Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Education: Teacher Expectations Explained

The hidden curriculum, the self-fulfilling prophecy, teacher expectation effects, and labelling are some social processes identified by social scientists and sociologists of education.

In teaching, various social processes identified by social scientists and educational sociologists can affect learners' education and teachers' practice. Among these processes, some more widely known are ‘The Hidden Curriculum’, ‘Self-Fulfilling Prophecies’, ‘Teacher Expectation Effects’ and ‘Labelling’. These social phenomena have become so ubiquitous that the terms have moved out of the education sector and are now applied to other work areas. This paper will examine these social processes and why it is important for teachers not only to be aware of them but also to actively prevent them in their classrooms to protect students from their effects.

When discussing the hidden curriculum, it is wise to first explain the purpose of education. When we can define the reasoning of the unhidden curriculum, we can view the hidden curriculum more clearly. Still, in trying to define the purpose of education, we find our first issue. Head (1974) compiled a list of purposes, stating that education was:

Schooling;

Grading and competition;

Being measured;

Mastering a curriculum;

Getting a certificate;

Being taught;

Being taught by a teacher;

Being taught by a professional teacher;

Treating knowledge as a commodity;

Getting a specialised knowledge.

Of course, many would argue that school is more than the aforementioned, but this signals the ‘hidden curriculum’.

The term ‘hidden curriculum’ was coined by Jackson (1968) to describe the values and ideologies that are part of the ‘unspoken curriculum’ - a set of perspectives that are unofficial and often unintended to be passed on to students. (Head, 1974) The ‘hidden curriculum’ can also be described as the unofficial socialisation of children in schools, as teachers and establishments unknowingly pass on the rules and morals of society. (Giroux, 1983)

Although there are many definitions of what the ‘hidden curriculum’ is, most sociologists agree it is the unspoken norms that a schooling institution passes to its students; how and why this is done differs depending on the sociologist. Dreeben (1967) believed it was a process for quashing the students personality, catagorising them and making them conform, Jackson (1968) agreed with Dreeben, also believing the ‘hidden curriculum’ was a way of teaching children to become courteous, patient and upstanding pillars of a community. Marxist economists Bowles and Gintis (1976) (and Willis (1977) to some degree) argued school was another way of introducing and enforcing the class system to youths and Anyon (1980) believed that certain social settings taught different pedagogical approaches and curricular in a pursuit of creating different future workforces.

Whatever the reasoning behind the ‘hidden curriculum’, the values of these unspoken lessons have been argued to disadvantage certain groups of students. It is clear that some students are unable to coherently understand the purpose of, or, in some respects, even the rhetoric of, the ‘hidden curriculum’, leaving them unable to be part of the ‘dialogue’ and instantly at a disadvantage. Whether this is a tactic of an elitist capitalist government, a prejudiced school system, or just the way things are has yet to be seen - and would most likely be impossible to quantify in any instance.

Drawing on Head’s (1974) and Giroux’s (1983) perspectives, one might view the hidden curriculum as a positive device that aims to shape and hone wild youths into ‘acceptable’ adults who can function successfully in society. This leads to issues with students who are simply unable to ‘fall in line’ with these standards. Students with additional learning needs (ALN) and special educational needs (SEN), like Asperger's or Autism, are instantly disadvantaged. They are unable to be part of the unspoken rhetoric that defines social standards and norms, leaving the youths in a state of flux. Due to the nature of their educational needs, these children simply do not understand they are being taught norms, or even that they are being socialised in schools. By taking their education as a literal process, they understand they are there for curriculum stated education only. (Whether these students are capable of being part of society as it stands is not the debate here; the issue is that the way we attempt to integrate them into society is unequitable.)

In the same way, the ‘hidden curriculum’ affects SEN pupils, pupils from different cultural backgrounds and countries are disadvantaged. The official curriculum teaches perspectives and ideologies that are of benefit to the country and society in which they are being taught in. (Russell, 1916) Even the English language is argued to create a hidden communication of ideologies from our ancestors, from dichotomies, to patriarchal slanting, to oppositional language, there is a constant sub-textual dialogue that describes and creates social norms. (Meighan, 1986, P.71)

Vallance (1974) argued that the ‘hidden curriculum’ was for ‘civilising the working class’, which would fall in line with Bowles and Gintis’ (1976) and Willis’ (1977) less favourable perspectives. The ideology that the curriculum serves its creators and not its students could be easily perceived. Timetabling, uniforms, and the hierarchy in schools could all be seen as part of a capitalist agenda that seeks to condition the next generation of children into workers for the next generation of the elite.

Whomever you presume to be the creator of the ‘hidden curriculum’, to say that it is completely negative would be short-sighted and rather conspiratorial. Students are socialised in schools by presumably well educated and socially integrated teachers - to pass on these traits cannot be negative unless done with an agenda - an agenda which is unlikely to be regimented or created by an elite, but more likely the sharing of personal values from teacher to student. This can only be a negative when opinion is taught as fact, so teachers must be aware to instil critical thought in their students - which in my opinion would probably be the most valuable lesson they could learn in schools.

Another facet of the ‘hidden curriculum’ is how teachers treat their students and the reasons behind it. This can stem from the phenomena of Labelling, Self-Fulfilling Prophecies (SFP), and Teacher Expectation Effects (TEE). Labelling, SFPs, and TEE are linked, as one often creates the other: SFPs are the result of TEE and labels in many cases. If a teacher believes something will happen for the student based on the student's background, personality, etc. (labelling), it is hypothesised that this causes a SFP.

SFP is where a label is attached to a student, and due to this attachment they supposedly fulfil that prophecy. This can be a positive or negative process that takes place from the teacher treating them differently, the pupil behaving differently, or a combination of both.

A good example of SFP in the classroom was a study done by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), they asked a group of students to take a disguised IQ test, they then chose at random 20% of the students to inform the teacher that they were “intellectual bloomers”. When the test group were reexamined, all of the groups IQ’s had increased, but the 20% who were named to the teachers as ‘bloomers’ had shown an even higher gain. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) hypothesised that this was due to teachers behaving more positively with the ‘bloomers’ and perhaps when the child didn’t understand something, trying harder or giving more time to them. Many tests of SFP have taken place (although some have concluded to debunk Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) research, like Jensen (1980) who concluded the ‘pygmalion effect’ was a myth and Pitt’s (1956) original research who found no evidence of TEE from SFP) whether conclusive or not it is easy to understand that SFP and TEE could have an effect on the way a teacher or student behaves and interacts. If a student believes a teacher does not care for them, this can have a detrimental effect. Even an overly positive opinion can cause untold stress and anxiety to perform consistently well, which, in the end, could have the opposite effect of the original praise.

TEE can be positive or negative and can affect students in many ways. A teacher can make presumptions about a student or a class and this can change the way they teach, or what they teach. It tends to be entirely unintentional, but is very hard to avoid. If a teacher’s expectations are low, perhaps they will try less or teach lower level curricula, if they are high they may try harder or teach higher level curricula, this in turn has been argued to create higher or lower attainment in the classroom. (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968, P.55)

TEE can stem from different economic and sociological labels and is based on a range of endemic prejudices, from girls being treated differently to boys, to social class issues, to a teacher simply not liking a student based on their presumed traits and treating them differently based on personal reasons. (Nash, 1976, P.27) Research like Garner and Bing (1973) noticed that teachers not only treat their students differently, but also distribute their time unevenly depending on how they felt about the students. This would obviously have an effect on a student’s education, if one is gaining, in effect, more teaching time than another.

Whether labelling causes SFP is still unknown,

The data cannot resolve this ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma, but it is reasonable to assume the the process is interactive: an impression is formed on the basis of a child’s behaviour which then acts as an interpretive framework within which subsequent behaviour is construed, which in turn leads to teacher expectations which in turn helps to determine the child’s subsequent behaviour etc.

The most likely situation is that TEE, Labelling and SFP are ‘interactive’ phenomenon, one cannot and does not inherently cause the other, nor is there any definite outcome of applying any of them to a student, but regardless of that there is the possibility that one could cause the other, or create an effect within the classroom and so it is best to be aware and attempt to avoid these possibly detrimental behaviours and try to create as equal and equitable teaching environment as possible.

In conclusion, it is easy to see how these phenomena affect students learning potential and why it is important to avoid such affectations in one’s learning environment. Even the most informed and well-meaning teachers will unintentionally divulge their, or their societies social norms - something which can be detrimental to a learning environment as it can alienate people.

As humans, we naturally judge, it is a trait that cannot be avoided, but teachers must look deeply into their prejudices and social ideologies to be fully aware of the things that drive their opinions. It is not the teacher's duty to share these opinions, but to teach fact, truth and ability; but for a teacher to strive to share only these facets would be an impersonal and impossible learning experience. To be aware of the negative side effects of these phenomena and to attempt to rectify one’s own personal opinions would be the best option and would hopefully create a learning environment that is less exclusive, more open and more likely to teach students to be their best, rather than the perceived best of society or the school.

References

• Anyon, J. (1980) ‘Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work’ Journal of Education 162 (1, Winter) P67-90

• Dreeben, R. (1967) On What is Learned in School. London: Addison-Wesley

• Bowles, Gintis, S. H (1976) Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books

• Garner, J. and Bing, M. (1973) ‘Inequalities of Teacher-Pupil Contacts’ British Journal of Educational Psychology 43 (5) P.234-243

• Giroux, H. A. (2001) Theory and Resistance in Education. London: Bergin and Garvey

• Head, D. (1974) Free Way to Learning. Harmondsworth:Penguin

• Jackson, P. W. (1968) Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston

• Jensen, A.R. (1980) Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Free Press

• Nash, R. (1976) Teacher Expectations and Pupil Learning. London:Routledge

• Pitt, C.C.V. (1956) An Experimental Study of the Effects of Teachers Knowledge or Incorrect Knowledge of Pupil IQ on Teachers Attitudes and Practices and Attitudes and Achievement. Unpublished. Columbia University

• Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation Effects. Crown House Publishing: Norwalk

• Russell, B. (1916) Principles of Social Reconstruction. London:Unwin

• Vallance, E. (1974) ‘Hiding the Hidden Curriculum’ Curriculum Theory Network 4 (1)

• Willis, P. (1997). Learning to Labour. New York: Colombia University Press

Word Count - 1934