2. Teachers who believe they are interacting with bright students smile and nod their heads more often than teachers interacting with slow students. Teachers lean toward bright students and looked bright students in the eyes more frequently. (Chaikin, Sigler, and Derlega, 1974).

3. Teachers are more supportive and friendly toward bright students. Many nonverbal behaviors associated with positive emotional attraction are displayed by teachers most frequently in interactions with students believed to be bright. (Kester and Letchworth, 1972).

4. Teachers pay closer attention to responses of students described as "gifted". (Rothbart, Dalfen, and Barrett, 1971).

5. Teachers allow bright students longer to respond before redirecting unanswered questions to other class members.(Rowe, 1974).

6. Teachers wait less time for low ex pectation students to answer, gave up more quickly on their wrong answers, called on them less often, paid less attention to them except when they mis behaved, and placed their seats farthest from the teacher. (Brophy and Good, 1974).

7. Teachers tend to stay with high achievers longer after they have failed to answer a question. Teachers offer high achievers more praise, less criticism, more repetitions of information and more clues than low achievers. Teachers offer more rephrasing of questions when high achievers answer incorrectly than when low achievers answer incorrectly. (Brophy and Good, 1970).

8. Highrated children receive more opportunities to engage in verbal exchanges with their teachers than lowrated children. (Good, 1970; Cherry, 1978).

9. Low achieving students tend to receive more criticism and less praise from professional teachers. Teachers tend to praise high expectation students more. (Copper, 1979).

10. Teachers may be willing to deal with high expectation students at any time because control is not an issue, but they may try to confine interactions with low expectation students where they feel most in control and avoid situations in which they do not feel in control. (Cooper, Burger, and Seymour, 1979). (Cooper, Hinkel, and Good, 1980).

11. Students seated at a distance are more likely to be talked "to" but not talked "with" while those closer to the teacher are allowed greater latitude in their behavior and have more conversational interactions with the teacher. (Brooks, Silvern, and Wooten, 1978).

12. If an older sibling performs well, younger siblings would be expected to perform well. If older siblings performed poorly, younger siblings would also be expected to perform poorly. (Seaver, 1973).

13. Males with first names that elementary school teachers considered desirable score higher on measures of selfconcept and achievement than do males with first names that teachers rate as undesirable. (Garwood, 1976; Harari and McDavid, 1973).

14. White teachers direct more nonverbal criticism toward black male students. Nonverbal criticism defined as negative vocal and facial expressions such as sarcasm, frowns, glares and so on, gestures of negation such as repeated head shaking or finger pointing, and distancing behaviors such as leaning away during an interaction. (Simpson 1983).

15. In one-to-one instruction teachers tended to use more words and speak in more positive tones when addressing students who were themselves more positive in their nonverbal behavior toward the teacher. The teachers evaluated these students more favorably and saw them as higher achievers. (Bates, 1976).

16. If teachers set high but attainable goals for academic performance, academic achievement usually increases. If teachers set goals for performance usually decreases. (Brophy and Good, 1974).

17. The expectations of teachers and administrators can permeate a school, creating a school climate. Children have better academic success in schools ... where the teachers expressed expectations that a high proportion of the children would do well in national examinations. Schools which expect children to care for their own resources had better behavior, better attendance, and less delinquency. Giving children posts or tasks of responsibility was associated with better pupil behavior. (Rutter and others, 1979).