A brief summary:
A student`s academic success is not associated to only one factor; many are the aspects that influence performance at school, even that of individuals put in the same educational context: genetic predisposition, nutrition (infant`s and later), family interactions, social context and the teacher-pupil interaction.As teachers, we don’t have access to most of these factors, but mainly one: the human interaction that goes on in the classroom between the teacher and the children. That, on the other hand, can affect learning in many ways, for example through the affective interaction of the parts and through the learning opportunities we, adults, allow ourselves to give to the children. Allowing is a good word here because, depending on our expectations about the pupils, we may allow certain types of learning opportunities to take place for a pupil different from what we allow for another.
While it’s important to differentiate the study program of a pupil, they don’t all learn the same way, so because of these labels, we may prevent a child from achieving all he or she can. Scientifically, this has been studied as: self-fulfilling prophecies; according to Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968):
“What you expect of someone or of a situation becomes true specifically
because of the existence of the expectation, possibly due to alterations in
selective perception, in the perceiver’s reactions and in the resulting
interaction among the parts involved”.
Several studies have showed evidence of this effect.
Rosenthal &
Jacobson
(1968)
Oak School - in San Francisco, CA, USA.
Children
(year 1 to 6) tested.
20% randomly chosen as “more capable” so
teachers should expect a better performance in
class.
Two more tests were done.
By the end of the year: “more capable
group” in fact received higher marks and were
perceived as more pleasant to
work with in comparison to control group.
Woolfolk, Woolfolk
&
Wilson
(1977)
Video on a teaching strategy applied on a
SEN class in elementary school presented to post-grad students in Education.
Two groups: one humanistic
the other behaviorist.
Students evaluation of the method – more
favorable in the humanistic label.
Crano
&
Mellon
(1978)
Behaviours cause expectations Vs
Expectations cause behaviours?
5.200 students older than 7yo from 72 schools for 4 years.
Several tests and result analysis:
teachers expectations determined more
behaviour than the other way around.
Jussim L. (1993)
Interpret research on teacher
expectations and on the role of stereotypes in person perception.
Findings: interpersonal expectancies
often accurate/relative small biases and self-fulfilling prophecies.
Jussim
L; Harber KD
(2005)
Review
of research after 35 years and the following conclusions:
(a) Self-fulfilling prophecies in the
classroom do occur
- effects are
small, do not
accumulate greatly across perceivers or over time, and they may be more likely
to dissipate than accumulate;
(b) powerful self-fulfilling prophecies
may selectively occur among students from stigmatized
social groups;
(c) whether self-fulfilling prophecies
affect intelligence, and whether they in general do more harm than good,
remains unclear, and
(d) teacher expectations may predict
student outcomes more because these expectations are accurate than because they
are self-fulfilling.
Implications for
future research, the role of self-fulfilling prophecies in social problems, and
perspectives emphasizing the power of erroneous beliefs to create social
reality are discussed.
Rubie-Davies
C; Hattie J; Hamilton R (2006)
Investigate the effects of
self-fulfilling prophecies on the achievement of some ethnical groups.
Aims: differences in
teachers' expectations and judgments of student reading performance for Maori,
Pacific Island, Asian and New Zealand European students. And
compare teacher
expectations and judgments with actual student achievement.
540 students of 21 primary teachers in
Auckland schools. Of these students, 261 were New Zealand European, 88 were
Maori, 97 were Pacific Island and 94 were Asian.
Results: Sustaining expectation effects are one
explanation for Maori students' limited progress. For Pacific Island, Asian and
New Zealand European students, positive self-fulfilling prophecies may be
operating.
Research has shown us that:
Not all children are affected by
self-fulfilling prophecies – pupils do overcome negative expectations;
If they overcome failure prophecies and
if other factors we have no control of are in place during learning, then WHY
WORRY?
Because, the few who don’t overcome
self-fulfilling prophecies,are usually the most vulnerable ones:
children with
Special Educational Needs, minority
groups and children with other emotional issues that lead to low self-esteem.
Expectations are inevitable – and some
may be
true and truly based on the children's abilities. However, our job is to try to change the odds – NOT
TO BE HEROES – but to give them all an equal chance of learning.
REFERENCES:
Condon,
W.S. 1979. Neonatal Entrainment and Enculturation. In
M. Bullowa (ed) Before
Speech,
Cambridge University Press.
Crano,
W.D. e Mellon, P.M. 1978. Causal
Influence of Teachers Expectations on Children’s
Academic Performance:A
Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol (1) 39-49.
Cunha,
L.A. 1988. Educação e Desenvolvimento Social no
Brasil.
Rio de Janeiro. Liv. Francisco
Alves
Ed.
“Dificuldade
de Aprendizado é Maior a Cada Ano”, por Renata Cafardo, Jornal
O Estado de
São
Paulo,
27 de Abril de 2003.
Fox,
J.D. e Stinnett, T.A. 1996. The
Effects of Labeling Bias on Prognostic Outlook For
Children as a Function of Diagnostic Label and
Profession
Psychology
in Schools, Vol.
33, 143-152.
Jussim,
L. E Eccles, J.S. 1992. Teacher
Expectations II: Construction and Reflection of
Student Achievement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 63(6), 947-961.
Jussim,
L. 1993. Accuracy
in interpersonal expectations: a reflection-construction analysis of current
and classic research. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(4):
637-68, Dec.
Jussim L; Harber KD. 2005. Teacher
expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: knowns
and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology
Review. 9(2): 131-55.
Lee-Manoel,
C.L., et al. 2002. Quem
é Bom ( e Eu Gosto) é Bonito: Efeitos daFamiliaridade
na Percepção de Atratividade Física em
Pré-Escolares.
Psicologia
Reflexão e
Crítica,
Vol. 15(2), 271-282.
Maciel,
D.M.M.A. 1996. Análise das Interações Professora-Criança
em Situação de Ensino -Aprendizagem da Leitura e Escrita.
TD. Faculdade de Educação – Universidade de
São Paulo – SP.
Madon,
S., et al. 2001. Am
I as You See me or Do You See Me as I Am? Self-Fulfilling Prophecies and
Self-Verification.
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 27(9), 1214-1224.
Otta,
E., et al 1983. Profecias Auto-Realizadoras em Sala de
Aula: Expectativas de Estudantes de Psicologia como Determinantes
Não-Intencionais de Desempenho.Psicologia,
Vol. 9(2), 27-42.
Patto,
M.H.S. 1990. A
Produção do Fracasso Escolar: história de submissão e rebeldia.T.A.
Queiroz (ed). São Paulo.
Piaget,
J. 1973. Psicologia da Criança.
Difusão Européia do Livro. São Paulo.
Rosenthal,
R. E Jacobson, L.F. 1968. Expectativas
de Professores com Relação a Alunos Pobres. Pigmalion
in the Classroom.
New York: Holt, Rinehart e Winston.
Rubie-Davies
C; Hattie J; Hamilton R. 2006. Expecting
the best for students: teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British
Journal of Educational Psychology. 76(Pt 3): 429-44, Sep.
Weinstein RS; Gregory A;
Strambler MJ. 2004. Intractable
self-fulfilling prophecies fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education.
American
Psychologist.
59(6): 511-20, Sep.
Woolfolk,
A.E., Woolfolk,
R.L. e Wilson, G.T. 1977. A
Rose by Any Other Name...: Labeling
Bias and Attitudes Toward Behavior Modification. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 45 (2), 184-191
