A Good Teacher at Thasala University

VATT BANKOSON
vattxxx@gmail.com

In the sphere of educational standards and accountability (Seldin, 1993), institutions of

higher education have increased their use of student rating as a qualitative component of
teaching evaluation. Practically all teachers at most universities and colleges are either
required or expected to administer to their students some type of teaching evaluation’s form
at one or more points during each semester (Dommeyer, Baum, Chapman, & Hanna, 2002;
Onwuegbuzie, Daniel, & Collins, 2009). Normally, the assessment serves as formative and
summative evaluations used in an official capacity by administrators and faculty for one or
more of the following purposes: (a) to facilitate curricular decisions such as to improve
teaching effectiveness; (b) to formulate personnel decisions related to tenure, promotion,
merit gift, and the like; and (c) to provide information for students to select future courses
and instructors (Gray & Bergmann, 2003; Marsh & Roche, 1993; Seldin, 1993).

The teacher’s evaluation was first (Guthrie, 1954; Kulik, 2001) formally run in the 1920s,
with students responding to what is recognized as being the first teaching evaluation form.
Ory (2000) described the series of instructional assessment as several distinct times that
marked the perception for information by a specific audience or stakeholder. Particularly in
the 1960s, student bodies collected teaching evaluation data in an attempt to meet students’
demands for responsibility and future course selections. In the 1970s, teaching evaluation
ratings were used to enhance faculty improvement. In the 1980s to 1990s, TE’s forms were
used mainly for managerial purposes rather than for student or faculty enhancement. In
recent years, as response to the increased focus on advancing higher education and requiring
institutional accountability, the public, the legal community and faculty are demanding TE
with greater dependability and conveniences.

Since its start, the major objective of TE has been to evaluate the quality of faculty teaching
by providing information useful to both administrators and faculty (Marsh, 1987; Seldin,
1993). As viewed by Seldin (1993), TE receives more study from administrators and faculty
than do other measures of teaching effectiveness such as student performance, classroom
observations, and faculty self-descriptions. Used as a summative evaluation measurement,
TE serves as an indicator of responsibility by playing a central core in making decisions and
policies on faculty tenure, promotion, merit-reward raises, teaching awards, and selections
for full-time and adjunct faculty members to teach specific courses (Kulik, 2001). As a
formative evaluation treatment, faculty may use data from TE to improve their own levels of
instruction and those of their graduate teaching assistantships. In turn, TE’s data may be
used by faculty and graduate teaching assistants to file their teaching experiences when
applying for jobs. Besides, students can use information from TE as a criterion for making
decisions about course selection or deciding between multiple sections of the same course
taught by different instructors. Significantly, TE data are regularly employed to ease decision
on educational status (Babad, 2001; Gray & Bergmann, 2003; Kulik, 2001; Marsh, 1987;
Marsh & Roche, 1993; Seldin, 1993; Spencer & Schmelkin, 2002).

Selves of a Good Teacher

It is reasonable that effective college instructors should possess or demonstrate at least three
teaching characteristics. Thousands of significant statements describing effective college
teachers are accessibly listed, representing a mean of significant statements per sampling
student. Examples of the significant statements and their corresponding formulated
meanings as well as the themes that emerged from students’ responses reveal the following
nine themes surfacing from the students’ responses: student-centered, expert, professional,
enthusiastic, transmitting, connecting, directive, ethical, and responsive.
 2

First of all student-centered teachers should be sensitive to students’ needs and willing to
make time to help if students have problems by placing students in the state of the art center
of learning process, prioritizing instruction in response to students’ diversity and interests,
and possessing strong interpersonal skills towards students’ achievement. Moreover,
instructional experts should be well-informed on course content and very acquainted with
subject matter as well as a holistic knowledge of many other disciplines by demonstrating
relevant and current content, connecting students’ prior knowledge, and experiencing with
key components of curricula extra and ordinary. Academic professionals should be well-
organized in preparing course description and have set goals as to what should be
accomplished and punctual by displaying behaviors and characters deemed excellent to suit
for instructor’s disciplines.

Training enthusiasts should be vigorous in delivery of course material and a passion for the
subject taught by the exciting exhibition on delivery of curricula, in particular, and the
representation of the field, in general. In addition preparatory transmitters should clearly
convey course material and always keep students interested during class with high-quality
speech performance, conveying critical information clearly and accurately, providing
tutoring relevant examples, and integrating diverse communicative techniques to foster
students’ knowledge acquisition. Introductory connectors should be obtainable to students,
give positive office-hours where students can reach the instructors instantly and deal more
additional assistance by offering multiple opportunities for students and professorship
interaction within and outside the classroom.

Hopefully preliminary directors should be at expertise in individual fields and actually know
and understand what kind of teaching to organize instructional timeline efficiently, and
optimizing scholastic resources to create a safe and sound learning environment. Good
teachers should be ethical and unprejudiced, treat each student the same manner, and tend
to give everyone a positive chance by displaying consistency in enforcing classroom policies,
responding to students’ concerns and behaviors, and especially providing equitable
opportunities for students’ interaction. Essentially intellectual persons should be responsive
as provider of student performance and let students know how well they have done or can
improve by sustaining a frequent, timely, and meaningful feedbacks to students.

Adversely the privileged instructors at Thasala University, at all means maintain the
illusion conflicting to the above-mentioned reality. They mutually cast their own
assignments time after time by rejecting to consult other nearby course instructors, express
their own arguments towards other biased professions without involving students’ personal
matters likely affecting their instructional systems and students’ performance, and at all
times reject students’ proposals. Unfavorably neither the unskilled moron are educated with
certificate in specific studies, nor do they respect the potentiality of students’ gift by inviting
guest lecturers from renowned universities and videotaping the fraud lessons for future
continual benefits. Critically the incompetent teachers know the grand theory very familiar
without stumbling upon students’ multiplicities and universalisms. Drastically they obtain
the design of syllabus from a protocol university regardless applying it to the local
community and environment. Considerably they mismanage the extra-curricular activities
by no means writing the programs of study from the plan of financial statement and allegedly
allow students to reimburse the hotel expenditures and accommodations by themselves.

With indignity the deceptive chairman of the program instruction has set the educational
goals and motivation for the project curriculum by the contribution of unqualified teaching
assistants and anonymous employees. Acutely they put the wrong man on the wrong job. For
instance, history teachers give lectures on urbanization; feminism teaches popular culture;
politics teaches transnationalism; and a Thai language teaches glocalization. Inadequately
they do not at all prepare for the lesson plan with even enabling or terminal objectives. Plain
multimedia presentations are always exposed. Deficiently the personified obstructions never
arrange for weekly handouts using sufficiency economy by allowing students to go bitter-
 3

round during class while other’s learning, to make additional copies for the unprepared
lessons. Before class if students consume more timing, they head wondering when to finish
the sophisticated explanation. But if the students discuss the thorough presentation in
summary, they point out that those students have no focus on the essential theses. With
wasteful intention, they every single minute blame the redundant objects.

With insufficiency the source falsifier has selected the supplementary excerpt by pretending
to convey course materials in other language. By this case, the university committee of
surveillance should assign a special bilingual to observe whether and how the course
transformer misinterprets the unwell-equipped lessons. Roughly it always instructs the class
session with slang or jargon that the Royal Academy of Scholars has not yet approved.
Inexcusably the course twister misleads the tutorial by teaching repeatedly the same theme.
Defectively when students prepare the assigned knowledge very well, it takes the opportunity
to terminate the class division for giving the reason of annual vocation. During class a
student no sooner finishes speech presentation than the class twister interferes deliberately
by soliciting the highlight of the masterpiece. It is clearly seen that the student attempts to
review the whole idea after the rumoring teacher postpones the lesson for a long time.

Purposively the centralized blamer constantly wastes students’ time coming to class by going
to Bangkok and other provinces for a false seminar without giving official notices to learners.
Unfavorably it makes a class appointment in early mornings but with intent wakes up late
before noon. Faultily students pay class attention and spirit treat but they do not recognize
the hospitalized merit of students and they dreadfully delete participation scores away at the
end of the term. Shamefully they permit teacher assistants to read students’ reports and
evaluate students’ performance. With regret they were not born sincerely to integrate the
various sciences into curriculum. Awfully they do not differentiate between instruction and
criticism, since they make an instruction with an inexcusable prejudice. Disgracefully they
cannot distinguish among professionalism and confidentiality. For instance, when they
practice a terrible unanticipated misfortune in the off-class reality, they cannot manage the
conflict with timely basis and effectiveness by striking back those guiltless students in
replacement. Extremely the styles of teaching are always humdrum and ironical. When
students make a better workload appearance, they have found that it takes a long time doing
so. When the honesty disciples make a sufficient demonstration, they consider the students
low ratings. With failure when teaching off-campus, they do not recognize that the present
students should be studious and hard-working.

With destruction the harmful teachers ask teaching assistants to lend a hand for college
events but never pay a service reimbursement. With embarrassment when specialized
visitors come, the pretending spreaders give magnificent reverence with a good reception but
when the guest lecturers have gone, they spit over condemnation and confirm the TAs not to
invite these entities to any further extent. Unforgivably the swindling teachers involving TAs
have stolen scores from the able to deposit on the merit students. They do not read even the
electronic assignments of the first sender but they wait to check for the merit sender.
However, the unsophisticated painters always discourage attending students by spreading
the nonsense rumor to other innocent instructors and threaten other colleague teachers to
get fired out of the teamwork if still giving good grades to the able ones by adding the good
grades to the merit ones. Thus the dreadful gentlemen never adjust or even concern about
the possessing identity as well as the institution’s.

Discourse & Other Methods

There are a number of ways in which focus group and non-directive interviews together with
its systematic analysis differ from most other forms of instrumental testing or field methods
of judgment extraction (Hyman, 1975; Plummer, 1983; Spradley, 1979). The conversation, in
general is a more natural way for speakers to express their opinions than responses to the
pre-formulated questions, resulting in the success of the most experimental assignments.
 4

Respondents are allowed to explain, specify, correct, or otherwise feature their answers to
the questions, and may even challenge the assumption of the guiding questions by the
interviewer. They may engage in spontaneous expressions of opinion and tend to volunteer
arguments or evidences, for instance stories about personal matters that make their
estimations appear more valid. At the same time, such informal conversations enable
interviewers to cover their goals, bring up specific topics in a more relaxed way, or follow
special strategies in the elicitation of personal attitudes that brings the same in conversations
and non-directive interviews on cultural topics. Although social standards influence what is
being said about learners as marginal groups, cultural opinions will manifest the identity
itself anyway, if only in an oblique or hidden way. The discussions have many levels at which
such opinions may be articulated, and therefore can be assessed in systematic analysis, for
instance in the delicacies of replacement for semantic moves, lexical options, syntactic
orders, intonation and rhetorical actions at the localization, or in topic selection or thematic
change, and the graphic structures of argumentations and discussions at the globalization.
These characteristics of conjecture are unusually under informant’s control, and therefore
allow more direct inferences about essential hypothesis to be made.

Although some experiments allow (van Dijk, 1989) moderate assessment of cultural
prejudice, such measurements are only rough approximations of the actual content and
structure of chauvinism. Systematic analysis of interviews or protocols only permits a fewer
detailed study of the propositional content and organization of learning process. The cultural
studies, which might be explicitly denied at one step in conversations, may be presupposed
or otherwise vaguely expressed or indicated at other stages. Retreats, hesitations and pauses
may signal uncertainty or interference with measurements, and their way through analysis
may suggest when speakers of other academic fields have resolution to expectation
strategies. Data from non-directive interviews could sometimes appear to be contradictory,
indistinct or incomplete when compared to forced responses in experiments or questionnaire
interviewing and may seem to prohibit precise assessments of underlying cognitions.
However, such characteristics of conversations may indeed reflect similar negations,
ambiguity or partiality in knowledge representation and processing, including internalized
social constraints on the formulation or expression of specific dimensions. At the same time,
apparent contradictions, both in conversation and focus group control may be made
coherent or be resolute at higher levels of determination, involving for instance, the
formulation of different perspectives or worldviews of the same event. Adequate discourse
analysis can, in theory, handle such complex discursive manifestations of underlying
processes, which usually do not influence in directive interviews or questionnaire responses,
and which are seldom achieved in controllable qualitative experiments.

Theoretical Outline of Prejudice

We can thus far focus on the concept of interactive prejudice. These terms describe more
tendencies to evaluate the groups to which individuals belong than the groups to which the
people do not belong. In other words, prejudice represents an attitude—a subjective
phenomenon. Of course, these subjective evaluations often interact with more modeling
objective characteristics of the situation. Research has long suggested that intergroup bias
depends on the functional relationship between the groups. When groups compete with one
another for insufficient resources, for example, prejudice tends to increase (Levine &
Campbell, 1972; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). That is, the introduction of
objective intergroup preference tends to worsen the subjective feelings. Realistic group bias
theory, an innovative perspective on prejudice, formally proposed this relationship, and it
remains a foundation for plenty of the research on intercultural relations (Brewer & Brown,
1998; Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999; Correll & Park, 2005).
 5

The hypothetical framework for the expression and communication of prejudice is complex
and interdisciplinary (van Dijk, 1983). Extending the traditional analysis in terms of attitude
to outsiders (Allport, 1954), we analyze cultural prejudice as a specific type of social
recognition, as a negative social representation of cultural marginal groups shared by
members of the dominant culture. Such an analysis does not only specify the content and
organizational scheme of these social signs, but also their strategic application in cultural
situations (Hamilton, 1981). Prejudice does not consist of the beliefs of individual people, but
of generalized opinions shared by people as group members (Tajfel, 1981). This assumes that
prejudice is acquired, used or changed in social contexts, and as a function of structures of
social power. The concrete manifestations of this generalized prejudice, for instance in
individual acts of partiality, are, however, controlled by so-called models (van Dijk &
Kintsch, 1983; Van Dijk, 1985b). These models are mental representations of personal
experiences, for instance, interactions with cultural marginal groups. Under the favorable
influence of more general and abstract group representations, members of the dominant
culture thus build or update cultural location models. This may happen in everyday
interaction, but also indirectly, through communicative cultural events.

Models are organized in a fixed term, consisting of categories people use to analyze and
understand social contexts, such as settings, participants and actions. The propositions
stored under these categories characterize not only the personal knowledge about events, but
also subjective, evaluative beliefs, that is, particular opinions. Part of the knowledge and
opinions represented in these personal models are an instance of generalized knowledge
characters, and of unfair attitudes, respectively. In other words, general group prejudice is
modified to concrete, personal situations through such models. This also explains the
familiar finding that everyday conversation regarding marginal groups does not always show
cultural prejudice. Other knowledge or opinions, for instance about the context of,
interaction or communication, as well as group standards and values, such as tolerance and
respect for other people, may effectively block the expression or performance of such general
group prejudice. Thus, whereas shared group representations explain consensus, coherence,
and continuity in prejudiced actions of dominant culture, models allow us to explain
personal differences and circumstances on specific variation.

Bargh et al. (1995) have shown that a usual prejudice can be generated when certain ideas
about the target group occur. An illusory correlation is the tendency to see relationships, or
correlations, between events that are actually unrelated. Illusory correlations are most likely
to occur when the events or people are distinctive or prominent; marginal group members
are so by definition. People’s tendencies to engage in attributive partialities, like the
fundamental credit mistake, increase the popularity and purpose of stereotypes. When
dispositional attributions about an entire group of people are made, it is called the ultimate
attribution fault. Steele and Aronson (1995) have shown that at least one major contributive
factor is situational. They define stereotype danger as the anxiety experienced by members
of a marginal group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype. When an out-
group member behaves in a way that disconfirms our stereotypes, we are possibly to make a
situational attribution for performance, leaving the stereotype intact. Blaming the victim is
the tendency to blame individuals for their victimization; ironically, it is motivated by a
desire to see the world as a fair and just place where people get what they deserve. The self-
fulfilling insight is the case whereby people (a) have an expectation about what another
person is like, which (b) influences how they act toward that person, and which (c) causes
that person to behave in a way consistent to people’s original prospects. Realistic Conflict
Theory is the theory that limited resources lead to conflict between groups and result in
increased prejudice. Several historical studies reveal that prejudice and hostility against out-
group members is positively correlated with the lack of opportunities or other resources.
Correlational and experimental data exist, which supports the group conflict theory.
Scapegoating is the tendency for individuals, when frustrated or unhappy, to displace
aggression onto groups that are disliked, noticeable, and relatively incapable.
 6

Apart from this generalization of models, prejudiced attitudes about different groups may
also be created by copying directly prejudiced opinions from existing attitudes about other
cultural groups. This was the case, for instance, for the newcomers in the motherland, of
whom the population at large have virtually no experience, and hence no models. However,
they are attributed properties that were already dominant in prejudice about other marginal
groups in the country. It is also recommended that talking about minorities is controlled by
such social models. This means that biases in the model may also emerge in conversation.
This is typically the case in accounts that the dominant people tell about what they interpret
as negative experiences with subsidiary group members. Sometimes, however, for instance
in argumentation, such speakers may also express the prejudiced attitude in a more directive
way as in generalizations.

Strategic Expertise to Antagonize Prejudice

Strategies to deal with prejudice may be directed at the traditional, intentional form of
prejudice, and at more delicate and perhaps less conscious contemporary forms. Whereas
the traditional form of prejudice may be disposed by direct educational and persuasive
techniques, contemporary forms may require alternative strategies oriented toward the
individual or involving interactive participation. Individual-oriented techniques can involve
leading people who possess contemporary prejudices to discover inconsistencies among their
identities, values, and behaviors; such inconsistencies can arouse negative emotional states,
which motivate the development of more favorable attitudes. Interactive strategies can
involve structuring interactive contact to produce more individualized perceptions of the
members of the other group, support personalized interactions between members of the
hostile groups, or redefine group boundaries to create more comprehensive, superior
representations of the groups. Understanding the nature of prejudice can thus conduct,
theoretically and pragmatically, interventions that can effectively undertake both traditional
and contemporary forms of prejudice.

Both modeling and attitudinal chauvinism may, in turn, be controlled by strategic general
standards and values, which are also shared by group representations. They notify people
what to say in specific situations. Again, these general standards and values need to be
interpreted into concrete guidelines for actual interaction, and therefore must be specified,
in so-called context models. These models do not represent the events that people talk or
hear about, but the communicative actions in which they are participating. Context models
contain information about, such as speakers, listeners, speech acts and goals. It is this
context model that monitors the well-known strategies of intuition management. Thus,
whereas the situation model of a cultural event may increase to negative biases about
cultural group members, the normatively controlled context model of a particular
conversation may sometimes obstruct such negative discussion, moderate it, or otherwise
transform it into a socially acceptable form. (van Dijk, 1987a)

However, the contact hypothesis is the idea that simply carrying members of different
groups into strategic contact with each other will erode prejudice. Allport (1954) suggested
that six conditions are required for intergroup contact to confront prejudice as follows. (1)
Mutual interdependence helps strengthen trust and confidence in the social movement, (2) A
common goal sets the social order to meet the protected criterion on lives and properties of
the public, (3) Equal status of group members raises the alignment of social classes, (4)
Informal interpersonal contact reduces tense and worry in exchange and communications,
(5) Multiple contacts with members of the out-group open world vistas and increase the
tightened relationship of the parties, and (6) When social standards are in the right position,
the recreational events promote equality, justice and congregation. A situation where two or
more groups necessitate together depends on each other to complete the learning objectives
that are significant to the said definite interactive participation. A jigsaw seminar is also an
simulated setting designed to overcome prejudice and raise the self-esteem of learners by
placing them in small integrated groups and making each student dependent on the others in
 7

the similar group to adjust course materials and do well in searching academic resources.
One reason for the effectiveness of the jigsaw tutorial is that it succeeds in striking in-group
versus out-group distinctions. This learning process also places people in a favorable
situation and leads them to appreciate the others. In addition, the jigsaw state can function
properly because it fosters empathy and emotion. This cooperative learning environment has
become a major influence in the field of education, and provides powerful equipment in the
confrontation against prejudice.

Learner Identity as Marginal Barricade

A cultural approach to identity construction provides us with a solid basis for the
conceptualization of learner identity as a marginal group, where we distinguish between
timescale and situational modalities of learner identity. The two modalities are in constant
interaction across formal and informal educational contexts and experiences. We suggest
that this conceptualization of learner identity would enable a holistic view of how students
are influenced by educational experiences, across time and situations. Considering the
preoccupation of most modern societies with identity issues, it is surprising that this rarely
representation is reflected in educational practice. In Foucaultian terms (Foucault, 1988),
the instructive application in learning contexts, could be described as lacking systematic
management of adequate technologies of personality in order to support the favorable
construction of different types of identities. In an account of Foucault’s philosophy and
thoughts on the technologies of the nature, Besley (2005) argues that the today schooling
should be more aware of technologies of power and identity that are used when influencing
the formation of their marginal students.

The institutions of culture are fundamental areas for, not only construction of knowledge,
but also a sense of identity. In Wenger’s (1998) terms, learning behaviors enable
participation in schools of practice, and participation in schools of practice vice-versus
enables learning. Through this participation learners become members of institutes and
occupy a certain position in the situations. This participation enables a sense of recognition
as individuals to a higher or lower degree. Scholars are considered and consider themselves
as belongings to a context to a different extent depending on how they are recognized in the
context. For example, the more someone is recognized as a mainstream professional, the
easier the person maintains a sense of belongings in the profession. Getting access to a
district of professionals requires learning and the construction of identities. Similarly, failure
to learn can cause feelings of doubt about belongings. If a ‘small’ student fails to keep up with
intentional teachers as expected, the sense of identity in the organized innocence might be
seriously threatened, both by himself and the others.

In accordance with Besley, the educational system need to provide students with spaces,
channels and support to explore how they pave the way into different institutions through a
learning process. They need to understand how they become the individualities they are in
different situations and why they do so. The technologies of identity which are desired are in
part, as Foucault suggests, concrete actions and methods to make this exploration, through
learning, engaging in individual and collective reflections. However, the students should be
supplied with adequate concepts and notions for the journey. Inspired by the differentiation
between physical and symbolic artifacts as mediators of goal directed actions, the
technologies of self which refer to individual processes of reflection can be physical, such as a
special time and place for evidences, the use of personal journals, as well as symbolic, such as
concepts that organize and direct these representations. A similar view can be found in the
approach of situated recognition, where identities are the constructed artifacts of various
types and with multiple variants, which can serve as tools for interactive participation
(Wilson & Madsen Myers, 1999). In other words, specific notions that support the
negotiation of personal reflection are a type of symbolic or conceptual objects. Therefore,
providing students with concepts of specific identity types, and the ways to explore the
construction of these individualities imply the use of typical technologies, conceptual and
 8

transactional of identity exploration. A marginal group of students is recognized to be

motivated by prejudice on behalf of the victim. Marginality irritation refers to a range of
immoral and unpleasant behaviors forced by cold characteristics towards some innocence
because of mature, gender, exposure, adaptation, or ethnicity, including not only emotional
injury, but verbal abuse, threats or insults.

Self in Others and Others in Self

Efforts on the part of privileged parties to represent less powerful subjects often result in the
appropriation of marginal people (Pedwell, 2002) through the discursive colonization of
their heterogeneity, subjectivity and agency. All minor and unwilling modes and experiences
are ignored and marginal groups are characterized as having no power to shape the social
relations in which they work and thus no capability to disrupt the status quo. When people
are frozen into such pre-composed, homogenous categories, it becomes impossible to
analyze historical differences among subsidiary societies and thus impossible to theorize
legitimate strategies for positive social changes (Mohanty, 1991). Furthermore, representing
peculiarity in this way promotes monocentricism which reinforces inner values and modes of
representation. The construction of the marginal groups presumes the contrastive implicit
self-representation of a deprived entity as of education, modernization and liberation. When
privileged lecturers implicitly use the inferior cluster simply to define themselves, marginal
vocalists and subjectivities are kept silence and thus discursive patterns of authority are still
maintenance. If careful academics are to represent marginality in ways that are beneficial to
negligible needs and interests and serve to deconstruct traditional discursive hierarchies,
they must strive to assume an ongoing liability for the identities. Subjecting one’s character
to a constant process of inter-biased reflexivity, personal and collective, is important if they
are about to develop effective methodologies of standing for identities.

In order to prevent the misuse of marginality and hence to avoid strengthening dominant
modes of representation (Baudrillard, 1983), it has been argued that just academics should
retreat from speaking for marginality and represent only their own situated experiences. In
support of this argument it is claimed that no matter how careful a teacher who seeks to
represent the identity is, the very act of identifying for an important person signifies an
unacceptable display of dominant culture. As Gabrielle Griffin (1996) articulates, we may
hate someone whom we shall see as more powerful than ourselves representing us simply
because this act is an expression of the power relative to our powerlessness. Accordingly, it is
claimed that if we speak only for ourselves, we avoid discursive colonization and do not
interfere with minor capacity or motivation to express their subjective representations of
identity.

The strategic speaking for identity is not only uncertain, but likely to lead to the rewording of
dominant relations of power. First, as Alcoff (1995) has asserted, the idea that one can avoid
the problematic of speaking for by jumping into an individualistic realm is based on an
illusion. There is no neutral position to stand obvious in which the words do not strictly
affect the experiences of others, nor is there a way to divide conclusively an edge between
location and minority. It is clear that a person cannot separate the own practices of
representation from locations, situations, and discursive practices of others. Secondly, it is
apparent that speaking only from one’s specific notion and location is precisely what has led
inclined academics to discursively colonize other students in the past. As Kitzinger and
Wilkinson (1997) point out, speaking only from our own untheorized positions of relative
privilege has been part of the problem of minority, supporting to its false universalism and
imperialism tendencies to the degree that it is hard to reconceptualize speaking for identity
as part of the reason.

Refraining from representing idiosyncrasy entirely does not erase discursive relations of
power, but in fact serving to reinforce the bias system. An academic who makes a rule never
to represent the experiences of those positioned outside the particular social and political
 9

location may assume that this entity is preventing the misrepresentation of eccentricity. This
person’s silence, however, does nothing to ensure the peace of other privileged speakers who
may have no doubts about representing nonconformity in less than ethical ways. Therefore,
the political effect of retreating from representation is often a dismissal of accountability for
the negative effects of the discursive representation of others within academic spheres. As
Alcoff states, the declaration of speaking only for the self has the single effect of allowing
someone to avoid blame and liability for the effects on others; it cannot literally remove
those effects at all.

Analyses and Discussions

Leakage (Babad et al, 1989), the show of more positive bias in education was assessed by
linear contrast analyses in speech content, facial expressions, and body language. Prejudiced
teachers revealed systematic and substantial effects in affective variables reflecting narrow-
minded behaviors and negative affection. Marginality irritation especially to disposed
students refers to a range of dissolution and objection forced by frosty features towards some
unexpected virtue because of maturity, gender, exposure, adaptation, and ethnicity. The
prime notion of jaundiced teachers would be selected from fully-developed characteristics. A
group from fresh adolescent maturity achieves well in presenting magnum opus. No matter
what they prepare a lesser amount of probable assignment, the conclusion of the overall
project would be considered of good quality. A post-aged learner seems so uncomfortable
and impractical that the learning consequence yields no advanced evaluation. Despite, the
deprived students almost acquire the ideal preparation; the subjective teachers review the
well-done project with terrible inadequacy. These issues raise the possibility that adult bias
may function equally to show evidence of age-related measurement that occurs when ones
from a one-aged group receive different scores than the others from another group who are
matched on the same hidden level of abilities (Balsis and others, 2007).

Sexual orientation will be one of the prejudiced factors that influence the procedure of
marginal colonization. Femininity replicates the more affectionate and charismatic qualities
of the mainstream students that generate the blind screen to hinder the insignificant
mistake. The unfair lecturers appreciate the cherry-tipped project that appears full of
magnetism and aestheticism. Masculinity reveals some tedious and obscure perspectives of
the propositional designs of invention. Although the underprivileged students design the
combination of the theoretical framework and the areas of work assignment, the devastative
teachers deconstruct and reengineer the well-equipped development. Teachers communicate
differently with male and female students on class participation (Crawford, 1989) and
unintentionally vary interactive patterns, based on student gender of which male students
receive some more negative feedback than female. Treating students differentially, based on
surface reasons like gender is not the best notice of all students and it is as illegal and
unwanted as racism and prejudice against destitute students.

Self disclosure is also the partial fulfillment that may distract ridiculous practitioners. In the
social network the privileged people may utilize the frequent pseudonyms excessively; in an
autonomous reality, they make a livelihood like earthy people challenging to head onto the
complicated fieldtrips but never go to the discovery resource nuclei. At the other corner, a
guiltless identity that anticipates working healthily from the very beginning and attempts
representation for the disparity group but the charity of the influenced teachers unanimously
jointly blame to paint the identity of the innocent student unacceptable. Previous studies
have tended to focus on the construction of isolated student identities. In contrast, a study
(Pizarro, 2008) tells the accounts of both engaged and disengaged students and of their
teachers utilizing a unique framework of theoretical perspectives, including ethnography as a
narrative description (Atkinson, 1990), Fourth Generation Evaluation (Guba & Lincoln,
1990), reflexivity (Jordan & Yeomans, 1995), Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and
multiple realities (Stake, 1994) that show the classical notion of student-teacher
relationships. Students do not present passive, persuaded, and powerless identities; they
 10

display significant agency in reconstructing identities based mostly on introductory

objectives. Engaged student identities reflect a teacher’s subculture and generally exhibit a
desire to know which one downgrades the biased teacher to the marginality of the experience
(Watkins, 2008). In contrast, disaffected students illustrate a desire for ignorance (Felman,
1997), rejecting the teacher's subculture to fulfill their wish to the peer favoritism.

Familiarization to the problematic society tends to bring in the triumph in contact with the
similar people in the new environment. Coming from the identical neighborhood of the
privileged students will construct an automatic support power for the inclined instructors.
The atmosphere of the same old theme in the office will devise a part of reinforcement in
engaging in academic adjustment. Once a couple of people had enjoyed working together as
university colleagues in the ambiance like the public network, the backgrounds of
approaching and sympathetic values will be placed for the cultural capital. Hospitality for the
host and guest relationship may ground for the reason that the culture of the attractiveness
has become the injustice merit system. Murphy (1965) has argued that societies supportive
of cultural pluralism with a positive multicultural feature provide a more positive settlement
context for two reasons: they are unlikely to enforce cultural assimilation or exclusion for the
segregation and marginalization on newcomers; and they are likely to provide social support
both from the institutions of the larger society, and from the continuing and developing
ethnocultural communities that usually make up pluralistic societies. However, even where
pluralism is accepted, there are well-known variations in the relative acceptance of specific
cultural, racial, and religious groups (Hagendoorn, 1993; Berry & Kalin, 1995). Those groups
that are less well accepted will encounter hostility, rejection, and discrimination, one factor
that is predictive of poor long-term prejudice (Beiser et al., 1988; Fernando, 1993).

Especially ethnocentricism would be the important element to maintain the favorable

teacher’s personalities that come to the province to hunt for an academic fortune that objects
to assist the people in the equal rights municipality. The superficial study on ethnic groups
seems the mask of the faulty research and the hierarchy to pursue the way through the
legendary career of academic researcher. Notwithstanding, the kernel of the subject matter
must be the struggle to fight with the people from the same derivation. Heterogeneity,
subjectivity and agency that belong to the mainstream prejudice would rather be demolished
from the educational system. One aspect of deprived teacher-student relationships
(Wayman, 2002) results from student perceptions that teachers treat students differentially
according to ethnic background. Calabrese and Poe (1990) note that education is viewed as
an equalizer in the community, and recognition of bias in an institution which allows to offer
equal opportunity creates a sense of alienation and distance. Given Alva and Padilla’s (1995)
findings, this may be especially factual for destitute students. As Alton-Lee, Nuthall, and
Patrick (1993) state that when presented with a school situation which is a cultural
divergence, some minority children may reject the situation as belonging to “them”, and not
“us”. Thus, student perceptions of teacher ethnic preference are part of the constellation of
experiences which make some students uncomfortable with school, often hindering
academic achievement.

En Finale

The present article has addressed the issues of instructional prejudice by using an in-depth
focus group control to describe student perceptions on teacher bias in students at risk of
school detachment. Those perceptional characteristics of teacher chauvinism on maturity,
masculinity, acquaintance, variation, and culture are the most components yielding student
disengagement and alienation, hitherto little research exists on the struggle. The information
presented here suggests that school administrators should pay attention to student
discernments on teacher’s favoritism, exploring the recurrent factor accountabilities. The
matter of facts has implied that these sensitivities are not just apprehended by marginality
students, but are held by all students. Consequently, reinforcing to improve student
perceptions on teacher partiality should not only recover the school experience for deprived
 11

students, but also for potential maintenances and the school population as a whole.
Researchers and academics should use the information vacant here to configure a better
knowledge base regarding student insights on instructional preconception, as this is a
friendly substitute issue. In confidence, the info set forth in this article is useful and valid to
the educational dimension and provides a landmark to refining circumstances which
contribute to the difficulties.

The aims of this study are to utilize a blooming outlook of deprived students to describe the
extent of scholar perceptions on teacher bias, and to draw conclusions based on cultural
maturity, gender, exposure, adaptation, and ethnicity of different groups of people in
education. Results have shown that although perceptions on teacher prejudice are not
extensive, such insights occur more in higher learning detachment. The advantageous view
of the study is that the majority of participants realize their instructors prefer the younger
female adult activists who connect several networks in a familiarized environment. Previous
studies have shown that student observations on teacher prejudice still exist, but less study
has explored the importance across a wide range of innocence. The disadvantageous attitude
of the research is that most of the participants seem their teachers support more students
from younger female adult activists who connect numerous clusters in a familiarized zone
than those from older male adult critics who connect fewer groups of people in a strange
context. School administrators should address this issue, since perceptions on instructor
chauvinism are definite for the underprivileged students, and are exactly an interruption to
academic achievement and intelligence improvement. This article is written to suggest the
conflict of parents, brothers and sisters in the family; friends in the neighborhood; teachers
and students in the schooling system; bosses, subordinates and colleagues in the workplace;
and physicians and patients in the hospital.

Verified strategies (Ross, 2008) support the projects that encourage positive images on
persons of marginality and widely distribute stories and pictures that portray stereotype-
breaking images through instructional media. Many studies have shown that the simple
positive reproduction of potential groups of people can combat the hidden bias. Final
reviews and estimations also judge people’s sense of external experiences and thereby
explore indicators of intentional values, revealing the patterns of organizational ignorance.
An understanding of unconscious bigotry is an invitation to an innovative level of
engagement about diversity issues, requiring awareness, introspection, authenticity,
sincerity, and sympathy. And most of all, it requires communication and enthusiasm to act.
Diversity seems a powerful resource to be acknowledged worldwide and managed to create a
growth of exceptional learning as well as an essence of legal agreement and consciousness.
No matter what attention to diversity is done well, motivation, confidence, satisfaction, and
efficiency must improve.

References
Alcoff, L. (1995). The Problem of Speaking for Others. In Roof, J. and Wiegman, R.
(eds.), pp.97-119. Who Can Speak: Authority and Critical Identity. Illinois: University of
Illinois Press.

Allport, Gordon W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Anchor Books.

Alton-Lee, A., Nuthall, G., & Patrick, J. (1993). Reframing Classroom Research: A Lesson
from the Private World of Children. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 50-84.

Alva, S. A., & Padilla, A. M. (1995). Academic Invulnerability among Mexican Americans:
A Conceptual Framework. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority
Students, 15, 27-47.
 12

Atkinson, P. (1990). The Ethnographic Imagination, Textual Constructions of Reality.

New York: Routledge.

Babad, E. (2001). Students’ Course Selection: Differential Considerations for First and
Last Course. Research In Higher Education, 42, 469–492.

Babad, Elisha; Bernieri, Frank; & Rosenthal, Robert. (1989). Nonverbal Communication
and Leakage in the Behavior of Biased and Unbiased Teachers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (Jan.), 89-94.

Balsis, S., Gleason, M., Woods, C., & Oltmanns, T. (2007). An item Response Theory
Analysis of DSM-IV Personality Disorder Criteria across Younger and Older Age Groups.
Psychology and Aging, 22, 171–185.

Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the
Underlining: An Automatic Power – Sex Association and its Consequences for Sexual
Harassment and Aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781.

Baron, R. A, & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press.

Baudrillard, Jean. (1983). The Shadow of the Silent Majorities. In Foss, Paul;
Patton, Paul & Johnston, John (trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).

Beiser, M., Barwick, C., Berry, J. W., da Costa, G., Fantino, A., Ganesan, S., Lee. C.,
Milne, W., Naidoo, J., Prince, R., Tousignant, M., & Vela, E. (1988). Mental Health Issues
Affecting Immigrants and Refugees. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Examination and

Reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 14, 59-73.

Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301-320.

Besley, T. (2005). Foucault, Truth Telling and Technologies of the Self in Schools.
Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6, 76-89.

Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. (1998). Intergroup Relations. In Gilbert, D. T.; Fiske, S. T. &
Lindsey, G. (eds.), pp.554–594. Handbook of Social Psychology Boston: McGraw Hill.

Calabrese, R. L., & Poe, J. (1990). Alienation: An Explanation of High Dropout Rates
among African American and Latino Students. Educational Research Quarterly,
14(4), 22-26.

Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A Model of the In-group as a Social Resource.
Personality & Social Psychology Review, 9, 341–359.

Crawford, Jacqueline Kay. (1989). Sexism in the Classroom: The Effect of Simple
Informational Awareness on the Gender Bias of Teachers' Feedback to Students.
D.Ed.Thesis, Drake University, School of Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Bell & Howell.

Devine, P.G. (1989). Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled
Components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mower, O. H., Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and
Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.
 13

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Chapman, K. S., & Hanna, R. W. (2002). Attitudes of
Business Faculty towards Two Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: Paper Vs.
Online. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 455–462.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup Competition and
Attitudes toward Immigrants and immigration: An Instrumental Model of Group Conflict.
Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724.

Farley, John E. (2005). Majority-Minority Relations. 5th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in
Automatic Activation as an Unobtrusive Measure of Racial Attitudes: A Bona Fide
Pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027.

Felman, S. (1997). Psychoanalysis and Education, Teaching Terminable and

Interminable. In Todd, S. (ed.), pp. 17-44. Learning Desire: Perspectives on Pedagogy,
Culture, and the Unsaid. New York: Routledge.

Fernando, S. (1993). Racism and Xenophobia. Innovation in Social Sciences Research.

Special Issue on Migration and Health, 6, 9-19.

Feshbach, S. (1964). The Function of Aggression and the Regulation of the Aggressive
Drive. Psychological Review, 71, 257-272.

Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the Self. In Martin, L. H.; Gutman, H. &

Hutton, P. H. (eds.), pp. 16-49. Technologies of the Self. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.

Griffin, Gabrielle. (1996). Issues of Power and Conflict Resolution in Representing

Others. In Kitzinger, C. and Wilkinson, S. (eds.), pp.170-174. Representing the Other.
London: Sage.

Gray, M., & Bergmann, B. R. (2003). Student Teaching Evaluations: Inaccurate,

Demeaning, Misused. Academe, 89(5), 44–46.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). Fourth Generation Evaluation.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guthrie, E. R. (1954). The Evaluation of Teaching: A Progress Report. Seattle: University

Of Washington Press.

Hagendoorn. L. (1993). Ethnic Categorization and Outgroup Exclusion: The Role Of

Cultural Values and Social Stereotypes In the Construction of Ethnic Hierarchies.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 16, 26-51.

Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Illusory Correlation as a Basis for Stereotyping, in Hamilton,

D. L. (ed.), pp.115-144. Cognitive Processes of Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup Bias.

Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.

Jordan, S., & Yeomans, D. (1995). Critical Ethnography: Problems in Contemporary

Theory and Practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16, 389-408.

Kitzinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. (1997). Theories of Representing the Other. In Kitzinger, C.

& Wilkinson, S. (eds.), pp.1-32. Representing the Other. London: Sage.
 14

Kulik, J. A. (2001). Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and Controversy. New Directions
for Institutional Research, 109 (Spring), 9–25.

Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic

Attitudes and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley.

Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: Research Findings,

Methodological Issues, and Directions For Future Research. International Journal
Of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1993). The Use of Students’ Evaluations and an
Individually Structured Intervention to enhance University Teaching Effectiveness.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 217–251.

Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Cartographies of Struggle: Third World Women and the Politics of
Feminism. In Mohanty, C. T., Russo, A. & Torres, L. (eds.). Third World Women and the
Politics of Feminism. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Murphy. H. B. M. (1965). Migration and the Major Mental Disorders. In Kantor, M. (ed.),
pp.221-249. Mobility and Mental Health. Springfield: Thomas.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Daniel, L. G., & Collins, K. M. (2009). A Meta-Validation Model for
Assessing the Score-Validity of Student Teaching Evaluations. Quality and Quantity,
43(2), 197-209.

Ory, J. C. (2000). Teaching Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 83 (Fall), 13–18.

Pedwell, Carolyn. (2002). Seeing the Self in the ‘Other’ and the ‘Other’ in the Self:
Intersubjective Reflexivity – A Methodology for Representing ‘Others’. In Wilson, Gail
(ed.). Marginal Research: Reflections on Location and Representation. Research in
Progress Series, 2 (June), 71-81.

Pizarro, Dianne Frances. (2008). Student and Teacher Identity Construction in New
South Wales 7 – 10 Years English Classroom. Ph.D. Thesis in Education, Macquarie
University.

Ramírez, J. M. (1996). Causes and Functions of Aggression. Hiroshima Forum for

Psychology, 17, 21-37.

Ramírez, J. M. (1998). Aggression. In Greenberg, G.; Haraway, M. M. (eds.),

pp. 625-634. Comparative Psychology: A Handbook. New York: Garland.

Reynolds, M. & Andreu, J. M. (1999). From Aggression to Nuclear War.

Aggressive Behavior, 25, 309-310.

Ross, Howard. (2008). Exploring Unconscious Bias. Diversity Best Practices CDO
Insights, 2(5), August, 1-17. Retrieved August 13, 2011 from
<http://www.cookross.com/docs/UnconsciousBias.pdf>

Seldin, P. (1993). The Use and Abuse of Student Ratings of Professors.

Chronicle Of Higher Education, 39, 40.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup
Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers’ Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Book
Exchange.
 15

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social
Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Students’ Perspectives on Teaching and its
Evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 397–408.

Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Rusell, S. F., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of
Anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In Butcher, J. N. & Spielberger, C. D. (eds.).
Advances in Personality Assessment. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case Studies. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.).

Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Steele, Claude M., and Aronson, Joshua. (1995). Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual
Test Performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(5), 797-811.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory,
Procedure and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Social Stereotypes and Social Groups. In Turner, J. C. & Giles, H.
(eds.), pp.144-167. Intergroup Behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.

van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. (1983). Cognitive and Conversational Strategies in the
Expression of Ethnic Prejudice. Text, 3, 375-404.

van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Cognitive Situation Models in Discourse Production: The

Expression of Ethnic Situations in Prejudiced Discourse. In Forgas, J. P. (ed.).
Language and Social Situations. New York: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. (1989). In van Oudenhoven, J. P. & Willemsen,

T. M. (eds.), pp.115-138. Ethnic Minorities: Social Psychological Perspectives.
Ámsterdam, Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Retrieved on July 11, 2011 from < http://
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Structures and strategies of discourse and
prejudice.pdf >

van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension.

New York: Academic Press.

Watkins, M. (2008). Teaching Bodies/Learning Desire: Rethinking the Role of Desire in

the Pedagogic Process. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 16(2), 113-124. Retrieved on
August 13, 2011 from <http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153058406>

Wayman, J. C. (2002). Student Perceptions of Teacher Ethnic Bias: A Comparison of

Mexican American and Non-Latino White Dropouts and Students. The High School
Journal, 85, 27-37.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, B. G. & Madsen Myers, K. (1999). Situated Cognition in Theoretical and

Practical Context. In Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (eds.). Theoretical Foundations
of Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

