Education-internal factors Flashcards
internal Factors: Labelling Theory
Labelling theory in education is the idea that teachers apply labels to their students in terms of their perceived ability, potential or behaviour
These labels can be positive such as “bright” or “hardworking”, or they can be negative such as “disruptive” or “lazy”
Students internalise these labels and it becomes part of their self-concept, living up to the expectation the teacher has of them
Interactionists call this the self-fulfilling prophecy
Rist (1970)
According to Rist, the children he observed in his study were labelled after only 8 days of being in the classroom
The teacher assigned students to three different tables based on ability: the “tigers” (table 1) , the “cardinals” (table 2), and the “clowns” (table 3)
Table 1 consisted of students she considered to be “fast learners”. These students sat at the front of the class, closest to her.
“Average” students were placed at table 2 , and the “slow learners” were placed at table three in the back of the classroom
Rist found that table 1 was predominantly middle-class pupils, whereas working-class pupils were placed at the other 2 tables
Ideal Pupil
The ideal pupil acts as a guide for teachers when evaluating students and assigning labels
Students who meet the criteria of the ideal pupil are more likely to receive positive labels, whereas those who fall short may receive negative labels
Becker argues that middle-class children are the closest to the idea, but working-class children are further away from it
Teachers tended to label working-class children as disruptive and troublesome, while middle-class children were seen as well-behaved and intelligent.
More contemporary research: Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen
Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen conducted a similar study in 2009
She found that working-class children were more likely to be negatively labelled and put in to lower-level classes
Whereas middle-class children were more likely to be positively labelled and encouraged to pursue higher-level course
Evaluation (AO3) of rosenthal and Jackson
The study was considered unethical because it negatively impacted the education of some students. Labelling some of the students negatively could have had an impact on their self-esteem and academic performance.
The researchers also used deception by giving fake IQ tests to the students without the teachers knowing.
The experiment was fairly straightforward and easy to replicate. Within 5 years of the original study, it had been repeated over 200 times.
However, it is unlikely it could be replicated exactly due to differences between schools, classes, teaching styles etc.
Rosenthal and Jacobson did not carry out any classroom observations to see how the teachers interacted with the students after the labels had been applied. So they had no data to support this claim
An alternative view (AO3)… to rosenthal and Jackson- Fuller
Fuller (1984) found that girls resented the negative stereotypes associated with being both female and black
Instead of living up to these expectations, the girls tried to prove them wrong
They devoted themselves to school work in order to try and ensure their success
This shows that labelling doesn’t always lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the way that Becker and other sociologists suggests
Setting and Streaming
Setting- students being placed in classes based upon their ability in a specific subject (e.g., you could be in set 1 for English, and set 3 for maths)
Streaming- students being placed in a class based on their perceived overall ability. This means they are likely to be the same set for all subjects, and may be encouraged to take certain pathways over others (e.g. vocational qualifications instead of GCSEs)
Streaming and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Streaming tends to build upon Becker’s view that teacher’s see working class children differently
Teachers do not usually see working class children as “ideal pupils”, they are seen as lacking in ability and teachers have low expectations of them
As a result, working class children are more likely to be placed in lower streams, and it is difficult for them to move up to a higher stream
This is supported by a study done by Douglas, whereby he found that children placed in a lower stream at age 8 had suffered a decline in IQ by age 11
Ball (1981)
Ball’s study examined the effect of streaming on pupil performance.
Ball found top stream students were “warmed-up” because they had higher expectations of students in the top set or stream
Those students in lower streams or sets were “cooled-down” because the teacher had lower expectations
Warmed up”- they were pushed harder, and directed towards doing the more academic subjects and more difficult subjects/exams.
Cooled down”- they were directed to doing the easier exams and more practical subjects such as woodwork.
Gillborn and Youdell (2000)
Gillborn and Youdell conduced research in two London secondary schools
They found that teachers tended to focus on the borderline group the most, in order to improve their school’s GCSE results and its position in the league tables
The third group received no additional support, and was mainly occupied by working-class students
Reay (2006):
Social class remains the one educational problem that comes back to haunt English education again and again and again”
Reay conducted interviews with individual students in two secondary schools.
Experiences were similar for working-class students, despite the second school having mixed ability groups.
Reay concluded that education policies has had virtually no impact on improving equality in schools.
Evaluation of Reay
These theories overemphasise the role of teachers, and ignore other factors that may contribute to educational outcomes (e.g. family background, peer group influence, and economic inequality)
Labelling theory is too focused on negative labels, failing to consider the ways in which positive labels can also shape educational outcomes
For example, the “spurters” in Rosenthal & Jacobson’s study, the middle-class students in Ball’s study, and the “borderliners” in Gillborn and Youdell’s study.
It also focusses too heavily on class, ignoring the role of race and gender in educational outcomes.
Pupil Subcultures
Pupil subcultures are groups of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns
Counter/anti-school subcultures are groups that reject the norms and values of the school
These subcultures tend to be found more frequently within the lower sets
As we have seen already, the lower sets tend to be disproportionally occupied by working-class pupils
Therefore, anti-school subcultures are another internal factor that can have a negative affect on attainment
Lacey (1970)
Colin Lacey conducted research in a grammar school, and argued that labelling can lead to the creation of pupil subcultures. He uses the following concepts to explain how pupil subcultures emerge:
Differentiation – How pupils are categorised (differentiated) according to their ability, attitude and/or behaviour eg. streaming
Polarisation – How pupils respond to streaming by moving towards opposite poles or extremes – the pro-school subculture and the anti-school subculture
(Gliders- students who do not stand out for excellent or poor behaviour)
Pro and Anti School Subcultures -Lacey
Rather than the traditional idea of subcultures (jocks, geeks etc), Lacey argued that streaming polarised the boys in to pro and anti-school subcultures
Pro-school subculture- mostly middle-class students, who had been placed in to high streams. They were committed to the values of the school, and gained status through academic success.
Anti-school subculture- Mostly working-class students, who had been placed in low streams. They had low self-esteem and felt as though they had inferior status. Instead, they would seek to gain status from their peers by “cheeking” the teachers, truanting, not doing homework, and smoking.
