Favoritism

CHAPTER I Introduction Favoritism is some phenomena in which one person favors other persons on the bases of some illogical reasons. There's no question that favoritism is a bad way to manage things. It causes destroys employee morale & resentment, as well as morale of the students and creates disincentives for good performance. It is existed in almost each of the organization as well as in our educational institutions. It means it can affect the student’s learning and the environment of the class as well. The trend of becoming favorites can also be the cause of this one. Favoritism may be defined as Favoritism is favoring one person not on the bases of that a person is doing his best job but according to some external factors like personal liking and disliking etc. (Nedler & Schulman, 2006). There are some students who are smart and intelligent and also they behave well, they blessed with the favor and smiles of the teacher. The other students get a glance only by their teachers merely. Some students are often asked by the teachers to participate in class tasks and activities but other students are invited sometimes only. Favoritism is like a snake which is poisoning all the educational system, the classrooms, all the elements of schools and universities. The poison of this snake is spreading all over in the classrooms (Linsin, 2011). The most important factor is the attitude of the teachers. They set their main objective as the achievements in the schools. Teachers must develop teaching methods, materials and educational experience to develop a proper attitude in the students (Haladyna, Olsen, Shaughnessy, 2006).

Aydogan, Ismail, (2008) Favoritism is one of the most famous topics of the educational institutions. Teachers mostly favor some students definitely in the classes. According to the ethics principles teachers must adopt professionalism, responsible service, fairness, equality, loyalty, maintaining a healthy and safe environment, honesty and integrity, trust, objectivity, professional loyalty and continuous development, respect, effective use of resources, respect for human freedom, and compassion. (Aydm, 2003;Spiegel,Witting, Perkins, Balogh & Whitley, 1993). Favoritism is the phenomena in which we favor some persons not on their abilities but some other irrelevant characteristics or on the basis of their personal contacts. (Employee Favoritism, 2006). Nadler & Schulman, (2006). It removes equality among the people and also it can hurt the feelings and good intentions of others Favoritism in the classroom is one of the most important reasons affecting instruction and thus student success. Factors leading to favoritism among teachers may be listed as follows    

student success student’s social or economic status gender, physical appearance familiarity between student and teacher or student’s family and teacher (blood relations



or friendship) Parallelism between the ideology

(Brophy, 1983; Clifton,Perry,Parsonson andHryniuk, 1986; Delamont 1983;Ritts, Patterson and Tubbs, 1992; Dembo, 1994; Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, Stanworth, Sheard, Webster, 1993; Feldman and Saletsky, 1990; Braun, 1976; Kenealy, Frude, Shaw, 1988; Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, Ecob, 1994). Houli, (1999);Bhushan, (1985).If there is a positive relationship between teacher and a student then it will help the students to be motivated and to get successful. Teacher’s

behavior with the students inside and outside of the class can affect the motivation of the students and their learning. (McGarity & Butts, 1984). Teachers mostly take the effect of the success and failure of the students. There is a trend that teachers mostly criticize those students having lower mantel level, it decreases their motivation towards work as well. Similarly they perceive about some students that they are good and develop a positive attitude towards them which becomes the cause of their more success. (Jussim, Smith, Madon & Palumbo, 1998). Social class is also an important factor which can become the cause of the favoritism in the classrooms. For example students from a lower background are ignored and students from the upper background are treated well. (Jussim et.al., 1998). Sprinthall and Sprinthal (1990).Teachers do not favor those students that are from the lower background than the teacher. They only favor those students that are from the same background as from the teacher is. Gender is also an important factor which plays an important role in favoritism. Teachers mostly favor students of their opposite gender. Male teachers mostly favor female and female teachers mostly favor male students.

Statement of the problem Students are getting their performances affected by the favoritism shown by their teachers in classrooms and in evaluation as well so this research is going to be conducted to find out how it affects student’s learning. The problem here is only that we have to examine the bad effects of the favoritism. “Study will be aiming to find the perception of students about level of favoritism, in University of the Punjab”. This is the statement of problem we’ll keep it in mind while doing this study.

Significance of the topic

Our study on favoritism is very useful for us. It is providing the information about the favoritism effects and its causes. It is getting us aware of the important concepts of favoritism. For the students it is also very useful. For the students there is the information about the favoritism causes. When students would be aware of the facts about favoritism and its causes, they can take some careful steps to avoid favoritism during their educational experience. It would be also useful for the teachers as well. Teachers will get the information about the favoritism and its side effects on the students. So the teachers will be more careful about favoritism. They could take also some steps to reduce in the institutions. This study is also very useful for our educational departments. Different educational departments and institutes can make their policies, like so that they can avoid favoritism in their institute or department. Different experts can do some remedial steps to reduce favoritism in education.

Objectives of the study To explore whether favoritism exists or not Exploration of the role of favoritism for the grades Exploring the level of favoritism through different institutions Exploring the variation of favoritism through different ages

Exploring the favoritism existence through different programs Exploring the level of favoritism in different levels of semesters Finding the changings in favoritism through different shifts

Hypotheses Ho1: Favoritism does not exist Ho2: There is no significant difference in favoritism on the bases of grades of students Ho3: There is no significant difference in favoritism in the different institutions Ho4: There is no significant difference in favoritism among different ages Ho5: There is no significant difference in the favoritism among different programs Ho6: Semester vise, there is no significant difference in favoritism Ho7: There is no significant difference in favoritism among different shifts

Research Question What are the most influencing factors of favoritism? What are the least influencing factors of favoritism? Some studies do not suggest the combination of hypotheses and research questions but some studies do suggest this. We are going to include both of these terms in our study because we have to report most influencing and least influencing factors ahead.

Limitations and De- limitations

Limitations The one limitation which we had to face was the pure opinion of the students because we were having the questionnaire solved from the students therefore we don’t know that how many people give their pure opinions to us. Also there is no research culture in Pakistan so the response of the students to any research topic was very low De-limitations There were limited resources, time and money. We had to make some limitations because of limited money, time and resources. Because of these limited resources, we had to face many limitations as well. We could not select all the educational institutions. We had to select only the public sector, not the private sector. In this public sector of education we only selected the University of the Punjab. We could not cover all the students of the University of the Punjab. We had to select only four faculties. Then out of these four faculties we could not select all the programs also. Therefore we had to select some degrees which were most convenient to us.

Methodology and procedure Here in this section we described the methods and procedures, which we had adopted in this study. Here is the detail of our study type, our questionnaire type, and our mode of collection of data. There is also brief description of the population and sample.

Research Design

Our study type was tending to be an exploratory and explanatory research, which had a survey research design on quantitative methods. It will explore the overall level of favoritism in the University of the Punjab. Population The population of this study was students of the Punjab University. In these students, there were the students from the bachelor programs and masters programs as well. Those programs were of two years and four years also Sample There were thirteen faculties in the University of the Punjab. We select four faculties as ours clusters. These were the faculty of Education, Faculty of Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences and Faculty of Commerce. From these four faculties we choose different departments. These departments were I.E.R, Department of Physics, Department of Geography, Department of Political Sciences and International Relations and Hailey college of Commerce. Study instrument The tools or instrument, we used for this study was only a structured questionnaires which were given to the students to know their opinions Data collection strategies Now there is a description explaining the way of our data collection. We only collect data through questionnaires. Not any other sources were used for it. Data Collection

We, by ourselves visited the selected departments of the University of the Punjab and we gave the questionnaires to the students of the selected degree programs. They filled those questionnaires and we got back our data at the spot. Time line Table 1.1 Table for timeline of the research Sr.no 1 2 3 4 5 6

Activities Research topic selection Review of related literature Instrument development Data collection Data analysis Findings, conclusion and compile of the study

Duration 1 months 5 months 4 months 1 months 15 days 1 month

The above table indicates that data collection take a long period of time. Researchers used structured questionnaire and distributed personally to the student of selected institute. Research started with the topic selection and end with the summary, findings and conclusion of the study. Literature review and instrument development took our most of the time because these two steps require more studies of the past literature.

Important definitions of the variables Favoritism

Favoritism is favoring one person not on the bases of that a person is doing his best job but according to some external factors like personal liking and disliking etc. (Nedler & Schulman, 2006). Favoritism is the phenomena where teacher favors some group or a student on the bases of some un-logical reasons or to motivate the competition Credibility of teacher Credibility of the teacher depends upon how he is perceived by the students. (Robinson & King, 2000) A credible teacher is one who treats all the students equally, he can be trusted and is cooperative for all the class. Discrimination The treatment which is not based on justice and it is based upon only race, age or sex. (Oxford Dictionary). Making differences between the students and different groups of students by the teacher. Gender based favoritism Unequal treatment on the bases of the sex of the persons is gender based favoritism. (Gerald N. Hill, 2005).

Chapter II Literature review

In this chapter we took an overview of all the studies which have been conducted in the education since from the very beginning. We saw that many other persons also have conducted many researches on this topic. From this literature review we saw that favoritism really exists in our educational institutions. We also saw that how it affect the students, the teachers and the parents as well. In this study we also saw the different effects of favoritism on the environment of the education system. We saw the role of favoritism in the classroom. We saw the favoritism’s effects on the teacher’s success and credibility. We noticed the effects of favoritism on the relationship of the teachers and students. We witnessed the unfair behavior of the teachers and its negative effects on the students from the previous literature. We explored the environment of the classroom where favoritism openly exists. We explored that favoritism is rapidly becoming a problem for our educational institutions. We found that favoritism creates discrimination among the students. We saw from the literature the different forms of favoritism like gender based, sect based or racial favoritism. We also explored in this chapter that favoritism creates mental disturbance in the students and also it has an impact on practical life of the students. We checked out the effects of favoritism on the grades, results and evaluations. We also saw that favoritism affects the relationship of the students as well, as it creates conflicts among the students. We also studied some theories on the favoritism. We checked out social identity theory, theory of Nepotism and theory of theory of Favoritism by Long and Subeyran. These theories explain the favoritism existence in our society in the different forms. Background of the study

One of the most important factor due to which we consider to do research studies on this topic was our personal experience. We experienced favoritism in our past educational career at many spots. We thought that there must be other students facing favoritism too, therefore we thought that we should conduct a survey research on this topic and we must try to find out that is there favoritism exists and if it exists, how it is affecting the education sector. There are proper researches, which have been conducted in the past. There we’ll take an overview of the all the studies in the past. These are the evidences of favoritism existence. We saw favoritism as a problem in education always. We also had to face it in the past as well. So therefore idea to do research on this topic came to our mind. We just wanted to explore that other students are getting disturbed through it and education system is getting involved favoritism in their matters. Many persons had done their research on favoritism, here we took an overview of their studies and findings. Dhanani, (2008) Many psychologists have proven that there is a direct effect of teacher’s attitude upon the performance of the students and their efforts as well. The problem is that the attitude and behavior is not based on justice. Research has also proved that favoritism is now becoming the very serious issue and is almost everywhere. Teachers mostly make their focus at those students who always raised hands when the question is asked in the class. These are known as teacher’s pets. These teachers select a group to whom they give their maximum attention while ignoring the rest of the class (Mkowlowltz, 2012). Powers, (2013) Students wants a teacher who teaches the students with fun, a teacher who really cares about students, a teacher who treats all the students equally. A teacher who encourages students to work as a group and a teacher who enjoys talking with the students, enjoy their

questions. In today’s times there is a time where dynamic environment is there in classrooms. Process is more seamless and its flow is back and forth from student to teachers and then teachers to students (Barseghian, 2011). At this time of age three trends of education are most common, Collaborative, Tech Powered and Blended (Barseghian, 2011). Nedler, and Schulman, (2006) Favoritism as it is clear from the word that favoring a person not on the bases that he is doing the best job but for some ridiculous reasons, due to some membership in a group, personal relations and common liking and disliking etc. Parental favoritism also affects the focus of child for his education. In many cases it is seen that mothers and daughters are more close than the mothers and sons (Spencer, 1998). Our main topic is “level of favoritism in educational institutions”. As we’ll review first about favoritism

Favoritism (English Dictionary) Situation of being someone favorite is known as favoritism. Favoritism is the phenomena which are sometimes held to create friends (Allen, 2010). Any phenomenon which is generated to create favoritism is always against the confidence of the public (Greenwald, 2012). Some of the references show that favoritism towards the people give fighting spirit in the people (Duran, 2006). Hine, (2008) Favoritism in the society can destruct the whole system and it can make you too much sick and tired. People showing biases in the in the society leads us to the favoritism (Dasgupta, 2004).

Theories of favoritism

We also had taken some overview on the different theories on the favoritism. These theories are the following   

Social identity theory Theory of Nepotism Theory of Favoritism

Social identity theory Tajfel & Turnor, (1979) developed this theory. Originally it was developed by Tajfel in 1971. This theory emphasis on selves rather than self which means someone just not need to focus at him, but there are some other people are also there in the society. 

This theory explains that people interaction towards the groups leads us to the group

 

memberships. This could lead to the in group favoritism After that there a stage is come where a person tries to get the self -esteem stage If it is treated fairly, it can create positive social attachments in the society.

Theory of Nepotism Narrated by the Admin, (2012) This theory explains the concept of nepotism. This theory explains the important factors related to the nepotism.    

It is created when a biasness is generated due to some relationship It could be created due to good looks of the people It could be created due to good chemistry among the people It could be created due to love, respect and hero worship.

Theory of favoritism Long & Soubeyran, (2007) developed this theory. In this theory they discuss the favoritism concept in the international aspect.



Some international firms have characterized their employees and favors are given to the

 

certain employees. This creates a competition among the employees So a model character is generated as a result, so we can say it a model theory as well.

Now we’ll check the different aspects of favoritism from the literature. First of all we’ll check its effects on students.

Effects of favoritism on students’ learning and environment Now we’ll check the effects of favoritism on student’s learning and environment of the class. Here we’ll see through the literature that how favoritism affect the students’ learning. We‘ll see through the literature the different situations. We’ll see in the literature that favoritism creates insecurity among the students, it creates mental disturbance, relationship of favoritism and dissatisfaction of the students. We’ll take an overview that how favoritism affect the studies of the students. We’ll also check that how it affects the social development of the student. Now we are also going to review its effects on classroom environment. We’ll review that how favoritism produces competition in the class. We’ll take an overview that how it creates problems for the class and how it creates discrimination in the class.

Insecurity among the students Jatten, Branscombe, Spears, (2002) It is obvious that people under any group or in- group persons feels more secure than other persons. People having image of self -esteem are more insecure about their identity. People with in- groups are more secure. In universities athletes are

considered as low mental level students and are treated unfair in their evaluation, so they started to feel insecure in that type of environment (Jolly, 2007). Jolly, (2007) Also a communication hurdle can also create insecurity among the students. Teacher keeps a gap between himself and students and students started to feel insecure. Teachers must be aware of this question that is the students insecure from him. To reach to this answer is simply a class discussion. Teacher can discuss with students so that their hesitation will also be gone (Spaulding, 1997). Psychological disorders Bluethmann, (2011) Dr. Volling studies have proved that favoritism can affect long term on a child or student’s mind specially small children can become a victim mental disorder. Effects of favoritism is always has some long term effects on a child’s mind. The child takes it as he perceives it, as the perception is everything (Bluethmann, 2011). Bluethmann, (2011) The un-favored child suffers the most he could be get prey of the depression, weakness or a situation of self -esteem. Students are mostly seemed to be depressed because they don’t even get the chance to enhance and to even form their personality (Bluethmann, 2011). Libble, (1992) If a child, who does not seem happy is that child, who actually has the experience to do such things which he or she wants to do at sometimes but could not fulfill their wishes. And now they are depressed. Favorites are not hard working Meador, (2001) Perfect student is not that who is smart. There are many students who are intelligent by birth but they have a lack of self-discipline. The perfect student is that who loves to

work hard. Teacher must love these students. There are smart and intelligence students in colleges and they are expected to give maximum performance. Sometimes these students feel independent for their studies and all the hard work (Anderson, 2013). Paton, (2013) World’s top universities have a trend that they forced their students to work hard twice rather than to be smart. For this purpose they set some standards for students as well. An excellent student is that who prepares, organized and ready to study (Ben Rubenstein et al, 1990). Condron, (2005) Teachers have mostly the power to motivate the students because they have the front line. They can influence the students not favoring the students but accepting excellence from each student. Teacher must recognize the good work from the whole class and then it will create motivation in the students of the whole class (Condron, 2005). Favoring just some of the students will be the cause of demotivation in the other students of the class. It also creates bad etiquettes in the students. They tried to break the rules provided them for the discipline issues.

Favoritism creates resentments Fanaroff, (2010) Kids get bad grades because they are not capable of doing the teacher’s tasks to become favorites. In-fact kids who deserve bad grades are often given the good grades on the bases that how they can fast arrange the 150 papers of the teachers alphabetically. Nadler and Schulman, (2006) When teachers give the good grades because of favoritism make his job to the other students inferior. Also a communication hurdle can also create insecurity

among the students. Teacher keeps a gap between him and students and students started to feel insecure (Jolly, 2007). Feld, Salaamanca and Hamermesh, (2013) Simply favoritism is the key to the creation of the discrimination among the students. So favoritism would be removed as the discrimination would be removed. Discrimination is held as a result which is a powerful force (Feng Fu, Tarnita, Christakis, Wang, Rand and Nowak, 1982). Favoritism and dissatisfaction of the students Feldman (1976) This is still is the question that how student will be assessed by their teachers correctly. For example knowledge, classroom management, fairness, openness and encouragement are the factors which are closely related to the views of good teaching near the students. Best & Addison, (2000) It has been proved by a research that a sense of humor in a teacher makes the learning enjoyable. It has also been proved that these qualities in a teacher do not get perfect teaching style (Sheehan & DuPrey, 1999). Competency comes, when there comes self- efficacy. And it is remarkable to mention that many students fail to maintain self-efficacy (Dweck, 1999). Favoritism’s bad effects on studies of students Wilder, (2008) Teacher can increase the power of learning and motivation in the students by understanding the varying natures of the students in the class. Students with learning disabilities are also bright and they can achieve success in life (Davidson, 2011).

Nadler and Schulman, (2006) When teachers give the good grades because of favoritism make his job to the other students inferior. There is an issue of competence, as incompetent persons mostly get a chance to be favorites and then they are diverted from their studies (Nadler and Schulman, 2006). Aydogan and Ismail, (2008) Favoritism is one of the most important phenomena that is affecting heavily the learning, instruction and student’s success. As education in many countries, especially in Turkey now becoming fully non discriminative. It is wholy based based upon equality (Aydogan and Isamail, 2008). It can bring an equal interest of studies in the students Conflicts among the students University of Oregon, (2009) One of the major reasons of the conflicts among the students is the competition. While compete each other for grades, students often fight each other. Some conflicts arises from misunderstanding about the coursework, grades, for coming late in the class or proving wrong each other during class (Boice, 1996). Mayers, (2003) We should reduce peer conflict because peer learning is too much important for the students. Frequent use of peer learning techniques facilitate interaction among the students. A student, who thinks themselves as superior from the class, or keep distance from the teachers, actually shows an aggressive and provocative behavior (Kearney & Plax, 1992). If students think that the instructor cares about them they will be more attentive to the course and their tasks (Feldman, 1989).

It is obvious from the literature that favoritism diverts the attention of the students from their studies. Revengeful emotions Linsin, (2010) When the teacher places the lesson with the differences then the student tries to break a rule and tries to receive the consequences. How the teachers can decrease this. They can understand the problems of the students and responding them calmly (Linsin, 2010). Linsin, (2010) Teacher itself is the cause of misbehaviors or revenges of the students. Some students come in the class with good intentions to learn but sometimes some students only come to misbehave in the class. If a teacher who is finding some difficulty in class management, then he will do some activities which will be resulted in some misbehaviors from the students (Linsin, 2010). Lack of self confidence Katz RC, (1999) Favoritism can lead to a student to anxiety, the more favoritism, and the more anxiety level in the student. This may be anxiety related to test or any other issue of the class. Student knows that teacher is not going to favor him. Reasoner, (1998) Favoritism can lead to lack of confidence in students and it can lead us to the self -esteem stage as well. In this stage student can take some harmful actions like alcohol and drugs usage, crime and violence, depression and suicide, eating disorders and bad interpersonal relationships. The main factors acting upon student’s self -confidence are their relationship with their teachers, peers and then at home with their parents (Castro, 2013). Favoritism’s effects on Social grouping

Aydagon and Isamil, (2008) An influential element of the favoritism is the social class to which the student belongs. Students having middle class background are more favored as lower level background student (Jussim et al, 1998). In a research on primary schools it was found that teachers know well about the socio-economic background of the students, also they were favoring the students of higher socio-economic class (Ozturk, Sahin & Koc, 2002). Jussim, Smith, Madon and Palumbo, (1998) Where there are students of a socio-economic class lower than the teacher, the result would be in favor of only those students having higher socioeconomic class. Favoritism can be reduced by choosing students randomly and by not not knowing about their personal details (Mrkowlowitz, 2012). Social development Jolly, (2007) To sit together of the students is not only enough they need to be socially interactive. Teachers can develop the social skills in the students about realizing them about the need of social skills. It can be only done when there are no hurdles like favoritism. Jolly, (2007) Also a communication hurdle can also create insecurity among the students. Teacher keeps a gap between himself and students and students started to feel insecure. So they feel it difficult to make links in the society as well. There is a lack of social interaction in the graduation level most, as favoritism exists here most. According to a research 50% students get depressed due to less social interaction at the higher education system (Ryan, 2012). Tajfel, (2009) Teacher favoritism can also lead the student to the stage of self -esteem. At this stage he tries to prove each and every one wrong and considers himself a superior personality.

Teachers must be aware of this question that are the students insecure from him. To reach to this answer is simply a class discussion. Teacher can discuss with students so that their hesitation will also be gone (Spaulding, Angela, 1997). Now we’ll see the effects of favoritism on the classrooms according to the literature. Class environment Linsin, (2011) If it is asked some teachers admit this fact that they do favoritism in a specific way, as it is up to the students that how he can see it in the hidden box of teacher’s mind. Obviously we must need to know all the facts and requests of the students, they conveyed to us, as the clear Chinese message is that always a good looking person get more chances in life (Pasden, 2005). Zeiger, (2003) One of the most important elements of classroom management is teacher’s behavior and attitude. Students often respect and teacher’s attitude, emotions & behavior. In some cases students and teachers are well aware of favoritism (Bloom & Golden, 1982). As this study clearly describes that favoritism affects the classroom environment very deeply. It is becoming a very important issue in education.

Role of favoritism in class Bowie, (2009) Teacher favoritism gave me the edge. It was the possibility that some people may not like you that how you do your work and how well you do it. According to social identity theory social groups are referred to interrelations as people want to create their own social identity. This may ends in the formation of grouped favoritism.

Aboud, (2003); Aboud & Amato, (2001) The tendency of the favoritism in children affects heavily on the children’s behavior. It is developed in the child very early. I was teacher’s favorite because my marks and grades were higher but the only problem was there that other children don’t take that in that positive way (Bowie, 2009). It is the classic example of classroom favoritism is that how teachers extend the dates of the assignments just because they want to facilitate their favorite students (Fanaroff, 2010). John Pasden writes in his article about the behavior of his teacher mate that how she liked a student who was good looking and how she always say that to him in a way, like you are the most good looking student in this class (Pasden, 2005). Healthy competition Kohn, (1993) Students in our society are already very aware of the competition. Even it is useful many times. Children have more than they ever have outside of the classroom. While in a case a student will try to get benefit while considering the effects of the some situation like favoritism. Mpullen, (2007) Competition sometimes is introduced unfairly by our some educationist which many of us refused to accept. When we introduce competition in a specific situation we divert the attention of the participant from the task to the cost of the performance of the task (Kohn, 1993). In a situation when a competition is held the performance is directly related to the speed of the task (Clifford & Cleary, 1972). A Problem for class

Angel, (2010) Favoritism has been always in the classrooms from the very start. It seems to be increased each year. It seems to be a cruel treatment by the teacher, but teacher do not change it a little bit. But it is fair to do some extra favor for some special students who need extra care actually. No disrespect to the teachers but teacher’s duty must be to make the children wellmannered and good people and educating them by showing them the unity as a whole (Angel, 2010). How the environment of the class can be improved here, the very simple way is to conduct a discussion in the classrooms about the agendas, students are facing for a particular session (Angel, 2010). Driscoll, (2013) In a situation where a teacher tries to address to the students or a group of students, there, many problems will arise like poor energy levels, lack of interest and peer pressure to misbehave. Teacher needs good skills to avoid all these situations. Sometimes problems are occurred not only of the misbehavior of the teacher but also sometimes problems are occurred due to misbehavior of the students as well. When behaviors are overwhelmed problems are created (Bolton, 2001). Discrimination Feld, Salaamanca & Hamermesh, (2013) Discrimination is here primarily in our society now a day. Women are not treated equally. In short discrimination is here maximum for the minorities. A research was held an exam was held in the university without their names on sheets. It was noticed that graders and teachers favor the students of their nationality more than the other nationality holder students (Feld, Salaamanca & Hamermesh, 2013).

Simply favoritism is the key to the creation of the discrimination among the students. So favoritism would be removed as the discrimination would be removed. (Feld, Salaamanca & Hamermesh, 2013). Favoritism and teamwork in the class Graham, (1991) Favoritism can destruct the morale of the whole department or class so it becomes impossible for the persons to work as a team. Persons working as a team for previous records are shattered due to favoritism (Graham, 1991). Morale of the teams is directly related to the results and productivity of the tasks (Sweeney, 2011). Sweeney, (2011) Demotivational teamwork results as a dysfunctional of the system and also dysfunctional teams are generated as a result. Favoritism by the superiors is based upon personal preferences and does not compensate the structure (Batool, 1998). Dynamic personalities are always there in a team, so teacher favoritism mostly involves here also. It results as a poor interrelations and teamwork becomes failed (Batool, 2012). Now we’ll check the effects of favoritism on teachers from the literature.

Effects of favoritism on teachers The following literature, we studied related to the effects of favoritism on teachers. In this review we see that how favoritism leads a teacher to failure. How it affects the relationship of the teachers and students. We’ll take an overview that how favoritism affect the teacher’s behavior and how it affects the teacher’s credibility. A sign of unsuccessful teacher

Farris, (2001) It is obvious that poor etiquettes and poor environment in the classrooms is harmful for both teachers and students. It can distract learning process. The teacher may said to be the unsuccessful teacher when there is no proper attire in the classroom, when there is a disrespect in the classroom, when there are nonverbal signals and when teacher really don’t know how to deal with bad behavior of the student (Farris, 2001). Shalfield, (2009) Teachers sometimes also got wrong by the students due to some reasons. These reasons may be they don’t realize that they are now adults, not understanding the different way of teaching, and blaming others for their faults. Bad relationship of students and teachers Bloom and Golden, (1982) Subtle teachers and even many students don’t know that how it looks like. Blatant students are aware of teacher’s pets in the classrooms (Amankwa, 2009). Sometimes teachers suggest that there are distinctive personalities and climate in the class it often become a problem for the students in their learning process (Andreson, 1968). The differences in the classrooms are termed to as the social environment of the class (Andreson, 1968). Christine, Bradshaw, Catherine, Leaf & Philip, (2008) Research has told us that effect of leadership depends upon the school conditions like goals, structure and culture of the school. A positive school climate is a component of impressive schooling strategy and good learning. Climate is traditionally set according to the school level factor, like school size (Spaulding, 1997). it is showed from the research that we made our idea about the people just in seven seconds after meeting the people (Butterman, 2007). Teachers always try to relate every good and nice thing to his favorite students ten times (Butterman, 2007). Well it can reduce confidence in other students.

It results as a disturbance in the classroom environment Lack of trust Campbell, (2010) Children are very sensitive so that they feel it very fast that their teachers are favoring some students which may cause in lack of trust and many other disputes. There is a lack of opportunities to develop relationship with teachers. Students always want to be listened and to be respected as all other human being want to be (Valenzuela, 1999). Over the year students need to have a sense of security and they just need to develop a trusteed relationship with the teachers (Campbell, 2010). Payne, (2008) Lack of trust between teacher and student frequently creates disturbance in the functions of the schools. As in public schools parents mostly demand good grades which becomes difficult because of crumbling faculties. As there are men helping students in their board exams (Cross, 2012). Marginalized behavior of teachers Cornally, (2010) Teachers mostly adopt some procedures when they tried to decrease the gap between them and students. So it sometimes becomes a cause of the marginalized behavior of the teachers. Primary school children marginalize children of disadvantage groups in settings (Kumari, 2011). Caspi et al, 1998; Taskinen, (2001) Developmental problem for example learning skills and failures can marginalize a child and it can become a cause of their difficulty in progress. Dropping out of study is also a big reason of this. School is a society where pupils grow their

learning skills. A disturbance in this process may results in the marginalized groups (Salmivalli et al, 1998). Teacher’s credibility Kearney et al, (2002) Incompetent teachers are those who always forget student’s names, make harder tests, don’t prepare their lectures effectively and make the students bored. They speak the words with the assent that students do not understand. Offensive teachers are the teachers who humiliate students, play favorites and are rude and self- centered. They are verbally abusive and unreasonable (Kearney et al, 2002). McCroskey, (1971); McCroskey and Taven (1999); McCroskey and Young (1981) Teacher’s credibility is the degree to which student perceive the teacher to be believable. Credibility has the potential to communicate all the events. If students are not considering the teacher credible then they’ll less listen to the teachers (McCroskey, Holdridge & Toomb, 1974). If teacher is able to increase his affect upon students then he is the credible teacher for the students but if he fails to do this he will not be a credible teacher and also he will get the negative results from his class (Kearney et al, 1991). Kearney et al, (1991) Incompetent teaching always includes lack of some basic skills like delivering the lecture in a monotone, providing confusing instructions and holding unreasonable student’s expectations. Now we’ll see the effects of favoritism at the evaluation procedures from the literature.

Effects of favoritism on evaluation

Now we’ll take an overview of the effects of favoritism on evaluation. We’ll see its effects on grades, evaluation process and academic achievements. We’ll also take on overview that how favoritism affects the results and practical life of the students. Relationship with grades Fanaroff, (2010) Kids get bad grades because they are not capable of doing the teacher’s tasks to become favorite. In-fact kids who deserve bad grades are often given the good grades on the bases that how they can fast arrange the 150 papers of the teachers alphabetically. Aydogan and Isamil, (2008) Sometimes teachers may be affected by the performance of the students. For example a teacher may criticize the low performer student harshly and always appreciating the high performer, so making mind about that student an idea and giving him marks according to it always. A boy named Boyce Wathkins was an athlete in his college but in his educational career he never saw good grades. He was always on that fourth level grade (Capriccioso, 2006). Wright, (2011) Everybody should be treated well equally. Professors are spiritual parents. When they favor a student or a group of student, it may have a bad or positive effect on the learning of the students. For example there a is a group of student who has a lack of confidence and weak in studies. If the professor is going to give them extra attention than other students then it is good but if he’ll ignore them it would be bad. Favoritism affects the performance of those students also who deserve better academic achievements but they can’t get all these achievements due to favoritism. Toppers are favorites

Beckett, (2013) Teachers are like unsung heroes and they can’t discover all the recognition of all of their students. It is trendy that toppers from the school are selected always to represent the school name at some certain event. Some of them are book worms and are known as mostly cupcake toppers. Flickety, Watson, (2012) Many students try to become favorite of the teachers so they tried to get maximum marks and try to be a topper. They have the following characteristics, they know what they want, they are attentive in the class, they are participative all the time in the class, they always get good cooperative partners in the class, they complete their assignments in time, they tried to write neatly, they don’t goof in the class, they always prepare themselves for their tests, they come with a learning attitude. These qualities make a student topper and also favorite of the teachers. Favoritism and evaluation Frank, (1996) A teacher’s job is to assess student learning, analyzing his outcomes and adopting instructions according to it, that is not often seen by any of us. It is really a comfort to know that a person who is evaluating you has no personal distrait with you, as it will not affect grading system (Browie, 2009). Browie, (2009) Sometimes teacher favoritism gives edge to the student’s performance and he continued to get the good grades. Sometimes teachers may be affected by the performance of the students. For example a teacher may criticize the low performer student harshly and always appreciating the high performer, so making mind about that student an idea and giving him marks according to it always (Aydogan, Isamil, 2008). Impact on results

Fanaroff, (2010) Kids get bad grades because they are not capable of doing the teacher’s tasks to become favorite. In-fact kids who deserve bad grades are often given the good grades on the bases that how they can fast arrange the 150 papers of the teachers alphabetically. Sometimes teachers may be affected by the performance of the students. For example a teacher may criticize the low performer student harshly and always appreciating the high performer, so making mind about that student an idea and giving him marks according to it always (Aydogan, Isamil, 2008). A boy named Boyce Wathkins was an athlete in his college but in his educational career he never saw good grades. He was always on that fourth level grade (Capriccioso, 2006). Wright, (2011) Everybody should be treated well equally. Professors are spiritual parents. When they favor a student or a group of student, it may have a bad or positive effect on the learning of the students. For example there a is a group of student who has a lack of confidence and weak in studies. If the professor is going to give them extra attention than other students then it is good but if he’ll ignore them it would be bad. Academic achievements Haynes, Emmons and Avie, (1997) Favoritism leads to the low social interactions and then it may leads us to a potential cost, which means a student losses its actual potential which may leads us to the low academic achievements (Colette Van Laar, Jim Sidanius, September 2001). The interest of the student and climate of the school are directly related with the outcome of the student especially achievements. And favoritism can affect the climate as well as interest of student.

Browie, (2009) Sometimes teacher favoritism gives edge to the student’s performance and he continued to get the good grades. Some students get the advantage of this and get many academic achievements on its bases. It is really a comfort to know that a person who is evaluating you has no personal distrait with you, as it will not affect grading system. It is necessary for the student’s motivation as well as his all-academic achievements. (Browie, 2009). If teacher is able to increase his affect upon students then he is the credible teacher for the students but if he fails to do this he will not be a credible teacher and also he will get the negative results from his class (Kearney et al, 1991). Favorite gets the benefit Butterman, (2007) As it is obvious that a teacher do not always like to treat the students in unequal way but they do it in a certain way. One of them favoring students in the evaluation from which these students get an edge. Fang, (2009) In the schools teachers don’t take decisions not on the bases of their seniority but make some unfair decisions on some unrealistic bases. Respectfully, but it very unfair when your teacher gives you grade without having your problems in mind and giving good grades to his favorite students (Dave, 2013). Mkowlowltz, (2012) Teachers mostly make their focus at those students who always raised hands when the question is asked in the class. These are known as teacher’s pets. These teachers select a group to whom they give their maximum attention while ignoring the rest of the class. So then some students get the benefit of this favoritism given to them by their teachers

Favoritism and practical life Fish, (2013) A survey is being held at a website debate.org in which a question is being asked that either educational accomplishment are useful for practical life. 78% people says no against it. They believe more in attitude and personality. Fish, (2013) There is no double standard system anywhere it means only single standard system is there which means if you are able to get a reward you must get it whether in a practical life or in educational life. Education matters in our job in practical life but not more much. These are the colleagues and the environment of your workplace which can get you successful in your practical life (Mcintyre, 2008). Literature also told us about the causes of increasing trend of the favoritism.

Trend of favoritism We’ll also see that how favoritism’s trend is getting more common. We have found the reasons behind this that students are keen to become favorites of the teachers. Their urge to become favorite leads to the favoritism. Trend of becoming teacher’s favorite Aydogan and Isamil, (2008). As it tis a trend that each student in the class wants to get favorite. Teacher can choose a group his favorite which is of his social or economic status, at gender bases, on physical appearances and some other features like this. There are two types of students who try to get favorite of the teachers. The first one are those who try to feed teachers and the second one are those who are try to do the tasks of the teachers (Fanaroff, 2010).

Powers, (2013) Students always want to be the favorite of those teachers who are their favorites as well. For example they like those teachers, who is funny and makes the learning fun, those teachers who care about the students, those teachers who care all the students equally, those teachers who don’t like the specific groups in the class. Home works are also a source to become favorite of the teacher. But in this case teacher must make his focus on the quality not only quantity. Mostly teachers make their focus only on the quantity not quality (Pondiscio, 2013). Student’s urge to become favorite Aydogan and Isamil, (2008) As it tis a trend that each student in the class wants to get favorite. Teacher can choose a group his favorite which is of his social or economic status, at gender bases, on physical appearances and some other features like this. There are two types of students who try to get favorite of the teachers. The first one are those who try to feed teachers and the second one are those who are try to do the tasks of the teachers (Fanaroff, 2010). Powers, (2013) Students always want to be the favorite of those teachers who are their favorites as well. For example they like those teachers who is funny and makes the learning fun, those teachers who care about the students, those teachers who care all the students equally, those teachers who don’t like the specific groups in the class. Home works are also a source to become favorite of the teacher. But in this case teacher must make his focus on the quality not only quantity. Mostly teachers make their focus only on the quantity not quality (Pondiscio, 2013). We also saw some types of favoritism from the literature.

Types of favoritism We’ll also take an overview of different types of favoritism. These are gender based favoritism, sect based favoritism and racial favoritism. These are also one of the most occurred cases of favoritism. Gender favoritism Scott, (2007) Gender discrimination is the phenomena where one gender is treated preferential and other one is ignored. This is a bad element and it affects both men and women. The long history of the differences among the sexes has developed these phenomena gender discrimination or gender favoritism. It is now being treated very consciously (Scott, 2007). Sometimes teachers are affected by the gender also. Female teachers have the tendency to favor male students and male teachers favor female students. The opposite trend is also found there (Aydogan and Isamil, 2008). At the age three years like to spend their time with the person of their own gender. They play with their same sex person rather than with the cross sex persons or children (LaFreniere, Strayer & Gauthier 1984). In 1990 Macdonald Doune researched in a school. All the teachers and students were coded properly and it was found the dominance of boys and there were more female staff. Racial Favoritism Hauser et al, (2002) Races may become also a reason of favoritism in education like in the history Hispanics have a greater rate of dropout rather than other groups. So the discrimination becomes sometimes a psychological process as the holder does not know that he is leading towards favoritism or discrimination (Devine, 1989; Fiske, 1998).

Jussim et al, (1998) Student’s social class and background is also an important factor in this discrimination. Students from upper level are favored rather than students from lower levels. A research was conducted in the primary schools where teachers mostly know about the background of the students (Ozturk, Sahin & Koc, 2002). Sect based favoritism Aydin, (2003); Keith- Spiegel, Witting, Perkings, Balogh and whitley, (1993) Ethical principles of classroom management says that there should be a fair and equal environment to be provided to the students without any gender, social and ethnic issue. Despite of all these ethical principles favoritism exists in our society well (Milliyet, 2006). Favoritism is the source to favor some person on some illogical reasons like language, area, ethnicity, sects liking and disliking etc (Employee favoritism, 2006). So it can destroy the equality and then it can hurt many people as well on the bases of religion, region or any other factors (Nedlaer & Schulman, 2006). Mechtenberg, (2005) One of the important concept is fairness as the Aristotle said “equals must be treated equally and unequal unequally”. Whether the students get the same teacher, they cannot be the special students if they have different ethnic or religious group or a social group or a different language. Webster, (1993) Teachers always try to find the child of their most interest. In other words the child from their own area, their own region, their own religion, their own social class, their own sect as well as their own background is mostly favored by them.

Existence of favoritism Libby, (2010) Admitting to a favorite kid is a common trend in parents and teachers as well. It is perceived that there is a golden child in each family. Favoritism is being the most common topic now in our educational institutes. Teachers are said to favored some certain students in the schools and specially in their classes (Aydogan and Ismail, 2008). Employee Favoritism, (2006) Favoritism is the phenomena where a person is favored on the bases of some irrelevant factors like personal links, liking and disliking. Favoritism destroys equality among the people and also it provides the advantages to those people, who earn a name without trying or struggling. It also hurts the feelings of the people (Nedler & Schulman, 2006). Favoritism also disturbs the fairness in the matters because it provides some undue advantages to those who don’t deserve this. Regardless of this question that who is more talented, it is more importantly considered that which teacher they had (Mechtenberg, 2006). Favoritism exists on the bases of some factors like family ties, friendships, human nature, and common interests (Demand, 2002). Favoritism openly exists Fanaroff, (2010) To be honest favoritism exists and no one can deny about it. Everyone can see it clearly in daily life, especially in the classrooms. On the other hand teachers are the human beings and they cannot see everyone equally. It is natural not to like everyone in the class because personalities never meet each other always. There are two types of students who try to get favorite of the teachers. The first one are those who try to feed teachers and the second one are those who are try to do the tasks of the teachers

(Fanaroff, 2010). Favoritism exists even in groups with no social meaning (Tajfel, 2009). Teacher favoritism affects badly those students who don’t know how to do the labor tasks given by the teachers. The reason of their bad grades is also only this (Fanaroff, 2010). As favoritism openly exists in the education system and it has been proved now through the literature. So we have to think about the remedial steps for its removal. Extent of favoritism As there are not any figures or values to demonstrate the favoritism existence but according to many writers, it exists and openly exists Favoritism does exist (Lilly, 2010). Admitting to a favorite kid is a common trend in parents and teachers as well. It is perceived that there is a golden child in each family (Libby, 2010). Favoritism exists on the bases of some factors like family ties, friendships, human nature, and common interests (Tucker, 2013). Fanaroff, (2010) To be honest favoritism exists and no one can deny about it. Everyone can see it clearly in daily life, especially in the classrooms. On the other hand teachers are the human beings and they cannot see everyone equally. It is natural not to like everyone in the class because personalities never meet each other always. All this material from the literature review it has been proved to us that favoritism exists and not only exists, but it has some long term effects in the field of education. It has some long term effects on the life of the students. It has also been proved that it has long term effects for the teacher as well specially for their credibility.

Final summary of literature review From this literature review on favoritism we have seen that there is favoritism exists in each sector of the life. It not only exists but it is being effective on that field. Sometimes it affects positively but sometimes it affects negatively. We saw the effects of favoritism on students’ learning and classroom environment. We found it harmful for student’s learning and classroom environment according to the reviewed literature. We also saw its effects on teachers. We saw from the literature that it affects badly the teacher’s credibility and relationship of the teachers and students. We also took an evidence of favoritism’s bad effects on the evaluation procedure as well. From this literature we also came to know that there are different types of favoritism. It may be sect based, gender based or race based. The overall conclusion, we found is that favoritism exists and not only exists, it affects badly on the education sector. This review of the literature was really helpful for us to get awareness about the different aspects of favoritism in the education system. We found that how when it is started when favor students are getting involved in the matters of the class. We saw from this literature that how it leads to the lack of trust in teacher and how it affects the relationship of the students. We reviewed that favoritism can create psychological disorders and mental disturbances for the students. Minds of the students are often changed according to the changing situations and favoritism is one of them. It can create revengeful emotions in the students and then they try to break the rules and regulations of their institutes. They try to behave against the will of teacher. A rebellion

movement, we can see as a result. We saw the effects of unfair treatment of the teacher on class and students in the literature as well. From this review we came to know about some positive impacts of the favoritism. We saw that sometimes teachers themselves adopt favoritism in the class to explore the abilities of other students by producing a healthy competition among the students. We also discovered that this technique of the teacher is not always successful because it can create conflicts among the students sometimes. We witnessed from this literature review that those teachers, favoring students in their evaluation and results, actually they are destroying the future of the students. Favoring them in their results creates problems in their practical life in the future because they don’t know about the concepts which were they going to use in their practical life at job. When teachers try to favor some students in evaluation, it affects the academic achievements of the other deserving students as well. Some students deserve more but due to favoritism they can’t get that actual reward for which they are capable. For this reason students get De-motivated and some students even leave their studies. What we reviewed in this chapter has a very simple sense that favoritism is increasing in the education sector very rapidly and it is doing a deep harm to the performance of students, classroom environment, teacher student relationship and on the learning of the students.

CHAPTER III Methods and procedures We took this topic, as we consider that favoritism is the most important topic of the education and workplaces as well. So we decided to find out that at what extent favoritism exists in educational institutes. We checked out the factors which are affecting the performance of students and the classroom environment. We clarified the effects of favoritism on students. We also checked out positive effects of favoritism on students. For the completion of the study we decided to take University of the Punjab as a population and out of thirteen faculties we decided to take four faculties. We took university of the Punjab because it was convenient for us to collect data from here and it was also the biggest university in the public sector university. We took four faculties randomly and then we took some degree programs from these faculties on the bases of convenient sampling. For the purpose of data collection we develop the structured questionnaire. We developed our questionnaire according to some factors which we were considering important in our study like gender, race, existence of favoritism and its effects on evaluation. We discussed our questionnaire with our expert teachers of our field. They suggested us some useful advices as well as they modified our questionnaire. We, one by one visited the institutes and departments which we were going to take as our sample. We visited the classes of the sample programs and collected data directly from the students who were there available conveniently.

Study type Our study type was tending to be an exploratory and explanatory research, which had a survey research design on quantitative methods. It will explore the overall perception of students about level of favoritism in the University of the Punjab. Concept map We have one variable, which is favoritism. We conducted this study to check the level of favoritism and the effects of other factors on the level of favoritism. Other factors which we used to check the level of favoritism were grades, institutions, ages, degree programs, different semesters and different sessions. First factor, which we used to find out the level of favoritism were different grades. We saw the effects of grades on favoritism. We also saw the variations in the favoritism through the difference of grades among the students. We also saw the effects of institutions on favoritism’s level. We saw favoritism through different institutions to check out the level of favoritism through different institutions. We also saw the variation of favoritism through different ages of the students. We also explored the effects of different degree programs, different semesters and also different sessions on the level of favoritism. We checked out the variation of favoritism among different programs, different semesters and different sessions as well. This was the concept of the whole study that we adopted to check the level of favoritism. Here we’ll see it with the help a flow chart.

Institutions

Grades Programs

Ages Fa

Level of Favoritism

Sessions

Semesters

Purpose of the study The main purpose of our study is to explore the favoritism in our educational institutions and also its causes and effects. We want to make it clear that either the favoritism exists in University of the Punjab. The first and most important issue is to find out the level of favoritism in the University of the Punjab. Is it due to that every student wants to become favorites of the teacher? We’ll check the positive effects of the favoritism. We are going to check that only toppers are the favorites or not. We are going to find out that favoritism gets a teacher towards the poor management. We’ll check that it affects the relationships of student and teacher and student. We’ll find out that a teacher’s behavior is marginalized due to it. We are going to explore that favoritism leads to

lack of trust in teachers. We’ll check its effects on teacher’s credibility. We’ll also check its effects on the classroom environment. We’ll find out that favoritism is becoming a problem for the students. We’ll explore that it leads to the discrimination in the class. It would be also found in this study that it varies from gender to gender. It is going to be explored that either it is race based or nor not. We’ll also find that either it is sect based or not. We are going to explore that students feel insecure about those teachers showing favoritism. We’ll find that how students get mentally disturbed due to favoritism. We’ll check the effects of favoritism on the future of the students. We’ll also check that how favorite students get away from the students. In the end we’ll find out its effects on the evaluation procedure, grading, and results and academic achievements as well. We’ll also explore the conflicts and revengeful emotions of the students due to favoritism. Population For the completion of the study we decided to take University of the Punjab as a population. We took University of the Punjab because it was convenient for us to collect data from here and it was also the biggest university in the public sector university. We took University of the Punjab because it covers the most proportion of the education sector. Students from school level to PhD level are available here. Students from all over Pakistan and also from foreign countries come here to get educated therefore we found diversification here also. It is a standardized university. students are selected on the bases of true merit here therefore

they are all eligible and well aware the research topics and they have a keen interest in these topics so the chances of getting right data become more strong. The total number of students in University of the Punjab was twenty thousand. Sampling technique Our population was the University of the Punjab. There were thirteen total faculties in the University of the Punjab. Out of these thirteen faculties, we took four faculties. Out of these four faculties we also decided to take some certain degree program. Then we further divided these degree programs in seniors and juniors. We take four main faculties and these were faculty of Education, faculty of Sciences, faculty of Social Sciences and faculty of commerce. We choose these faculties for data collection on the bases of convenient sampling. We took 56% of the seniors and 46% of the juniors students. Details of frequencies Faculty of education IER

125

Faculty of commerce Hailey

125

Faculty of Social Sciences Political sciences & international relations

125

Faculty of sciences Physics

65

Geography

60

University of the Punjab

Thirteen faculties

Administra tive

Arts and humanitie s

Islamic studies

Social sciences

Medicine & dentistry

Commer ce

Economics & management sciences

Oriental Learning

Educati on

Pharmacy

Engineerin g& technology

Law

Life sciences

Science

Four faculties

Education

I.E.R

Sciences

Physics

Social Sciences

Geograp hy

Politica l

Commerc e

Geograp hy

Commer ce

Faculty of Education I.E.R

M.B.E

Morning

Senio rs

M.T.E

MEERA

Evening

Morning

Senio rs

Junior s

Evening

Evening

Morning

Senio rs

Junior s

Junior s

20

Faculty of Science

Geograph y

Physics B.S.C M.S.C

B.S.C

Morning Morning

Senio rs 15

M.S.C

Evening

Junior s

Morning

Senio rs

Evening

Morning

Evenin g

Junior s

Senio rs

Junior s

Senio rs 15

Eveni ng

Junior s

Faculty of Social sciences Political Sciences and international relations

B.A

M.A Morning

Evening

Morning

Senio rs

Junior s

Evening

Senio rs

Junior s

Faculty of Commerce F.4 Hailey college of Commerce

M.com 1.5 years

B.com Hns. Morning

Senio rs

Evening

Junior s

Morning

Senio rs

M.com 3.5 years

Evening

Junior s

Morning

Senio rs

Evening

Junior s

Instrument development First of all we did some literature review on the most important issues of the favoritism. We studied all the important issues of the favoritism which an educational institution can face having favoritism. The instrument, we used during this research study was questionnaire. It was a structured close ended questionnaire. We consider all those factors or variables which we consider are important for our research study and can help us in finding the results. For this purpose we consult from our expert teachers. First we made 67 statements of as a sample questionnaire. We showed this sample to our experts and supervisor. They gave us useful suggestions for the data and exclude those statements which they consider unnecessary. Finally 37 statements were selected for our questionnaire. It covers many aspects of favoritism. We include existence of favoritism, its effects on evaluation, grades and results. We include its effects on the student’s learning and student’s performance. We check all the negative effects of the favoritism as well as its positive effects like encouragement and competition, its effects on student teacher relationship and teacher’s credibility. These were some most important factors we include in our questionnaires. We gather data from the students in which students gave their opinions upon these situations and share their experience with us. We tried to cover all the major aspects, which we think that are most important aspects for the increasing level of favoritism

Validity We consult to our expert teachers and supervisor, to check that our questionnaire’s validity. They check our questionnaire in detail. After proper checking and doing reconciliation of our errors, they approved our questionnaire as valid. We visited our three different expert teachers Dr. Shoukat Ali Raza, Madam Ummarah and Madam Tahira Afridi for the approval of our questionnaire. Reliability Table 3.1 Reliability of scale for measurement of level of favoritism

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

0.724

46

Mode of solving questionnaire We select the departments first, where we have to go and solved those questionnaires from the students. We visited all those departments one by one, visited the classes and made our questionnaires solved through those students available at the spot. We get our questionnaires back at the spot directly. The mode of our collecting the data was direct. We directly gave questionnaires to the students and get the questionnaire back at the spot.

Hypotheses and their results Table 3.2 Sr no.

Hypotheses

Test

H°1 H°2

Favoritism does not exist There is no significant difference in favoritism on the bases of grades

Frequency One way ANOVA

H°3

of students There is no significant difference in favoritism in the different

One way ANOVA

H°4 H°5

institutions There is no significant difference in favoritism among different ages There is no significant difference in the favoritism among different

One way ANOVA One way ANOVA

H°6

programs Semester vise, there is no significant difference in favoritism

Independent

There is no significant difference in favoritism among different shifts

Sample t-test Independent

H°7

Sample t-test

CHAPTER IV Data Analysis

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the data collected in order to find out the level of favoritism in educational institution. The responses of the students have been showed through tables and each table has interpretation. Data were collected through questionnaire which was developed after reviewing the literature and also under the guidance of expert teachers which was used as a tool for collecting data used for research.

Development of Questionnaire At initial stage different research questionnaires and articles were studied. Out of these articles some variables were taken for developing questionnaire which was course of interest, need of reinforcement, support, achievement of goals, financial and peers support. After selection of variables different variables were developed. At initial stages 67 items were developed. Then researcher reviewed the items and after reviewing, 30 items were removed and 37 items were left in the questionnaire. Scale Fiv point Liker type scale was used for research purpose i.e. 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree).

Administration of Questionnaire Questionnaires were distributed among students of Selected Programs for research. Data was collected through students. Data was collected within 3 month.

Reliability and Factor Analysis

After the data was entered in SPSS 17 reliability was checked. Reliability of all 500 questionnaires was 0. 724. Then variables were computed these were 37 in numbers. Then factor analysis “factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors” (Definition of factor analysis), were made for the questionnaire as standard tool.

Data Analysis Value of mean, frequency, standard deviation, percentage, and independent sample t test with 0.05 taken as test value was calculated by quantify the responses as 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (None), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree). The collected data was arranged, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted. There are 21 tables and diagrams of demographics on the basis of student’s responses. The standard value of significance level is (p=0.05), if the p> 0.05 then Ho1 is accepted and if the p<0.05 then Ho1 is rejected.

Demographics For the data collection researcher has selected 4 Faculties of University of The Punjab Lahore as Commerce, Real Sciences, Social sciences and Education. Their institute, Age, Gender, Current Degree program, Previous Degree Program, Semester, and shifts were asked. The data analysis is as under;

Table 4.1

Reliability of scale for measurement of level of favoritism

Cronbach's Alpha

No of Items

0.724

46

Table 4.1 indicates that Cronbach’s Alpha reliability of 500 questionnaires consisting on 46 items is 0 .724 which is greater than 0.05.

Table 4.2 Distribution of respondents by Institute

Institute

Frequency

Percent

Institute of Education and Research

125

25

Hailey College of Commerce Department of Political Science Department of Physics Department of Geography Total

125 125 65 60 500

25 25 13 12 100.0

Figure 4.1 Distribution of respondents by Institute

Table 4.2 and figure 4.1 indicate that 25% respondents are of Institute of Education and Research and 25% respondents are of Hailey College of Commerce. 25% respondents are of Department of Political Science. 13% respondents are of Department of Physics. 12% respondents are of Department of Geography. Table 4.3 Distribution of respondents by Semester

Semester 2.00 4.00 Total

Frequency 250 250 500

Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0

Figure 4.2 Distribution of respondents by Semester

Table 4.3 and figure 4.2 indicates that 50% (250) respondents are of 2nd semester and 50% (250) respondents are of 4th semester.

Table 4.4 Distribution of respondents by Age Age 15-19 20-24 25 or

Frequency 22 423 55

Percent 4.4 84.6 11.0

500

100.0

upward

Figure 4.3 Distribution of respondents by Age

Table 4.4 and figure 4.3 indicates that age of the 84% respondents of 2 nd group (20-24 year) and 11 % respondents are 25 or above. Hence, the distribution of respondents than the 2nd age group is higher. Table 4.5 Distribution of respondents by CGPA

CGPA 1-2 2.1-3 3.1-4

Figure 4.4

Frequency 49 115 336

Percent 9.8 23.0 67.2

Distribution of respondents by CGPA

. Table 4.5 and figure 4.4 indicates that CGPA of the 9.8% respondents have (1-2) CGPA, 23% respondents have (2.1-3) and 67.2 % respondents have (3.1-4) CGPA. Hence, the distribution of respondents than the 3rd group is higher Table 4.6 Distribution of respondents by Gender

Gender Male Female Total

Frequency 221 279 500

Figure 4.5 Distribution of respondents by Gender

Percent 44.2 55.8 100.0

Table 4.6 and figure 4.5 indicates that 44.2% (221) respondents are male and 55.8% (279) of respondents belong to female gender group. Hence the distribution of female students in the sample is higher than male students. Table 4.7 Distribution of respondents by previous degree Precious degree B.A B.Com BSC M.A F.A I.Com D.Com FSc. Other Total

Figure 4.6

Frequency 132 90 107 3 93 30 16 20 9 500

Percent 26.4 18.0 21.4 .6 18.6 6.0 3.2 4.0 1.8 100.0

Distribution of respondents by previous degree

Table 4.7 and figure 4.5 indicates that 26.4% of the respondents are from B.A program and 21% of the respondents are from BSc, 18.6% of the respondents are from F.A and 18% of the respondents are from B.com. Hence, the distribution of respondents than the B.A degree is higher. Table 4.8 Distribution of respondents by Current Degree Current degree Frequency MBE 40 MERA 40 ELTL 40 B.com 55 M.Com 62 BSc 70 MSc. 96 B.A 43 M.A 54 Total 500 Distribution of respondents by Current Degree

Percent 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.0 12.4 14.0 19.2 8.6 10.8 100.0

Figure 4.7

Table 4.8 and figure 4.7 indicates that 19% of the respondents are from M.sc program and 14% of the respondents are from B.sc, 12.4% of the respondents are from M.com and 11% of the respondents are from B.com, 8% of the respondents are from MBE, 8% of the respondents are from MBE, 8% of the respondents are from MERA, 8% of the respondents are from ELTL, 8% of the respondents are from B.A, 11% of the respondents are from M.A. Hence, the distribution of respondents than the M.sc degree is higher.

Table 4.9 Distribution of respondents by Shift

Shift Morning Evening Total Figure 4.8

Frequency 250 250 500

Distribution of respondents by Shift

Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0

Table 4.9 and figure 4.8 indicates that 50% of the respondents are from Morning program and 50% of the respondents are from evening.

Table 4.10 Most contributing factors in level of favoritism Statement Favoritism leads to conflict among the students It is a trend that each student try to become favorite of the teacher Favoritism makes difference in result Favoritism creates problem in the classroom Favoritism affects the classroom environment

Mean 3.91 3.89 3.83 3.83 3.82

Table 4.10 shows the mean of those statements having highest means. “Favoritism leads to conflict” has the mean “3.91”, Trend to become favorite ” has the mean “3.89”, Favoritism makes difference in result” has the mean “3.83”, Favoritism creates problem in the classroom” has the mean “3.83”, Favoritism affects the classroom environment” has the mean “3.82”, Means of above statements are near to 4 , that shows most respondents are agreed upon these statements. So it concludes that above mentioned statement has importance in favoritism and respondent are agreed upon them.

Table 4.11 Lest contributing factors in level of favoritism

Statement Favoritism leads to healthy competition Favoritism plays an important role in educational institution Favoritism is often sect based

Mean 3.18 3.21 3.41

Usually toppers are the favorites of the teachers

3.42

Favoritism is often race based

3.44

Table 4.11 shows that “Favoritism leads to healthy competition” has the lowest mean “3.18”. And “It plays a important role in educational institution” has the mean “3.21”,“Overall satisfaction about your program” shows a mean “3.36”. “Favoritism is often sect based” shows a mean of 3.41. “Usually topers are the favorites of the teachers” has the mean “3.42”. 3 is the cut point and mean of above statement is near to 3 that shows these are ignored by the respondents. So it concludes that above mentioned statements has no importance in favoritism.

Table 4.12 Independent Sample t-test (Shift) to know the level of favoritism in educational institution between morning and evening classes Gander

N

Mornin

294

g

Mean

SD

135.1633

18.80

Df

t

Sig

498

1.119

.028

Evening

206

133.2621

18.55

Table 4.12 indicates that there is a significance difference between the perception of morning and evening (p = .028, t = 1.119) p< 0.05 towards the distribution across the scale. So it is concluded that there is a significant difference towards level of favoritism on the basis of Shift.

Table 4.13 Independent Sample t-test (Gender) to know the level of favoritism in educational institution between the students gender. Gender

N

Mean

SD

Male

221

134.27

19.20

Female

279

134.27

18.33

Df

T

Sig

498

.115

.041

Table 4.13 indicates that There is a significance difference between the perception of male and female (p = .041, t = .115) p < 0.05 towards the distribution across the scale. So it is concluded that there is a significant difference towards the level of favoritism on the basis of Gender.

Table 4.14 Independent Sample t-test (Semester) to know level of favoritism in educational institution between the students seniority Semeste

N

Mean

SD

230

132.90

19.23

Df

T

Sig

475.59

-1.626

.105

r 2.00

4.00

270

135.63

18.17

Table 4.14 indicates that There is no significance difference between the perception of junior and senior (p = .105, t = -1.626) p > 0.05 towards the distribution across the scale. So it is concluded that there is no significant difference towards the level of favoritism on the basis of semester.

Table 4.15 Independent Sample t-test (CGPA) to level of favoritism in educational institution between the students CGPA. Sum of Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 424.605 174145.195 174569.800

df 1 498 499

Mean Square 424.605 349.689

F 1.214

Sig. .271

Table 4.15 indicates that There is no significance difference between CGPA Table showed that is total questions (F = 1.214) and the significance value for CGPA was 0.271 that is p> 0.05 which meant that is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of CGPA.

Table 4.16 ANOVA test (current Program) to know the level of favoritism in educational institution between the students of current program. Sum of Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 4410.009 170159.791 174569.800

Df 8 491 499

Mean Square 551.251 346.558

F 1.591

Sig. .125

Table 4.16 indicates that There is no significance difference between current program Table showed that is total questions (F = 1.591) and the significance value for current program was

0.125 that is p> 0.05 which meant that is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of current program. .

Table 4.17 ANOVA test (Previous Degree Program) to know the level of favoritism in educational institution between the students previous Degree Sum of Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 5984.291 168585.509 174569.800

Df 8 491 499

Mean Square 748.036 343.351

F 2.179

Sig. .058

Table 4.18 indicates that There is no significance difference between Previous Degree Program Table showed that is total questions (F = 2.179) and the significance value for Previous Degree program was 0.58 that is p> 0.05 which meant that is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of Previous Degree program. .

Table 4.19 ANOVA test (Institute) to know the to know the level of favoritism in educational institution between the institute

Sum of Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 3779.638 170790.162 174569.800

df 4 495 499

Mean Square 944.910 345.031

F 2.739

Sig. .067

Table 4.19 indicates that There is no significance difference between Institute Table showed that is total questions (F = 2.739) and the significance value for Institute was 0.67 that is p> 0.05 which meant that is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of institute.

Table 4.20 ANOVA test (Age) to know the level of favoritism in educational institution between the students age. Sum of Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 1414.465 173155.335 174569.800

df 2 497 499

Mean Square 707.233 348.401

F 2.030

Sig. .132

Table 4.20 indicates that There is no significance difference between age Table showed that is total questions (F = 2.030) and the significance value for age was 0.132 that is p> 0.05 which meant that is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of age.

Table4.21 Frequency test to know that favoritism exists or no Institute

Frequency

Percent

Strongly disagree

51

10.2

Disagree

62

12.4

Neutral

94

18.8

Agree Strongly agree

142

28.4

151 500

30.2 100.0

Total

Table 4.21 shows that 30.2% (151) respondent strongly agree that favoritism openly exist, 28.4% (142) respondent agree, 18.8 %( 94) natural,12.4% (62) Disagree, 10.2%(51) Strongly disagree. The mean of statement is 3.78that is above the cut point 3 so It conclude that favoritism openly exist in educational institute.

CHAPTER V Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussions and Recommendations Summary This study was aimed at analyzing level of favoritism in educational institution. The researcher used quantitative research and descriptive method was used for this study. In this research, total sample size from University of the Punjab is five hundred. Cluster sampling technique was used for sampling. Students from four faculties of University of the Punjab Lahore (which is approximately one third of the thirteen Faculties) were selected. Questionnaire was used as an instrument in this research. After studying different articles and online available questionnaires about favoritism questionnaire was developed. For literature review, researchers have studied many books, articles, research papers and conference papers. Through questionnaire data was collected for this research. Data was analyzed through SPSS17 and analysis of data was presented in tables. The result of each table was interpreted. Researcher applied independent sample t test and ANOVA test and also analyzed frequency, percentage and Mean for Data. This chapter provides conclusions and recommendations on the basis of findings, sets out some significant findings in relation to the research objectives and describes suggestions and implications for future research. Findings This study was aimed at analyzing level of favoritism in educational institution. Through survey research data was collected and analyzed by SPSS 17. Findings were drawn from the analyzed data out of filled questionnaires which showed that following favoritism factors were analyzed;



The results of distribution of respondents by semester Table 4.2 indicates that 46% respondents are of 2nd semester and 54% respondents are of 4th semester. Hence, the



distribution of respondents than the 4th semester is higher. The results of distribution of respondents by age Table 4.4 indicates that age of the 84% respondents of 2nd group(20-24year) and 11 % respondents are 25 or above. Hence, the



distribution of respondents than the 2nd age group is higher. The result of distribution of respondents by Gender table 4.6 indicates that 44.2% respondents are in the first group and 55.8% of respondents are female from university.



Hence the distribution of female students in the sample is higher than male students. The result of distribution of respondents by previous degree table 4.7 indicates that 26.4% of the respondents are from B.A program and 21% of the respondents are from Bsc. 18.6% of the respondents are from F.A and 18% of the respondents are from other. Hence, the distribution of respondents than the B.A degree is higher.

H°1: Favoritism does not exist Table 4.21 shows that 30.2% (151) respondent significantly agree that favoritism exist, 28.4% (142) respondent agree, 18.8 % ( 94) respondents remained a cut point as neutral while 12.4% (62) responded to Disagree and only 10.2% (51) Strongly disagree that favoritism does not exist. It also showed a mean of 3.56 that is nearer to four which means agree according to the scale. It concluded that favoritism exists in educational institute, so H°1 is rejected. H°2: There is no significant difference in favoritism among different grades Table 4.14 indicates that there is significance difference in favoritism for different genders. It is concluded that significance value (p) is 0.041 is lower than 0.05 which means there is statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of semester, so it conclude that Ho2 is rejected.

H°3: There is no significant difference in favoritism in the different institutions Table 4.19 indicates that there is no significance difference in favoritism for different institution. It is concluded that significance value (p) is 0.067 is greater than 0.05 which means there is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of institution, so it conclude that Ho3 is accepted. H°4: There is no significant difference in favoritism for different ages Table 4.20 indicates that there is no significance difference in favoritism for different age groups. It is concluded that significance value (p) is 0.132 is greater than 0.05 which means there is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of age, so it conclude that Ho4 is accepted. H°5: There is no significant difference in the favoritism among different programs Table 4.17 indicates that there is no significance difference in favoritism for different programs. It is concluded that significance value (p) is 0.125 is greater than 0.05 which means there is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of programs, so it conclude that Ho5 is accepted. H°6: There is no significant difference in favoritism among the different semesters Table 4.15 indicates that there is no significance difference in favoritism for different semesters. It is concluded that significance value (p) is 0.105 is greater than 0.05 which means there is no statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of semester, so it conclude that Ho4 is accepted.

H°7: There is no significant difference in favoritism among different shifts

Table 4.13 indicates that there is significance difference in favoritism for different shifts. It is concluded that significance value (p) is 0.028 is lower than 0.05 which means there is statistically significant differences of level of favoritism on the base of semester, so it conclude that Ho5 is rejected.

Research questions 1. What are the most influencing factors of favoritism? Table 4.10 shows the results of most influencing factors were the conflicts among the students due to favoritism, showing a mean of 3.91, trend of becoming favorites, showing a mean of 3.89, its impact on results, showing the mean of 3.83, it is a problem for the class, showing a mean of 3.83, it affects badly on classroom environment, showing 3.82 2. What are the least influencing factors of favoritism? Table 4.11 shows the results of least influential factors were favoritism leads to healthy competition showing a mean of 3.18, it plays an important role showing a mean of 3.21, it is often sect based showing a mean of 3.41, toppers are favorite showing a mean of 3.42 and it is often race based showing a mean of 3.44.

Conclusion The result shows that the favoritism exists in classroom but it has no effect on students’ grade or performance, it does not vary institution to institution due to the teacher’s affiliation with institution. It also concluded that age factor does not imply on favoritism it happen on environmental basis. It also not varies in different shifts, semesters, degrees programs. The

relationship between students and teachers and classroom environment are major determinants of the favoritism. These research hypotheses were rejected as Ho1, Ho2 and Ho7. This result shows that there is significance difference in favoritism among various shifts, grades and favoritism does not exist. The research hypotheses were accepted as Ho3, Ho4, Ho5 and Ho6. This hypotheses result shows that there is no significance in favoritism among different institution, ages, programs and semesters. Overall result shows that there is significance difference between the opinion of Male and Female Students.

Discussion Objective 1: Explore whether favoritism exists or not The results are showing that favoritism exists significantly in classrooms and causes of stress, inappropriate language, violence, absenteeism and other factors which affect the student’s performance and enhance violence at classroom. Those students who are facing challenge of favoritism can cause of failures in classrooms, grades, curriculum and extra curriculum activities previous researches say that the classroom environment itself can be a cause of favoritism. Libby (2010) admitting to a favorite kid is a common trend in parents and teachers as well. It is perceived that there is a golden child in each family. Objective 2: Exploration of the role of favoritism for the grades In classrooms there always has been an effect of favoritism on the grades of the students. It can discourage the students. And also it can demotivate the student’s learning. Favoritism has always

been a problem for the grades and evaluation process as well. Teacher favoritism affects badly those students who don’t know how to do the labor tasks given by the teachers. This is the only reason of their bad grades. (Fanaroff, 2010). Our results were different from the studies. We saw that grades have an effect on favoritism. As it was not backed by the study Objective 3: Exploring the level of favoritism through different institutions It has been discovered in many studies that favoritism mostly exists in all the educational institutions. It mostly depends upon the situations inside of the institutions. It could be the possibility that favoritism level may vary from institutions to institutions. Teacher can increase the power of learning and motivation in the students by understanding the varying natures of the students in the class. (Wilder, 2008) Objective 4: Exploring the variation of favoritism through different ages Fanaroff, (2010). To be honest favoritism exists and no one can deny about it. Everyone can see it clearly in daily life, especially in the classrooms. On the other hand teachers are the human beings and they cannot see everyone equally. It is natural not to like everyone in the class because personalities never meet each other always. Favoritism exists but not on the bases of different age groups. In fact people of different ages may get this idea differently according to the nature of their own level of maturity. Some students or people take it as positive part of education but some people not. Objective 5: Exploring the favoritism existence through different programs

It is clarified that favoritism exists and it mostly exists openly so it is clear from the studies that it is not dependent upon any type of degree programs. It is not necessary that there would be more favoritism in engineering than medical. It is very obvious from the studies that favoritism does not vary in programs. Favoritism exists even in groups with no social meaning. (Tajfel, 2009) As this reference of the past study shows that it is not necessary for favoritism to have a specific program. Objective 6: Exploring the level of favoritism in different levels of semesters Teacher student favoritism is done only, when a teacher tries to favor a student or a group of student. The most responsible about the favoritism is teacher and teachers can get affected by the teachers in any semesters therefore favoritism really does not affected by different semesters. Teachers are the human beings and they cannot see everyone equally. It is natural not to like everyone in the class because personalities never meet each other always. (Fanaroff, 2010) Objective 7: Finding the changings in favoritism through different shifts As we saw all the above aspects we clearly come to know that teachers are only the resource of student teacher favoritism. When there is no effect of the aspects like grades, semesters, shifts or programs, therefore there is no effect of shifts also on the favoritism. Our results were different from this concept. We saw from our studies that favoritism varies in different shifts of morning and evening. It was also not backed by our study.

If we would have chosen the qualitative study instead of the quantitative study we could have more pure results and pure opinions of the students. Also we could explore the more factors of the favoritism but due to limited time and money we could not cover those aspects of favoritism. We can also conclude from this discussion that most of our results are backed by the literature we had reviewed before. Recommendations 

On the bases of research findings, the researchers suggest that comprehensive strategies



and policies should be evolved to eliminate or reduce the intensity of favoritism The process should be refined, fair and clear. It must treat equally to all the students in an



educational institutions The reviewed literature and discussions concluded that teachers must be trained very well so that they must be fair to the students besides able to control or work in the critical



situation, when the a student or a group of students asked for favors Student and teacher evaluation standards and criteria should be refined and set in



accordance with the demanding nature of academic regulations Mandatory training and counseling should be conducted to rehabilitate socially isolated teachers as well as students, who were the prospect of favoritism or its activities in earliest parts, while the curse of favoritism could also be eradicated by accepting the



diversity in social classes A general body or teachers associations should be formed to keep a vigilant eye on the affairs of the students in classrooms or in universities and other educational places, where the student’s remains engaged and learn the social behaviors of behaving the others, while the conflicts which occurred due to favoritism among students and peers could also be controlled.



Favoritism is the major cause of creating restlessness and state of confusion in the minds of the students, which discourage competition and learning capabilities and also leads all the class members to violent activities or violent potential. The researchers suggest an interactive, social, personal counseling, self and teacher assessment plans or activities



should be in placed to encourage and facilitate learning opportunities. Favoritism as diversity could be used or explored to make the working class profitable or desirable for the management and for the betterment of students by creating a sense of



following or adopting the virtues or good habits of teachers and idols. Teacher student favoritism could be reduced by understanding the need and demands of ethnicity, social classes, races, sects, religions, cultures, languages, genders and many other aspects. And also the ways in which all these factors can be collaborated to



minimize the differences of diversity. Favoritism could be proved beneficial for students or teachers for little span of time but it is a root cause of destruction of good relationship among students and teachers so the teachers and students should understand the nature of their job and relationship, which aimed to learning activities. They must know the importance of the teacher’s assistance in their studies and teachers also should be aware of their true duties related to the learning of the students.

References

Anh Do Q., Nguyen T. K. and Tran N. A., (2013). Favoritism in an authoritarian regime. LIEPP working papers, 13. Andreson J. G., (1970). Bad effects of favoritism. American educational research Journal, 7(2). Angel D. K., (2010). Favoritism in the classroom. 2012-2013 school years archive.13 Anderson L., (2013). Advice for smart students on succeeding in college. The choice, 20(5). Butterman E., (2007). Playing favorites. Instructor magazine Bluethmann G. J., (2001). Long term effects of favoritism. Journal of metro parent, 15(4). Barnett K. and Mccormick J., (2004). Effective way to control classroom. Journal of educational administration quarterly, 40(3). Barseghian T., (2011). Three trends that define the future of teaching and learning. Canadian journal of counseling. 17(2). Blank M. R., Dabady M., Citro F. C., (2004). Introduction to racial favoritism. Measuring racial discrimination, Houston: The Global 50. Benfield R. S., Richmond P. V. and James C. Mccroskey., (2006). Journal of communication education, 55(1). Condron A., (2005). Top 12 ways to motivate students. Journal of teachers for teacher, 18(3) David N.and Piette J., (1994). Favoritism verses search for good papers. Journal of political economy, 102(1)

Doune M., (1990). Relationship between sex composition of physical education and teacher/pupil verbal interaction. Journal of teaching in physical education, 9(2) Dhanai R. S., (2008). Favoritism in the classroom, Dawn Ed. Dunn J., (2011). Classroom tools chosen by you. Connecting education and ethics, 34(2) Ellinger A. D., (2003). Mentoring in contexts. The workplace and educational institutions. Fanaroff A., (2010). Teacher’s favoritism harms class dynamics. Journal of class dynamics, 12(1) Ferris D., (2001). Bad etiquette in the classroom. Journal of Poor classroom and bad etiquettes, 13(1) Fang F. and Corina E. et al., (2012). Evolution of in-group favoritism. Journal of favoritism in earth science, 5(3) Fang L., (2009). Teacher layoffs. Journal of unfair decisions, 8(2) Filak F. V. and Sheldon M. K., (2003). Student psychological need satisfaction and college teacher- course evaluations. Educational psychology, 23(3) Greer J. and Mayers E., (1992). Adult sibling rivalry. Understanding the legacy of childhood. London: Academic Press Grasper M. J., Massa M. and Matos P., (2006). Favoritism in mutual fund families. The journal of finance, 41(1) Golden S., (2013). Against fairness. Inside higher education. 34(3)

Graham G. and Ridder K., (1991). Playing favorites hurts morale managers may not be aware of the staff’s perception of favoritism. Journal of facilitator training, 23(1) Haynes M. N., Emmons C. and Avie B. M., (1997). School climate as a factor in student adjustment and achievement. Journal of educational and psychological consultation, 24(6) Hinduja S. and Patchin W. J., (2009). Cyberbullying research summary. Journal of Emotional and psychological consequences. 56(2) Ismail A., (2008). Favoritism in the classroom; a study on Turkish schools. Journal of instructional psychology, 17(8) Ismail A., (2012). The existence of favoritism in organizations. African journal of business management, 6(12). DOI 10.5897/AJBM11.2692 Karmon E. and Posner N. D., (2012). Empirical strategies. Ethnic favoritism in education in Kenya, Dallas: Alyson Books Koth C. W., (2008). Tools used by teacher in classroom. Journal of educational psychology, 100(1) Kimberly K., (1995). Gender bias in children perception. Sex roles, 32 Kassin,S. Fein S. and Markus R. H., (2011). Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination. Journal of social psychology, 7 Laar C. and Sidanius.J., (2001). Social status and academic achievement gap. A social dominance perspective in education, Arlington: Arcadia Publishing Lilly W. E., (2010). Favoritism does exist. The favorite child, 56

Lauri A. and Snoeck S., (2010). Why doesn’t teacher call on me. Journal of education, 702(22) Libby., (2010). Long term effects of favoritism. Journal of General psychology forums, 11 Lyn., (2011). Why parents shouldn’t have a favorite child. Negative effects of favoritism, 4 Linsin M., (2010). 8 things teachers do to encourage misbehavior. Journal of smart classroom management, 116(15) Meador D., (2001). What are characteristics that make a perfect student. Journal of Education 101(14) Nadler J. and Schulman M., (2006). Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism. Journal of applied ethics, 99(25) Ohler H. and Nannenkamp P., (2013). Need based targeting or favoritism? The regional allocation of multilateral aid within recipient countries. Kiel working papers, (1838) O’Driscloe N., (2013). Problems in the classroom. Journal of Behavioral disorder, 450 Powers B., (2013). Students share characteristics of their favorite teachers. Journal of Edudemic, 23 Paton G., (2013). Top universities expect students to work twice as hard. Journal of times higher education, 16(1) Philips S. and Spencer L. C., (1998). Parental favoritism. There is a favorite child, Magazine of Youth Education

Rubenstien B, et al., (1990). How to become an excellent student. Journal of Learning skills and student’s skills, 25 Ryan., (2012). Lack of social life, the effects and what to do about it. Grad student advice series, 56(1) Reasoner W. R., (1998). Review of self-esteem. Journal of self-esteem and academic achievements, 112(90) Rumyantseva L. N., (2005). Corruption in higher education. Taxonomy of corruption in higher education. Downtown: RDA holding Co. Shindler J., (2012). Examining the use of competition in the classroom. Journal of Transformative classroom management, 132 Scot S., (2007). The causes, effects and remedies for gender discrimination. Sex discrimination is unlawful in workplace, 366(9) Sweeney M., (2011). Avoid these team DE motivators. Impact of team work, magazine of Educator Starvish M., (2012). Why leaders need to rethink team work. Journal of HBS working knowledge, 156 Sum V. McCaskey J. S. and Kyeyune C., (2003). A survey retrench of satisfaction levels of graduate students enrolled in a nationality ranked top-10 program at a mid- western university. research in higher education journal, 3(1)

Wilder P., (2008). Assessing student interests and strengths. Journal of differentiating instructions Wachelka D. and Katz, R. C., (1999). Reducing test anxiety and improving self-esteem in high school and college students with learning disabilities. Journal of behavioral therapy and experimental psychiatry, 543(112)