The Halo Effect as a Teaching Tool for Fostering Research-Based Learning

Abstract

Teachers’ use of everyday cognitive heuristics can lead to biases in information processing and, thus, to unfair assessments of student characteristics. This problem can be addressed by a core aspect of research-based learning, i.e., by making use of principles and methods of empirical research in order to systematically collect information. However, pre-service teachers’ attitude towards the use of empirical research methods is usually rather low. To foster their attitudes, a total of 444 student teachers were confronted with their own biased perception during a methodology course. Biased perception was triggered by a halo effect inducing experiment. In a subsequent semester, n = 113 of these students participated in an online survey. They answered questions about their cognitive activity and affective reaction following the presentation of the results of the experiment. Moreover, they reported about perceived attitude changes towards systematic thinking and research methods. The results demonstrate the successful implementation of the halo effect, which affected the students cognitively and emotionally. Structural equation modelling showed, that attitude change was dependent on both cognitive and affective reactions. The findings indicate that the halo effect is not only easy to implement in university courses but also appears to have substantial impact on students’ attitudes towards research-based learning.

Keywords

• Halo effect,research-based learning,teacher education,research methods,teacher attitudes

References

1. Altrichter, H., & Mayr, J. (2004). Forschung in der Lehrerbildung [Research within teacher education]. In S. Blomeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch lehrerbildung [Manual Teacher Education] (pp. 164-184). Kempten, Germany: Julius Klinkhardt.
2. Briggs, S. R., & Cheeck, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106-148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
3. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology: A project of division 15, the division of educational psycology of the American psychological association (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: MacMillan Library Reference USA.
4. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
5. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Chapter 9: Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 125-210. doi: 10.2307/749917
6. Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J., Leschinsky, A., Mayer, K. U., & Trommer, L. (Eds.) (2008). Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The educational system of the Federal Republic of Germany]. Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.
7. Dompnier, B., Pansu, P., & Bressoux, P. (2006). An integrative model of scholastic judgments: Pupils’ characteristics, class context, halo effect and internal attributions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(2), 119-133. doi:10.1007/BF03173572
8. Duffy, G., & Roehler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 55–58. doi: 10.1177/002248718603700112

9. Fichten (2017). Forschendes Lernen in der Lehrerbildung [Research-based learning within teacher education]. In R. Schussler, A. Schoning, V. Schwier, S. Schicht, J. M. Gold & U. Weyland (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen im Praxissemester: Zugange, Konzepte, Erfahrungen (pp. 30-38). Kempten: Julius Klinkhardt.
10. Fischer, C., Rott, D., & Veber, M. (2014). Diversitat von Schuler/-innen als mogliche ressource fur individuelles und wechselseitiges lernen im unterricht [Students‘ diversity as a potential ressource for individual and reciprocal learning in the classroom]. Lehren und Lernen, 40(8/9), 22–28.
11. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Forgas, J. P. (2011). She just doesn't look like a philosopher…? Affective influences on the halo effect in impression formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(7), 812–817. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.842
13. Friedrich, A., Flunger, B., Nagengast, B., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. (2015). Pygmalion effects in the classroom: Teacher expectancy effects on students' math achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.006
14. Glickman, M. E., Rao, S. R., & Schultz, M. R. (2014). False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(8), 850-857. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.012
15. Huber, L. (2009). Warum Forschendes Lernen notig und moglich ist [Why research-based learning is necessary and possible]. In L. Huber, J. Hellmer & F. Schneider (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen im Studium – Aktuelle Konzepte und Erfahrungen (pp. 09-35). Bielefeld, Germany: Universitatsverlag Webler.
16. Johnson, D. M., & Vidulich, R. N. (1956). Experimental manipulation of the halo effect. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 40(2), 130–134. doi: 10.1037/h0042887
17. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
19. Kelloway, E. K. (2015). Using Mplus for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
20. Kennedy, M. M. (1997, March). Defining an ideal teacher education program. Paper presented at the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, East Lansing, MI. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~mkennedy/publications/docs/Teacher%20Ed/Kennedy%20to%20NCATE.pdf
21. Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 1554–1578.
22. Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen [Ministry of the Interior of North Rhine-Westphalia] (2009). Lehrerausbildungsgesetz [Law on Teacher Education].
23. Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen [Ministry of the Interior of North Rhine-Westphalia] (2009). Lehramtszugangsverordnung [Teacher Admission Act].
24. Myers, D. G. (2005). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
25. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
26. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: a longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177–195. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00010-0
27. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 176–179.
28. Rubie-Davies, C. (2014). Teachers' instructional beliefs and the classroom climate: Connections and conundrums. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 266–283). New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
30. Schneider, R., & Wildt, J. (2009). Forschendes lernen und kompetenzentwicklung [Research-based learning and competence development]. In L. Huber, J. Hellmer & F. Schneider (Eds.), Forschendes lernen im studium – aktuelle konzepte und erfahrungen (pp. 53-68). Bielefeld, Germany: Universitatsverlag Webler.
31. Schussler, R., Schoning, A., Schwier, V., Schicht, S., Gold, J. M., & Weyland, U. (Eds.). (2017). Forschendes lernen im praxissemester: zugange, konzepte, erfahrungen [Research-based learning during the practical semester]. Kempten, Germany: Julius Klinkhardt.
32. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. doi: 10.1037/h0071663
33. Universitat Munster [Munster University] (2014). Orientierungsrahmen praxissemester fur die ausbildungsregion Munster [Orientation framework for the educational region of Muenster]. Retrieved from https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/lehrerbildung/praxisphasen/ps/orientierungsrahmen_praxissemester.pdf
34. Van Ophuysen, S., Behrmann, L., Bloh, B., Schmidt, J., & Homt, M. (2017). Die universitare vorbereitung angehender lehrkrafte auf forschendes lernen im schulischen berufsalltag [Academic preparation of teachers-to-be for research-based learning in everyday professional work]. Journal for Educational Research Online, 9(2), 276-305.
35. Weyland, U., & Busch, K. (2009): Forschendes lernen in schulpraktischen studien unter dem fokus von ‚lehrergesundheit‘ und ‚lehrerbelastung‘ [Learning through research in teaching practice with a focus on ‘teacher health’ and ‘teacher stress’]. Berufs- und Wirtschaftspadagogik-Online, (17), 1-23. Retrieved from www.bwpat.de/ausgabe17/weyland_busch_bwpat17.pdf