Please respond to EACH of the following prompts in your response.
- Was the experiment/activity in the documentary conducted in an ethical manner?
- Could/should the experiment/activity lesson/activity be done in today's classrooms? (This question was asked in the documentary, and the response from the participants was overwhelmingly YES. Do you agree?)
- In class, I talked about how dated this experiment is, and how poorly it translates to the context we have today. I also explained that it was conducted in a small town in Riceville, Iowa with a ridiculously homogeneous group, elements that play into the experiment parameters. Remember the lesson on building the gummy sculpture and comment on what this documentary taught you about experiment parameters. Think about how the experiment changed when it was used with adults as opposed to with the children.
- There was an unexpected effect of the experiment, where the children actually performed better in their school work when they were in the top group. Explain why you think that happened.
The experiment conducted by the teacher was done in an ethical manner because permission was given by the parents. Furthermore, the experiment had a positive psychological effect on the students as it taught them a valuable life lesson.
ReplyDeleteDue to the overprotective nature of parents and staff, this experiment could not have been successfully conducted in today’s classrooms. Parents and teachers alike simply won’t allow such a deep experiment to take place due to the “everything is given, not earned” way of life kids nowadays are subject to. For example, teachers are required to call students’ parents if they slip, fall, or even get a paper cut. Consequently, an experiment about the effects of discrimination is too out of this world for parents and schools to permit.
One of the main parameters of this experiment would be the amount of participants. For example, both the classroom and the adults had a population of approximately 20 people. As a result, the sides (blue and brown eyes) saw the faults of the other type of person. However, if the population was 500, the experiment would fail to teach anything as there will be too many people to scrutinize and a lack of order for the analysis to go smoothly.
The student’s scores are directly proportional to the way they are treated prior to the examination. For example, the students in the top group performed much better than normal due to their sudden rise in self esteem. This sudden inflation is a result of insecurities and known faults being diminished, which stems from a sudden inflation in compliments and recognition of excellency.
The experiment in the documentary was done in an ethical manner due to parental and school consent.
ReplyDeleteThe experiment cannot be done in currently in classrooms due to current society and parents overprotecting their kids. The thought of this experiment highly going wrong can the parents or the staff not do this. This experiment should be done in today's classrooms since it teaches kids at a young age to treat everybody equally despite their physical differences and that can help a lot in life.
The parameter in this experiment would be that the amount of people doing it. Both the children and adult experiments had no more than 30 people so both sides (blue and brown eyes) saw the differences between one another. If the experiments had more than 200 people, the experiment would be a failure since there are too many people and less organization hence the examination will not go fluently.
The children performed better in the top group since they were getting constant praise about themselves, their moral was boosted and they scored higher marks on the tests and did better academically unlike the other students who weren't getting praised since they felt down and didn't want to be there.
1. The experiment is conducted in an ethical manner because the parents and the school board gave the teacher the consent to do it and the student were not hurt.
ReplyDelete2. An experiment such as this one should not be conducted in a classroom today because we do not have homogenized students. Some students may also have traumatic memories of discrimination which can be triggered by an experiment such as this one. The school board and parents may not consent to this activity.
3. While conducting an experiment, all parameters should be homogenized variables which will not have surprising, spontaneous changes throughout the investigation. All variables should be well observed and thought out appropriately for accurate and precise results. Using children rather than adults as subjects would bring better results in an experiment/activity such as the eye of the storm. Adults have a concrete view on society that guides them to make a variety of choices which affect their perception of themselves and others. Contrasting that, sheltered by their parents or guardians, the hardships of the world are foreign to most children. Without a concrete belief system, the adults in their life can influence children's views on others, so children can take in this concept in an unbiased manner which makes them excellent subjects for this experiment/activity.
4. I think that students do better in the top group because it means you are better than everybody else and you are expected to perform better than the other group. The top group is encouraged and favored more which brings a sense of superiority that makes you want the authorities to notice you thus automatically motivating you to do better than anybody else.
Yes, the experiment conducted was in ethical manner because the teacher was just trying to teach her students the key moral principles. And the childrens guardians had granted the teacher the permission to do so.
ReplyDeleteWith all the populated schools and classrooms the experiment cannot be easily done today. Before doing any sort of experiment the school has to send out consent forms to the students guardian which can lead to different perspectives on it.
There are many different parameters of this experiment. Some of them would be the amount of people, different age groups and the society influence. In the documentary the teacher does the experiment in the small town which definitely makes it easier to teach because of the less perspectives from outsiders. Adults have more experience than children which would make it harder to teach a larger group of adults than small children. When we were all young we would have been more influenced by our elders thinking what they say is true.
The students performed better after believing in themselves. The students that were getting more attention did well on tests and exams than the ones didn’t. The students gained more confidence in academics after being praised.
Yes the experiment was conducted ethically as consent was given by both the parents and the school and the overall outcome of the experiment would be positive to the students who participated.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that this experiment could be conducted today with students for many reasons one being that parents or even the school might not consent to this seeing that it would be dated and beveling that we as a society have come a long way from our racist past. Also since this experiment and its goals are well known students might not act genuine if they know it's just an experiment.
The setting of the experiment is one of the main parameters as a small town with a lack of diversity makes the whole experience much more simpler to conduct compared to a town with a larger population and diverse citizens.Children are more impressionable compared to Adults who have been alive much longer and have gone through things that have shaped their perspective.
The students at the top were given constant positive reinforcement by the teacher which in turn would boost their morale giving them more confidence when it was time for them to take a test. However the students at the bottom would be criticized at any given moment, giving them the idea that they were inadequate therefore they would score lower on tests.
1. I think the experiment was conducted ethically. The teacher let both groups experience the same things, both feeling superior and inferior, and at the end of the experiment the teacher explained that everyone is equal. She made sure the students understood that so they wouldn’t leave the class still feeling superior or inferior so the ultimate lesson was understood.
ReplyDelete2. Although I agree the idea of equality is a good concept to be learned at a young age, this specific experiment probably would receive varying levels support from parents nowadays. Some parents may be doubtful the way teachers will be handling this sensitive issue. Yes, it’s an important concept to learn but the experiment may not translate well with society today.
3.There were many parameters influencing this experiment. The fact that it took place in a homogeneous class setting influenced how they responded during the experiment. The age was also a factor in the experiment. The kids were still developing their views on society whereas the adults already had set views which is why the teacher was stricter with them which resulted in the adults and kids exhibited the same reactions. This experiment showed that you have to take into account background knowledge of participants in an experiment and adjust your behavior according to the group. Also this experiment the students didn’t know they were part of an experiment so their behaviors were authentic.
4.The students that felt superior than some of their classmates had better self esteems which led them to have a greater sense of confidence while taking the test. However, the students who were deemed inferior had a lower esteem regarding their abilities because they were repeatedly told they aren't as good as they other group. This is why the students attitudes toward themselves correlated with their test scores.
I believe that the experiment was conducted in an ethical manner since the teacher was trusted and given permission by the community and the parents of the children.
ReplyDeleteThis type of experiment could not have been conducted during this time period due to the fact that now children are very sensitive to racism/discrimination. Also considering that the experiment was done in a small town where everyone knows one another it is hard to have a setting like that now a days, since in most major cities and towns there is no teacher that is trusted and known by every parent. It is clear that this experiment would fail if it was ever attempted in this time period.
The most obvious parameter in the experiment would be how many people people participated in it. If it was done now there would be a far greater amount of participants with a far greater amount of variety. So telling the children that blue eyed children are better/worse than brown eyed children would be not be as effective since there could be children with green eyes and or black eyes. Experiment parameters have to be specific to the time and place where the experiment is being conducted to ensure that the experiment displays accurate results.
I believe that the children performed better in their school work when in the top group because they were given a boost of confidence so when they wrote their test their brain could focus on the assignment at hand and they were not worried because they already believed that they would do better than most of the class simply because of the color of their eye.
1. The experiment was done in an ethical manner because permission was given and no one was permanently affected in a negative way. Instead, everyone benefited from this experiments, learning to not judge based on stereotypes and their parents actions.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the experiment would not be able to be done in today’s society, as there would be a much bigger outcry about this method compared to 20 years ago. Also, many parents would not give permission to this as they believe it would not help their child. Also, in larger cities, this would gain unwanted attention from public speaking groups that are opposed to this and will likely cause the teachers involved to get fired.
3. One of the parameters was the amount of people in the experiment. Since there was not many people, it was easier for the person whose eyes were deemed the best to insult those who did not have these eyes. If the numbers in the experiment increased and the the rare eye colours were selected to be the best, i'm sure the majority would not be affected by this. Anotherw parameter would be the age of the participants, as the children were far more accepting of their situation compared to the adults, as children that young listen to adults.
4. If you continuously bash someone and insult someone their motivation to work will diminish. If your not motivated to work, you can’t expect them to do well most of the time unless their personal standards are set high. Motivating and encouraging someone will help them work faster and more efficiently, as they want to do well, contrary to those who are scrutinized. People's confidence in their own capabilities are dependent on their work environment, as shown in the experiments.
I think the experiment was conducted in an ethical manner because consent was given by both the parents and the school board.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the experiment should be done in today’s classrooms because there are many negatives to the experiment. Children who are faced by bullying would be more bullied the day they are inferior and the day that they are superior, they still may feel inferior to everyone else or they could try and hurt the other child(ren) that had bullied them before. I believe parents and the school board would not consent to this experiment because this experiment could harm students in many ways.
The experiment had two main parameters, a homogenized group of people and a small group size. These two factors should be kept the same if being conducted because if you have a homogenized group of people there would be fewer differences between the people which would lead to less discrimination as seen with the children. If you have a mixed group of people like the adult experiment, there seemed to be more discrimination. Having a small group to conduct the experiment would be beneficial because if you have a large group size, the experiment could go out of hands. For example, people would start to fight with each other. The age group of the groups had little significance on the experiment because in both groups, the children and adults just sat there and let the experiment happen, no one stood up and said anything to stop the teacher.
I think students did better in the top class because they were being treated with respect and they felt superior to everyone else. The constant praise and attention given to the students in the top class boosted their self-esteem which made them feel capable of achieving things. The other students were treated unfairly which left them feeling worthless which would’ve made them feel as if they were incapable of doing things. When the teacher criticized them for everything it lowered their self-esteem which caused them to do worse in school.
The experiment was conducted in as ethical a manner as possible. Racism, like any kind of prejudice, isn't a nice thing. There is no way to teach it in a nice way. At least, not effectively.
ReplyDeleteAn experiment like this couldn't be recreated today because of sensitivity present among guardians as well as administrators. although in my opinion, it shouldn't be. A majority of kids today already face bias in their everyday lives. They don't need a lesson on how much oppression sucks, because they face it every day. To put minority children through an exercise like this is redundant.
The only reason the exercise worked back then was because of the group that it was used on and the person who was administering it. Both focus groups trusted the word of Elliot because they saw her as the person in charge, just like our class trusted Ms Crumpton during the candy structure experiment. It wouldn't have worked as well if the groups were instructed by someone they saw as less of an authority figure. I also noticed that the adults tended to be more angry and frustrated when treated like ‘blue eyes’, maybe it was because the adults felt more equipped to fight back than the kids? Maybe it’s because they felt more entitled to respect?
It has been proven that positive reinforcement, and by extension confidence, helps in test performance while stress and self doubt doesn’t. It’s fairly obvious why. The ‘higher class’ citizens did better because they were told that they would, and believed it themselves. While the ‘lower class citizens’ thought lesser of themselves and their results reflected that.
I believe this experiment was indeed done in an ethical manner because consent was given by the community and the school. The activity was not in any way going against anyone’s wishes as it had been approved beforehand.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this activity should be done in today’s classrooms. The experiment could cause problems in the climate of today’s society, seeing as so many of us are sensitive to the topic of discrimination. When this experiment was first conducted, the teacher had the permission of authoritative figures and parents of the students. In cities as big as they are now, with a diverse community, I don’t think everyone would agree to such an activity. It should definitely be brought to our attention and discussed, but not experienced.
This experiment worked so well because the one conducting it was trusted in the small community and had received permission by everyone in the town. They had all known one another whereas when this activity was done with adults, there was no relation. The children in the experiment had known their teacher and had trusted her, which was why they listened so well and didn’t speak against her rudely. The adults had been defensive when it came to her because they didn’t know her. The children had also all been from the same community, but there was a diversity among the adults that seemed to divide them when it came to this experiment. They all had different mindsets and perspectives that played into their reactions, which is also why the experiment didn’t work as smoothly.
I think the children performed better when they were in the top group because they had adopted a sense of superiority. They had received praise from their authoritative figure, one that they listened to and trusted, and had been told that they were smarter and better. This seemed to encourage them to think that they could succeed in anything that they attempted, increasing their confidence. It gave them power and just that belief stimulated their brains into performing better.
Ultimately, the experiment conducted in A Class Divided, in my opinion, was done both ethically and maturely. Jane Elliott was a trusted member of the class’s small rural community, and each student was assured, post-experiment, that none of the segregations that had been created between them were true. The class was, additionally, aware that this was an experiment, and the overall experience had no negative effects on any of the children.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that this exercise should be performed in modern classrooms (with the discretion of all parties involved, of course), I don’t believe that it would be permitted, nor that it would be as well-received among parents as it had been in Riceville. For the majority of cases, the factors that played into the success of Elliott's experiment are not present in contemporary learning spaces. One example of this is the difference in the perception of teachers in the 1970’s as opposed to present day; in the eyes of many parents, they’re seen less as authority figures and more as administrators of education.
Overall this experiment teaches viewers that the control elements and the perception of the experimenter are the most important factors for success in your data. Elliott’s exercise ultimately relied on the homogeneity of the test group, which can be seen when comparing the original experiment to the one done on adults years later. The children had similar schedules, had known each other for most of their lives due to community relations, and all connected with the experiment due to the shared experience of living just after the wake of the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination. At variance with this is the adult group, who shared little to no similar backgrounds or schedules, and, for the most part, shared no connection with one another besides a shared occupation and workplace relations.
The unexpected rise in performance that arose from the data in the experiment was likely caused by the confidence levels of the participants. When one group was segregated from the other, and then given a false sense of inferiority, they performed worse than their other classmates when tested. They had been told that they weren’t as smart as their peers, and these comments ultimately fed into a lowered self-esteem which did, in turn, affect their grade. In essence, because they believed they were less than, they performed in a way that was less than that of the other students.
1. In my opinion, the experiment/activity in the documentary was conducted in a ethical manner. With the permission of the society, students, and the school board this experiment was an excellent way to experience the feeling processed by the Indians and other citizens.
ReplyDelete2. In today’s day and age, I believe that this experiment should not be conducted as it may create varying issue in our society. Many parents would disagree towards this sensitive topic, and will be doubtful on how this information is perceived. This experiment teaches a valuable lesson on discrimination but, this shouldn’t be conducted today.
3. In any experiment, the parameters help the experimenters learn the main motive behind the experiment giving it unexpected results. Jane Elliot chose an homogeneous class structure to achieve her experiment. Homogeneous class structures would allow kids to have similar timetables. Age played a factor in this experiment, as we see a behavioral change in both groups. Each adult has their unique perspective on how they view surrounding, as for kids in which they still are learning from their guardians and peers. The number of students/participants would create a valuable change. If their were to be more participants, the atmosphere of the room would get more chaotic, creating different results.
4. When the children were categorized in the group with prioritized authority, a sense of superiority or encouragement arise in children as they were considered ``special.`` Student perform well generally when they are enrolled in a positive environment with confidence to pass every test. Students performed less when they were categorized to be negatively judged for their facial characteristics, evoking a shameful and disappointing attitude.
1.I believe that the experiment was conducted in an ethical manner as the teacher did inform the parents of the children about it and had permission to do so. As well as the positive impact it had on both groups, children and adults regarding the topic of discrimination.
ReplyDelete2.I do not think that this experiment could take place today in a classroom as, in today's day and age, there are many overprotective parents that do not want their children to be exposed to this very deep topic at such a young age, let alone having them experience it firsthand in an environment meant to be a positive learning space. Although the experiment had a positive impact on the children in the documentary, what if some students don't get the message they are trying to be taught. I do however believe that overprotective parents and staff should allow this experiment to happen in schools. As although they are at a young age, with them experiencing it, they might be more adapted in handling issues that arise from discrimination.
3.A parameter is basically a limit. In this case the amount of people that took part in the experiment. In both the children and adult experiments, there was around 30 people. This proved to be a good number for the experiment as they were able to control everybody in each respective area. The teacher was able to organize both blue eyes and brown eyes and their certain privileges. When observing the differences between the adult version and the children's version of the experiment, the adults unlike the children had a better understanding of society and the perspective of themselves and others. They had experienced the real world while the children were basically cut off from these issues in the real world by their parents or guardians. The childrens experiment had introduced and taught the students about the issue, while the adults experiment served the purpose of reworking their perspectives of others and themselves. If the experiment was to be done again but with a much greater group of people, as it would be harder to maintain the group as theor would be a greater variety amongst the group and disorganization with large number thus creating a less successful experiment.
4.I believe this happened because when either the blue eyed or brown eyed students were favoured, they excelled. The reason being that with the certain advantages such as getting more time for recess or lunch, having the chance to play with equipment and the encouragement from the teacher that you are better helped their self esteem and confidence. When brown eyes were favoured, they were seen as smart and superior to the blue eyes. The teacher began to call the blue eye students dumb just because they had blue eyes. The students on top would feel better about themselves and found themselves as superior to those unlike them. They felt like they were on the top and they acted like they were on the top by thinking they were smarter resulting in them getter higher grades than those different.
1. Yes, it was done in an ethical manner because there was consent giving to this experiment by the school, and possibly the parents.. Even though it cause a psychological impact for these children it happened in a beneficial way. Since they were more accepting, critical of racism, and just simply in general treated more people equally.
ReplyDelete2. Due to the a change in society which is mainly due progressiveness that is happening at our time. Most likely or not this experiment could never happen due to the fact people might actually consider this to be racist even though this is simply a experiment. Also, it would require a lot of paperwork and consent for this experiment to actually happen so, in the short answer it's no.
3. The two main parameters of this experiment would most likely to be with the size of the population since the size of the classroom was around 25-30 kids and that is easy to manage. The second parameter is with the eye colour too, since the classroom the kids either had blue or brown eyes, if this was done with a larger population of people it would end up with failure. Since it would be hard to control a large group of people, there would be a lot of variation of people regarding eye colour, and there might be arguments or disagreements due to the objectives of the experiment. With adults it would simply end up with disagreements as they showed with the experiment with the prison staff as there are a lot of arguments between the teacher and the staff; however, with the students they simply obeyed without any objection due to age. So as a result, there is a lot of factors to consider if this was done with a larger population.
4. The reason why the children performed better when they were in the "chosen" group because they felt a sense of superiority and pride over the other groups which allowed to perform better due to the type of ego they had. While for the "inferior" group they performed poorly due to them feeling neglected, and feeling worthless. This shows that being favoured or being neglected has a big psychological impact on one's well being.
The experiment was conducted in an ethical manner because the teacher was trusted by the parents of the children and she had consent to conduct such an experiment with the adults as well.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this experiment could be conducted in today’s classroom because to divide the class into two would be quite difficult. The experiment conducted was in a very homogenous environment; but the society we live in today is quite diverse.
This documentary taught me that it is difficult to re-conduct an experiment with people. Everyone has different past experiences and they each will have a different take on the situations presented to them. The adults had a completely different take on the situation than the children did. The results you will get from one experiment will not completely match the results from another experiment because of the different backgrounds. Also, I think that both parties should be in both positions. I think that would them a better understanding of how both parties feel. The adults did not get to experience feeling both inferior and superior; they only got to be in one position.
I think that the way you feel has a significant impact on what you do. The children felt that they were bad and so their actions reflected that. When people believe in something, they will find a way. If they feel that they are inferior, even if they are not, they will find examples of that in their life, subconsciously or consciously.
1. Yes, I believe that the experiment was conducted in an ethical manner considering the fact that the woman was a trusted member of the community and the experiment was conducted in a small town where everyone knew each other.
ReplyDelete2. No, I do not believe that the experiment could be conducted today. There is more variety in classrooms now than ever before and it is possible that the experiment could fail.
3. The documentary taught me that in order for a experiment to be successful, there should be a homogenous element to the way the experiment is conducted and the subjects should be selected carefully so that it is easier for a general conclusion to be drawn. In this particular experiment, the children had to be told that they were superior a number times so that it stuck in their minds. This is probably due to the fact that the children knew each other for some time. However the adults accepted what they were told as soon as it was said.
4. The grade improvement that all the students experienced was probably due to a boost in self esteem that they got when they were told that they were superior.It made them feel more confident as learners and gave them extra motivation to study.
1. Yes, it was. The parents were notified beforehand, and if they they didn't want their child to participate, they could've contacted the teacher in order to ensure that they could sit out. Although the experiment deals with heavy issues, it's presented in a manner that grade 3 children could understand.
ReplyDelete2. I believe so. The experiment is structured in a way where it is politically correct in today's society. On the topic of society, today's world is becoming hyper political, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that this sort of experiment could be attempted. Sure, some of the conservative types may have STRONG opposition to this sort of idea, but in today's climate of heightened racial climate, I can see this happening.
3. Without these parameters, the experiment was doomed to fail. Not only was it intended for an extremely homologous group, but the inclusion of children plays a big part. All of these kids were white and young, perhaps have never seen an individual of different colour. In grade 3, you don't have the knowledge of complex issues like racism and murder, and are more, for lack of a better term, manipulated. With adults, they've been subject to these social structures and experiences. Henceforth, they are FAR more cynical as compared to their child counterparts.
4. The children were inspired to do better as they were told they were the "better" people. A sense of moral superiority quickly blossomed, and the children did better when propelled by this feeling.
Yes, the experiment was conducted in an ethical manner because the children's parents were informed and, both groups had the chance to be the "Better ones." The kids were told after the experiment that there was no actual segregation between them.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that this activity should be done in schools today, even after taking into account that the world as a whole has become aware of discrimination against smaller or different communities. People may argue that there is much more diversity now but that still doesn't change the fact that putting people through it will have a much bigger impact on them.
One main parameter in this documentary was the setting this experiment took place. They school had very little diversity compared to a populated city today and the kids may not have been exposed to different people from different communities. The children could be manipulated way more than the adults, but the adults listened to what was being said. The adults were grown up and had their views on discrimination shaped over time, and they also didn't want to believe the perspective other had of them.
The children that were “better” preformed higher than the other because their self esteem and confidence was boosted. They were getting constant positive feedback which in turn made them believe in themselves and perform better.
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I believe the experiment was done in an ethical manner. It was a little harsh, but it was worth it for the lesson learned.
2. I would completely agree to have this lesson taught in class. But, we live in a very fragile and sensitive world and I can not imagine all parents agreeing to it. This is because most parents would be too afraid that their child will be influenced negatively in some way. I believe the participants said yes because they had gone through the whole process and realized how it impacted their lives.
3. Yeah, this experiment would have definitely been different if it had been done in modern day life. We would probably try to integrate technology in some way to make it relevant to the people today.
4. I believe this happened because the students realized that they were all equals and that no one person is acc superior to another. When they were segregated under the experiment, they were made to believe that they would never be able to be as good as the other races because of their physical limitations. But after the experiment, they realized they could be whatever they wanted to be if they put their mind to it.
1. I think that the experiment was conducted ethically. The school and parent were consulted and gave consent on the student's behalf.
ReplyDelete2. Given the correct teacher to direct the experiment, I believe that this would be beneficial to today's students as well. Tolerance should not be exclusive to only one generation. "Could it be done?" is a bit harder though. The parents, students and teachers would probably agree to a lesson in tolerance, but they may not agree to something so first hand as this. The children being treated poorly for half of the study might leave a bad taste in parents' mouths.
3. The problem with the Riceville experiment is that schools in Canada are more diverse. The majority of the schools in Canada probably do not consist of only white children. This may lead to increased awareness and tolerance of their peers, but it is hard to say what outcome every class will have. However, the experiment with the adults would be tougher to conduct. This is because in the children's test, the teacher is a trusted and respected authority; a speaker will most likely not have the same relationship with the adults as the kids have with their teacher. That being said, I believe the experiment with the adult subject would still be effective in most cases.
4. My thinking is that students held on to all the positive encouragement that they were given when they were part of the positive group. If you believe you're inferior, you perform poorly, but the kids held onto the stuff that resonated with them most positively. If you are treated like a superior, you have something to prove.
I believe that the experiment was conducted ethically and with good intentions. After the death of Martin Luther King jr this teacher believed that something had to be done to have the actual reality sink in with her students of what it truly felt like to be discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, I feel this lesson in equality and lack thereof could be a useful one to teach to our future generations. However, if done on students around the country, it should be a requirement that it is done early on in a Childs education to prevent the kids acting in an overly negative way like the group of adults did. I agree with the idea of it being a requirement for teachers and advisors all over the country but if this experiment isn't done correctly it could affect a childs self confidence and ways of thinking for the rest of their life.
The activity took place on a group of mostly homogenous third graders with impressionable minds by an authoritative figure that they trusted amongst people who don't have a necessarily bad point of view about each other. These are all key elements in making sure this experiment has a positive effect on the children instead of a negative.
The children performed better when they were thought of as better because their self confidence and their self esteem was higher therefore their minds were more clear and more focused on the task at hand. Being surrounded by positive reinforcement and encouragement can make you feel superior and like you can achieve anything you put your mind to. After the experiment was over, I believe the students performed better overall because of the new self esteem and ways of thinking they have received earlier in the school year.
In my opinion, the experiment was done ethically because the parents were informed and it was done by a person the students trusted.
ReplyDeleteIn today's day and age,I believe this experiment should not be done because our society has changed to the point that everything has to be politically correct (which is good) but it means that an activity like this may be offensive to many students, or their parents.
The parameters in the experiments were helpful to better display the motive of the experiments. In the child version, there was a pretty homogenized group of kids who have had their share of privilege.The children also knew each other so when they started to treat each other differently, you could see the effectiveness of the experiment. The adult group however was not homogenized and didn't know each other well. The experiment still had similar results but you the child one shows how relationships are broken because of segregation.
There was an unexpected result of the experiment, where the children who where treated better did better in their schoolwork. This can be explained by how if you are put in a positive environment, you are more likely to have positive outcomes. All of the positive reinforcement that was given to the top groups made the children feel like they are destined for greatness. This feeling of greatness helped boost the morale and confidence of the children causing them to do better in their studies. The “better” children were constantly given inspiration and positive reinforcement, allowing them to push themeves to good in school. However, for the other group, the oppisite effects were seen as many emotional hurdles and self confidence issues were presented infront of them.