Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., 1037/0022-0663.74.4.577
Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in
the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science the expectation communication process. Longman Publishing Group.
between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. Cooper, H. M., & Tom, D. Y. H. (1984). Teacher expectation research:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z A review with implications for classroom instruction. The
Carlana, M. (2019). Implicit stereotypes: Evidence from teachers’ gen­ Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1086/
der bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1163–1224. https:// 461393
doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz008 Copur-Gencturk, Y., Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., & Thacker, I.
Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., & Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ (2019). Teachers’ bias against the mathematical ability of female,
knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading Black and Hispanic students. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 30–43.
achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19890577
289–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.539297 Craig, M. (2023). Board games improve math skills in young children.
Carpenter, T. P., Dossey, J. A., & Koehler, J. L. (2004). Classics in News-Medical.Net. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230707/
mathematics education research. National Council of Teachers of Board-games-improve-math-skills-in-young-children.aspx
Mathematics. Cross, J. S., & Nagle, J. M. (1969). Teacher talks too much!. English
Carter, P. L., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M. I., & Pollock, M. (2017). You Journal, 58(9), 1362–1365. https://doi.org/10.2307/811922
can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing Cuban, L. (2020). Chasing success and confronting failure in American
racial discipline disparities. Urban Education, 52(2), 207–235. public schools. Harvard Education Press.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350 de Boer, H., Timmermans, A. C., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2018).
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expecta­
impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in tions and student achievement: Narrative review and meta-analysis.
adulthood. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers, Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 180–200. https://doi.
126, 1593–1660. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17699 org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550834
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014a). Measuring the de la Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills,
impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher-value-added esti­ and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms.
mates. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593–2632. https://doi. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593 1037/0022-0663.94.4.687
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014b). Measuring the DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Bindra, V. G. (2022). How does teacher bias
impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes influence students?: An introduction to the special issue on teachers’
in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. implicit attitudes, instructional practices, and student outcomes.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 Learning and Instruction, 78(2), 101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chin, M. J., Quinn, D. M., Dhaliwal, T. K., & Lovison, V. S. (2020). learninstruc.2021.101523
Bias in the air: A nationwide exploration of teachers’ implicit racial Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human
attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Relations, 2.2(2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204
Researcher, 49(8), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937240 Doja, A., Bould, M. D., Clarkin, C., Eady, K., Sutherland, S., & Writer,
Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J. A., Forstner, S., Glance, J., Green, G., H. (2016). The hidden and informal curriculum across the con­
Kawata, A., Kovvuri, A., Martin, J., Morgan, E., Sandhu, M., Sang, tinuum of training: A cross-sectional qualitative study. Medical
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 137

Teacher, 38(4), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015. Women Quarterly, 37(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/036168

1073241 4312464203
Donaldson, M., Benmoussa, S., & Hwang, M. (2023, July 19). Oopses Giroux, H. A., & Penna, A. N. (1979). Social education in the class­
on the page: A content analysis of children’s picturebooks featuring room: The dynamics of the hidden classroom. Theory & Research in
mistakes. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10. Social Education, 7(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1979.
1007/s10643-023-01546-z 10506048
Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and Goldhaber, D., Kane, T. J., McEachin, A., Morton, E., Patterson, T., &
literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math Staiger, D. O. (2022). The educational consequences of remote and
classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520–529. hybrid instruction during the pandemic. American Economic Review
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. Holt, (in press).
Rinehart & Winston. Good, T. L. (1970). Which pupils do teachers call on? The Elementary
Dusek, J. B. (1975). Do teachers bias children’s learning? Review of School Journal, 70(4), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/460564
Educational Research, 45(4), 661–684. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations:
00346543045004661 Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4),
Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher experiences: A 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800406
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 327–346. Good, T. L. (2011). Reflections on editing “The Elementary School
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.3.327 Journal” in an era of constant school reform. The Elementary School
Ebmeier, H., & Good, T. L. (1979). The effects of instructing teachers Journal, 112(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/660681
about good teaching on the mathematics achievement of fourth Good, T. L., Biddle, B., & Brophy, J. (1975). Teachers make a difference.
grade students. American Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 1–16. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312016001001 Good, T. L., & Braden, J. S. (2000). Charter schools: Another reform
Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro- failure or a worthwhile investment? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 745.
analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54(3), Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1970). Teacher-child dyadic interactions:
151–162. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112327 A new method of classroom observation. Journal of School
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, Psychology, 8(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(70)
and performance. 90032-4
Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1979). Stability of teacher Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher
effects in junior high classrooms. American Educational Research attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(6), 617–624. https://
Journal, 16(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312016001071
doi.org/10.1037/h0034069
Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., Sanford, J. P., & Clements, B. S. (1983). Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1973). Looking in classrooms. Harper and
Improving classroom management: An experiment in elementary
Row.
school classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 173–188.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1974). Changing teacher and student
https://doi.org/10.1086/461354
behavior: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational
Evertson, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and
Psychology, 66(3), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036499
method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1986). School effects. In M. C. Wittrock
(3rd ed., pp. 163–213). Macmillan.
(Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed.). Macmillan.
Faradillah, A., & Purwitasari, A. (2022). The effectiveness of the
Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-prod­
Missouri Mathematics Project model on creative thinking ability
uct study in fourth-grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of
and self-efficacy. JIPM (Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika),
Teacher Education, 28(3), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248
11(1), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.25273/jipm.v11i1.13161
717702800310
Flanagan, J. C. (1960). Tests of general ability. Science Research
Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri Mathematics
Associates.
Flanders, N. A. (1968). Interaction analysis and inservice training. Effectiveness Project: An experimental study in fourth-grade class­
Journal of Experimental Education, 37(1), 126–133. https://doi.org/ rooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3), 355–362. https://
10.1080/00220973.1968.11011099 doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.3.355
Flyvbjerg, B., & Gardner, D. (2023). How big things get done: The sur­ Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Beckerman, T. M. (1978). Curriculum
prising factors that determine the fate of every project from home ren­ pacing: Some empirical data in mathematics. Journal of Curriculum
ovations to space exploration, and everything in between. Penguin Studies, 10(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027780100106
Random House. Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Mason, D. A. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs
Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., about small-group instruction in elementary school mathematics.
Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 2–15. https://
to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.21.1.0002
Psychology, 117(3), 522–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000160 Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., Mason, D. A., Slavings, R. L., & Cramer,
Freeman, D. J., Kuhs, T. M., Porter, A. C., Floden, R. E., Schmidt, K. (1990). An observational study of small-group mathematics
W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a instruction in elementary schools. American Educational Research
national curriculum in elementary school mathematics? The Journal, 27(4), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027004755
Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1086/ Good, T. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2015). Issues of teacher performance sta­
46329 bility are not new: Limitations and possibilities. Education Policy
Gambi, L., & De Witte, K. (2023). The uphill battle: The amplifying Analysis Archives, 23, 2. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1916
effects of negative trends in test scores, COVID-19 school closures Good, T. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2017). Looking in classrooms. Routledge.
and teacher shortages. Discussion Paper Series DPS23.01. Good, T. L., McCaslin, M., & Reys, B. J. (1992). Investigating work
Department of Economics. groups to promote problem solving in mathematics. Advances in
Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Research on Teaching, 3(1992), 115–160.
Manzeske, D. (2017). The impact of providing performance feedback Good, T. L., & Nichols, S. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the class­
to teachers and principals. NCEE 2018-4001. National Center for room: A special focus on improving the reading performance of
Education and Regional Assistance. minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist,
Gee, J. P. (2017). An overview of discourse analysis: A journey from 36(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_6
grammar to society. Routledge. Good, T. L., Reys, B. J., Grouws, D. A., & Mulryan, C. M. (1989).
Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gen­ Using work-groups in mathematics instruction. Educational
der and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Leadership, 47(4), 56–62.
138 T. L. GOOD

Good, T. L., Sikes, J. N., & Brophy, J. E. (1973). Effects of teacher sex Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.
and student sex on classroom interaction. Journal of Educational 1111/ldrp.12142
Psychology, 65(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034816 Inan-Kaya, G., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2021). Teacher classroom inter­
Good, T., Slavings, R., Harel, K., & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passiv­ actions and behaviours: Indications of bias. Learning and
ity. A student of student question asking in K–12 classrooms. Instruction, 78(5), 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruct.
Sociology of Education, 60(3), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2021.101516
2112275 Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in the classrooms. Holt, Rinehart &
Good, T. L., Slavings, R. L., & Mason, D. A. (1988). Learning to ask Winston.
questions: Grade and school effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, Jackson, P. W., Silberman, M. L., & Wolfson, B. J. (1969). Signs of per­
4(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90034-0 sonal involvement in teachers’ descriptions of their students. Journal
Good, T. L., Sterzinger, N., & Lavigne, A. (2018). Expectation effects: of Educational Psychology, 60(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Pygmalion and the initial 20 years of research. Educational Research h0026690
and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611. Jenkins, B. (1972). Teachers’ views of particular students and their
2018.1548817 behavior in the classroom. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of
Good, T. L., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Schools make a difference: Chicago.
Evidence, criticism, and new directions. American Psychologist, Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic
41(10), 1090–1097. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1090 achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39(1), 1–123. https://doi.
Good, T. L. (1968). Student achievement level and differential opportun­ org/10.17763/haer.39.1.I3u15956627424k7
ity for classroom response (Publication No. 6910563) [Doctoral dis­ Jeter, J., & Davis, O. (1973). Elementary school teacher’s differential
sertation]. Indiana University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses classroom interaction with children as a function of differential
Global. expectations of pupil achievements [Paper presentation]. AERA 1973
Grant, S. G. (1998). Reforming reading, writing, and mathematics for Annual Meeting.
the prospects for systemic reform. Routledge. Jirout, J., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Turnbull, K., Gu, Y., Cubides, M.,
Gray, D. L., McElveen, T. L., Green, B. P., & Bryant, L. H. (2020). Garzione, S., Evans, T. M., Weltman, A. L., & Kranz, S. (2019).
Engaging Black and Latinx students through communal learning How lifestyle factors affect cognitive and executive function and the
opportunities: A relevance intervention for middle schoolers in ability to learn in children. Nutrients, 11(8), 1953. https://doi.org/10.
STEM elective classrooms. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 3390/nu11081953
101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101833 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, J., & Anderson, D. (1976).
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships Effects of cooperative versus individualized instruction on student
and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth prosocial behavior, attitudes toward learning, and achievement.
grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 446–452. https://doi.org/10.
1467-8624.00301
1037/022-0663.68.4.446
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn,
Johnston, O., Wildy, H., & Shand, J. (2019). A decade of teacher
A. J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers,
expectations research 2008–2018: Historical foundations, new devel­
S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through
opments, and future pathways. Australian Journal of Education,
interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effect­
63(1), 44–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944118824420
iveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal,
Johnston, O., Wildy, H., & Shand, J. (2022). ‘That teacher really likes
113(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616
me’—Student-teacher interactions that initiate teacher expectation
Hanushek, E. A. (2011). Valuing teachers: How much is a good teacher
effects by developing caring relationships. Learning and Instruction,
worth? Education Next, 11(3), 41–45.
80, 101580. https://doi.org/10.1016/jlearninstruc.2022.101580
Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal
Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integra­
expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3),
363–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.363 tive review. Psychological Review, 93(4), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is 1037/0033-295X.93.4.429
the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Jussim, L. (1989). Teacher expectations: Self-fulfilling prophecies, per­
Quality: What does the research tell us [Paper presentation]. ACER ceptual biases, and accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social
Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Psychology, 57(3), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley 469
& Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000 Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-ful­
Herman, R. (1999). An educators’ guide to schoolwide reform. National filling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved
Education Association. controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathem­ Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2),
atics teaching on students’ learning. Second Handbook of Research 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 371–404. Kaplan, A. (2023). A framework for approaching policy-oriented edu­
Hill, H. C., & Papay, J. P. (2022). Building better PL: How to strengthen cational psychology research. Educational Psychologist, 58(4), 229–
teacher learning. Research Partnership for Professional Learning. 243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2253301
Hill, H. C., Umland, K., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. R. (2012). Teacher Konstantopoulos, S. (2014). Teacher effects, value-added models, and
quality and quality teaching: Examining the relationship of a teacher accountability. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in
assessment to practice. American Journal of Education, 118(4), 489– Education, 116(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600109
519. https://doi.org/10.1086/666380 Konstantopoulos, S., & Chung, V. (2011). The persistence of teacher
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. Harcourt, Brace. effects in elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal,
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic 48(2), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382888
review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Krantz, P., Weber, W., & Fishell, K. (1970). The relationships between
Education, 43(3), 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013. teacher perception of pupils and teacher behavior toward those pupils
786024 [Paper presentation]. AERA 1970 Annual Meeting.
Hughes, M. (1959). Development of the means for the assessment of the Kruzik, C., Coley, R. L., Votruba-Drzal, E., Spielvogel, B., Henry, D., &
equality of teaching in the elementary schools. University of Utah Betancur, L. (2023). The early emergence of SES achievement gaps:
Press. Disparaties across race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. Race and
Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Social Problems, 16(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-023-
Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning 09402-w
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 139

Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. L., Joy-Gaba, McDonald, C. (1972). The influence of people liking a teacher, pupil per­
J. A., Ho, A. K., Teachman, B. A., Wojcik, S. P., Koeva, S. P., ception of being liked, and pupils socio economic status on classroom
Frazier, R. S., Heiphetz, L., Chen, E. E., Turner, R. N., Rhiannon, behavior [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas Austin.
N., Haidt, J., Kesebir, S., Hawkins, C. B., Schaefer, H. S., … Nosek, McLeskey, J., & Brownell, M. (2015). High-leverage practices and
B. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative teacher preparation in special education. Collaboration for Effective
investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center,
General, 143(4), 1765–1785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036260 University of Florida.
Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2019). Enhancing teacher education, McLeskey, J., Maheady, L., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M. T., & Lewis,
development, and evaluation: Lessons learned from educational T. J. (2018). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms.
reform. Routledge. Routledge.
Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2021). Using dyadic observation to Medley, D. M., & Hill, R. A. (1969). Dimensions of classroom behavior
explore equitable learning opportunities in classroom instruction. measured by two systems of interaction analysis. Research in Review,
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(August–December), 149. 26(8), 821–824.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6954 Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Classroom discourse: The promise and groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 261–
complexity of dialogic practice. In Ellis, S., McCartney E., & Bourne, 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941126
J. (Eds.). Applied linguistics and primary school teaching (pp. 165– Mulryan, C. M. (1995). Fifth and sixth graders’ involvement and par­
185). Cambridge University Press. ticipation in cooperative small groups in mathematics. The
Lezotte, L. W. (2011). Effective schools: Past, present, and future. Elementary School Journal, 95(4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1086/
Journal for Effective Schools, 10(1), 3. 461804
Llorens, M. B. (1994). Action research: Are teachers finding their National Center for Education Statistics. (2022a). U.S. schools report
voice? The Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 3–10. http://www.jas­ increased teacher vacancies due to COVID-19 pandemic, new NCES
tor.org/stable/1001767 data show. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Lorenz, G., Kogan, I., Gentrup, S., & Kristen, C. (2023). Non-native Education.
accents among school beginners and teacher expectations for future National Center for Education Statistics. (2022b). Annual condition of
student achievements. Sociology of Education, 97(1), 76–96. https:// education shows historic decline in total public school enrollment
doi.org/10.1177/00380407231202978 between fall 2109 and fall 2020. Institute for Education sciences,
Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, B. G., & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both U.S. Department of Education.
questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at
research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://doi.org/10. risk: The imperative for educational reform.
3102/0013189X211001356 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Professional
Mathematica. (2017). Study finds school improvement grant program standards for teaching mathematics. NCTM.
had no impact on student achievement. https://www.mathematica. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional
org/news/school-improvement-grant-program standards for teaching mathematics. NCTM.
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suf­ National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994).
fering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” Prisoners of time: Too much to teach, not enough time to teach it.
really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498. https://doi.org/ Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. W. (2015). Do policy makers use
10.1037/a0039400 academic research? Reexamining the “Two Communities” theory of
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (Eds.). (2008). School reform matters. A research utilization. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 24–32.
Special Issue of Teacher College Record, 110(11), 2317–2318. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12464
McCaslin, M. (2004). Coregulation of opportunity, activity, and identity Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2023). Influencing educational change
in student motivation: Elaborations on Vygotskian themes. Big through policy-engaged research. Educational Psychologist, 58(4),
Theories Revisited, 4, 249–274. 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2249989
McCaslin, M. (2006). Student motivational dynamics in the era of Nichols, S. L., & Good, T. L. (2004). America’s teenagers—Myths and
school reform. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 479–490. realities. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1086/505442 Nichols, S. L., & Herrick, I. R. (2023). Introduction to the special issue
McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emer­ on policy-oriented research: Enhancing the relevancy of educational
gent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 137–146. https://doi. psychology to policy. Educational Psychologist, 58(4), 205–213.
org/10.1080/00461520902832384 https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2252074
McCaslin, M., & Burross, H. L. (2011). Research on individual differences Noddings, N. (2002). Starting at home: Caring and social policy.
within a sociocultural perspective: Co-regulation and adaptive learning. University of California Press.
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 113(2), Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D.,
325–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300203 Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G.,
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalli­ Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R.,
ance of management and instructional goals in current school Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., … Yarkoni, T.
reform. Educational Researcher, 21(3), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/ (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science (New York,
0013189X021003004 N.Y.), 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1996). The informal curriculum. In Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring knowledge from
D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psych­ an integrated science and social studies unit. The Elementary School
ology (pp. 622–670). Prentice Hall International. Journal, 99(4), 303–341. https://doi.org/10.1086/461928
McCaslin, M., Tuck, D., Wiard, A., Brown, B., LaPage, J., & Pyle, J. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are
(1994). Gender composition and small-group learning in fourth- teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3),
grade mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 467–482. 237–257. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026003237
https://doi.org/10.1086/461778 Ortega, L., Boda, Z., Trevi~ no, E., Arriagada, V., Gelber, D., & del
McCaslin, M., Vriesema, C. C., & Burggraf, S. (2016). Making mistakes: Rosario, M. (2020). The centrality of immigrant students within
Emotional adaptation and classroom learning. Teachers College teacher-student interaction networks: A relational approach to edu­
Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 118(2), 1–46. https:// cational inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103126.
doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103126
140 T. L. GOOD

Palmer, L. (2016). Why we failed: 40 years of education reform: A solu­ Safety Magazine. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/public-
tions-based account of the last 40 years of K-12 education in the U.S. school-enrollment-decline-why-students-are-leaving/
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Rohrkemper, M. M. (1984). The influence of teacher socialization style
Panayiotou, A., Herbert, B., Sammons, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2021). on students’ social cognition and reported interpersonal classroom
Conceptualizing and exploring the quality of teaching using generic behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 85(2), 245–275. https://doi.
frameworks: A way forward. Studies in Educational Evaluation, org/10.1086/461404
70(3), 101028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101028 Rohrkemper, M. M. (1985). Individual differences in students’ percep­
Patall, E. A., Yates, N., Lee, J., Chen, M., Bhat, B. H., Lee, K., Beretvas, tions of routine classroom events. Journal of Educational Psychology,
S. N., Lin, S., Yang, S. M., Jacobson, N. G., Harris, E., & Hanson, 77(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.1.29
D. J. (2023). A meta-analysis of teachers’ provision of structure in Rohrkemper, M. M., & Corno, L. (1988). Success and failure on class­
the classroom and students’ academic competence beliefs, engage­ room tasks: Adaptive learning and classroom teaching. The
ment, and achievement. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 42–70. Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2274104 461540
Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of Rohrkemper, M. M. (1981). Classroom perspectives study: An investiga­
failure in urban schools. Harvard Education. tion of differential perceptions of classroom events [Doctoral disserta­
Pellegrini, M., Lake, C., Neitzel, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2021). Effective tion]. Michigan State University.
programs in elementary mathematics: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ worksplace: The social organization of
7(1), 233285842098621. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986211 schools. Longman.
Peterson, E. R., Rubie-Davies, C., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. (2016). Rosenshine, B. (1978). Academic engaged time, content covered, and
Teachers’ explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to direct instruction. Journal of Education, 160(3), 38–66. https://doi.
educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and org/10.1177/002205747816000304
the ethnic achievement gap. Learning and Instruction, 42, 123–140. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.010 Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt,
Pit-Ten, C., & Glock, S. (2023). Combined effects of students’ gender Rinehart & Winston.
and ethnicity on teachers’ stereotype-based expectations: A systematic Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Sibley, C. G., & Rosenthal, R.
review. http://hdl.handle.net/10993/55469 (2015). A teacher expectation intervention: Modelling the practices
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2021). Replication is important for edu­ of high expectation teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
cational psychology: Recent developments and key issues. 40, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.106/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003
Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Intervening in teachers’
00461520.2021.1895796 expectations: A random effects meta-analytic approach to examining
Praetorius, A.-K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic the effectiveness of an intervention. Learning and Individual
dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of Three Differences, 50, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.014
Basic Dimensions. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 50(3), 407–426. Rutter, M., & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4 2002. Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 451–475. https://doi.org/
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and 10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00124-3
the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking for­ Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A.
ward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320. https:// (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on
doi.org/10.1080/104632806010055772 children. Harvard University Press.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: Sarason, S. B. (1993). The predictable failure of educational reform: can
The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordin­ we change course before it’s too late?. Jossey-Bass.
ate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 377–391. https://doi.org/10. Schimmack, U. (2019). The Implicit Association Test: A method in
1007/s11199-008-9424-4 search of a construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The of the Association for Psychological Science, 16(2), 396–414. https://
Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1086/ doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863798
461325 Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical
Quinn, D. M. (2017). Racial attitudes of preK–12 and postsecondary thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational
educators: Descriptive evidence from nationally-representative data. Research, 51(4), 455–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051004455
Educational Researcher, 46(7), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.
0013189X17727270 (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experi­
Rastle, K., Lally, C., Davis, M. H., & Taylor, J. S. H. (2021). The dra­ ment. Wesleyan University Press.
matic impact of explicit instruction on learning to read in a new Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
writing system. Psychological Science, 32(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/ teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.
10.1177/0956797620968790 3102/0013189X015002004
Raudenbush, S. W. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the
pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.
synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. Journal of Educational org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Psychology, 76(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.85 Sigurdson, S., & Olson, A. (1992). Teaching mathematics with mean­
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., & Clarke, S. (2017). Student discourse ing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 37–57.
for learning. In Handbook of teaching and learning. Wiley Blackwell. Sigurdson, S. E., Olson, A. T., & Mason, R. (1994). Problem-solving
Resnick, L. B., Libertus, M. E., & Schantz, F. (2019). The future of dia­ and mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(4),
logic education: An opportunity and a challenge. In The Routledge 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-3123(94)900001-9
international handbook of research on dialogic education (1st ed.). Silberman, M. L. (1969). Behavioral expression of teachers’ attitudes
Routledge. toward elementary school students. Journal of Educational
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, Psychology, 60(5), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028315
T., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness Slavin, R. E. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals:
research (EER): A state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and Effects on academic performance and student attitudes. Journal of
School Improvement, 25(2), 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Educational Psychology, 70(4), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/
09243453.2014.885450 0022-0663.70.4.532
Rock, A. (2023, May 17). Public school enrollment decline: Why stu­ Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1985). Effects of whole class, ability
dents are leaving, where they’re going, and why it matters. Campus grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 141

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 351– Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 124–179. https://doi.
367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022003351 org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548798
Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four suc­
mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational cessful schools. Council for Basic Education.
Research, 78(3), 427–515. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308317473 Weinstein, R. S. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. The
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2021). Student team learning and suc­ Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/
cess for all: A personal history and overview. In Pioneering perspec­ 461319
tives in cooperative learning (pp. 128–145). Routledge. Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher. The power of expectations in
Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2017). “Low ability,” participation, and identity schooling. Harvard University Press.
in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), Weinstein, R. S., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1979). Student perceptions of
40–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217730010 teacher interactions with male high and low achievers. Journal of
Snow, R. E. (1969). Unfinished Pygmalion. Contemporary Psychology: A Educational Psychology, 71(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Journal of Reviews, 14(4), 197–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0010293 0022-0663.71.4.421
Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, Weinstein, R. S., Soul�e, C. R., Collins, F., Cone, J., Mehlhorn, M., &
J., Steiner, E. D., Robyn, A., Baird, M. D., Gutierrez, I. A., Peet, Simontacchi, K. (1991). Expectations and high school change:
E. D., de los Reyes, I. B., Fronberg, K., Weinberger, G., Hunter, Teacher-researcher collaboration to prevent school failure. American
G. P., & Chambers, J. (2018). Improving teaching effectiveness: Final Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.
report: The intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015– 1007/BF00938027
2016. RAND Corporation. Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget
Steiner, E. D. (2023). U.S. teachers are less satisfied with their pay than effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in
most working adults. RAND Corporation. https://rand.org/news/ teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project.
press/2023/09/12.html Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public
Stevens, R. (1912). The question as a measure of efficiency in instruc­ Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3109916
tion: A critical study of class-room practice. Teachers College,
Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge,
Columbia University.
1(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303
Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math
West, C. K., & Anderson, T. H. (1976). The question of preponderant
and social studies. University of Chicago Press.
causation in teacher expectancy research. Review of Educational
Strauss, V. (2015). Smart video games can assess kids better than stand­
Research, 46(4), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046004613
ardized tests, a new book says. The Washington Post.
White, M., & Klette, K. (2024). Signal, error, or bias? Exploring the
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1985). A differential analysis of effective­
uses of scores from observational systems. Educational Assessment,
ness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. The Journal of
Evaluation and Accountability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-024-
Classroom Interaction, 20(2), 38–44.
09427-8
Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1999). TIMSS
Winardi, W., & Dwijanto, D. (2018). Analisis Kemampuan Literasi
1999—Eighth Grade. International Association for the Evaluation of Matematika melalui model Missouri Mathematics Project dengan
Educational Achievement. Pendakatan open-ended. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education
Thorndike, R. L. (1968). Reviews: Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Research, 6(2), 175–183.
Lenore. In Pygmalion in the classroom. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Withall, J. (1956). An objective measurement of a teacher’s classroom
Timmons, K., Pyle, A., Danniels, E., Cowan, E., & McCann, A. (2022). interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47(4), 203–212.
Teacher expectations in the early primary grades: A scoping review. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048928
Review of Education, 10(3), e3375. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3375 Witter, M., & Hattie, J. (2023). Can teacher quality be profiled? A clus­
Tobin, K., & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science class­ ter analysis of teachers’ beliefs, practices and students’ perceptions
rooms. Science Education, 72(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/ of effectiveness. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/
sce.3730720208 10.1002/berj.39389
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program: Wong, S. S. H., & Lim, S. W. H. (2022). Deliberate errors promote
Executive summary. meaningful learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(8),
Urhahne, D. (2015). Teacher behavior as a mediator of the relationship 1817–1831. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000720
between teacher judgment and students’ motivation and emotion. Zhang, L. (2021). Guidance differs between teaching modes: Practical
Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/ challenges in integrating hands-on investigations with direct instruc­
j.tate.2014.09.006 tion. Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 96–115. https://doi.org/
Urhahne, D., & Wijnia, L. (2021). A review on the accuracy of teacher 10.1080/23735082.2022.2105937
judgments. Educational Research Review, 32, 100374. https://doi.org/ Zhang, Y., Shkolnik, J., & Fashola, L. (2005). Evaluating the implemen­
10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100374 tation of comprehensive school reform and its impact on growth in
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2021). Explicit instruction as the essential student achievement. American Institutes for Research.
tool for executing the science of reading. Reading League Journal, Zhu, M., Urhahne, D., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). The longitudinal
2(2), 4–11. effects of teacher judgement and different teacher treatment on stu­
Wang, S., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Meissel, K. (2018). A systematic dents’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychology, 38(5), 648–668.
review of the teacher expectation literature over the past 30 years. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1412399