Refine
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Australian culture (2)
- gender (2)
- giftedness (2)
- stereotypes (2)
- teacher beliefs (2)
- teacher education (2)
- confirmation bias (1)
- generalizability (1)
- publication bias (1)
- replicability (1)
Institute
Do stereotypes strike twice?
(2019)
Stereotypes influence teachers' perception of and behaviour towards students, thus shaping students' learning opportunities. The present study investigated how 315 Australian pre-service teachers' stereotypes about giftedness and gender are related to their perception of students' intellectual ability, adjustment, and social-emotional ability, using an experimental vignette approach and controlling for social desirability in pre-service teachers' responses. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that pre-service teachers associated giftedness with higher intellectual ability, but with less adjustment compared to average-ability students. Furthermore, pre-service teachers perceived male students as less socially and emotionally competent and less adjusted than female students. Additionally, pre-service teachers seemed to perceive female average-ability students' adjustment as most favourable compared to male average-ability students and gifted students. Findings point to discrepancies between actual characteristics of gifted female and male students and stereotypes in teachers' beliefs. Consequences of stereotyping and implications for teacher education are discussed.
Do stereotypes strike twice?
(2019)
Stereotypes influence teachers' perception of and behaviour towards students, thus shaping students' learning opportunities. The present study investigated how 315 Australian pre-service teachers' stereotypes about giftedness and gender are related to their perception of students' intellectual ability, adjustment, and social-emotional ability, using an experimental vignette approach and controlling for social desirability in pre-service teachers' responses. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that pre-service teachers associated giftedness with higher intellectual ability, but with less adjustment compared to average-ability students. Furthermore, pre-service teachers perceived male students as less socially and emotionally competent and less adjusted than female students. Additionally, pre-service teachers seemed to perceive female average-ability students' adjustment as most favourable compared to male average-ability students and gifted students. Findings point to discrepancies between actual characteristics of gifted female and male students and stereotypes in teachers' beliefs. Consequences of stereotyping and implications for teacher education are discussed.
The main goal of our target article was to provide concrete recommendations for improving the replicability of research findings. Most of the comments focus on this point. In addition, a few comments were concerned with the distinction between replicability and generalizability and the role of theory in replication. We address all comments within the conceptual structure of the target article and hope to convince readers that replication in psychological science amounts to much more than hitting the lottery twice.
Replicability of findings is at the heart of any empirical science. The aim of this article is to move the current replicability debate in psychology towards concrete recommendations for improvement. We focus on research practices but also offer guidelines for reviewers, editors, journal management, teachers, granting institutions, and university promotion committees, highlighting some of the emerging and existing practical solutions that can facilitate implementation of these recommendations. The challenges for improving replicability in psychological science are systemic. Improvement can occur only if changes are made at many levels of practice, evaluation, and reward.