The paper deals with the formation and transformation of a teacher’s judgement and assessment of students. It introduces a selected portion of data and results collected within doctoral thesis research. The main research questions are: In what way is a teacher’s assessment formed and transformed? What factors contribute to the process? The object of my examination is a teacher and a class of six-graders she teaches. The teacher did not have any previous experience with the class. She met the students at the beginning of the school year for the first time. It is thus possible to assume that her judgement on individual students will be changing in correlation with her deepening knowledge of the way the students work, cooperate and carry out their school duties. The goal of this paper is to examine and describe the changes in the teacher’s assessment of the students and the factors that contributed to these changes.

A teacher’s relationship with students and his/her judgement on them is reflected in the process of assessment, which takes many forms in the school environment. The teacher’s assessment is manifested in communication with the students – both verbal and non-verbal – and in a typical school assessment, i.e., the grades. According to Lamprianou and Christie (2009), the assessment reflects students’ current performance and the combination of their efforts, abilities, working habits, attentiveness and participation in classes.

Besides the form and process of assessment, a teacher’s judgement is demonstrated in their actions. Despite teachers’ frequent effort to treat all students equally, they tend to differ in their approach (Higgins, 2011). Their actions stem from the preconceptions and beliefs they form about the students and perceive as real. For this reason, teachers often unconsciously indicate whom they prefer in the class and whom they view less favourably. Authors agree that teachers tend to prefer students who resemble them in their temperament, family background, experiences and who in general actively participate in the class, make a visible effort, respect the teachers, and seek academic achievement. In contrast, students who are not motivated, do not cooperate or sabotage the teacher’s efforts and are not engaged in schoolwork are usually less favoured (Higgins, 2011; Young, Horan, & Frisby, 2013). These differences in a teachers’ approach are perceived very sensitively and negatively by the students.

Formation of a teacher’s judgement on students is also related to their expectations, which are determined by various factors. Santini (2014, p. 77) states that expectations are relatively quickly formed, but last for remarkably long periods of time. According to Kierein a Golda (2000), these expectations are predominantly based on stereotypes, the student’s reputation and other related factors. The authors also identified three stages in the process of arising of the Pygmalion effect. The first stage is characterized by the teacher forming assumptions and expectations in respect of their students. However, these beliefs may be transformed in view of evidence – real performance and results. In the second phase, teacher’s behaviour differs depending on whether they interact with gifted or less capable students. The teacher’s approach to students differs – they are perceived and supervised differently. The third stage is characterized by students reacting to differentiated treatment by the teacher. The response may take the form of a psychological change including transformation of values and self-image, as well as behavioural changes (Kierein, & Gold, 2000, p. 916). The formation of expectations in relation to others is a key factor in building of relationships. Notably, expectations qualify the manner of communication, approach and treatment. Ultimately, it results in a permanent view and relationship being formed. 

Babad, E. (2005). Guessing teachers´ differential treatment of high- and low-achievers from thin slices of their public lecturing behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29 (2), 125-134. Higgins, C.S., (2011). Teacher-student relationship development: A qualitative study of interpersonal connections in an early childhood classroom. (Dissertation). Ohio: College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University. Chang, J. (2011). A Case Study of the „Pygmalion Effect“: Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement. International Education Studies, 4 (1), 198-201. Kierein, N., Gold, M. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21 (1), 913-928. Kolář, Z.,  Šikulová, R. (2009). Hodnocení žáků. Praha: Grada. Lamprianou, I.,  Christie, T. (2009). Why school based assessment is not a universal feature of high stakes assessment systems? Educ Asse Eval Acc, 21 (1), 329-345. Mareš, J.  Křivohlavý, J. (1995). Komunikace ve škole. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. McMillan, J., & Turner, A. (2014). Understanding Student Voices About Assessment: Links to Learning and Motivation Poulou, M. (2014). The effects on students´ emotional and behavioural difficulties of teacher-student interactions, students´ social skills and classroom context. British Educational Research Journal, 40 (6), 986-1004. Rubie-Davies, Ch. M., Stephens, J. M.,  Watson, P. (2015). The Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom. Santini, J. (2014). Reflections on Expectations. Odyssey, 15 (1), 74-78. Stoicescu, S.,  Ghinea, V. (2013). Pygmalion Teaching Style, Is There a Need for it? Management  Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 8 (4), 699-722.