Topic 13 - interactionist accounts of education and attainment Flashcards
Introduction?
Interactionist theories of education focus on the quality and type of relationships within schools, emphasizing individual interactions. This approach offers insight into processes in classrooms and between people but lacks focus on broader social structures or organizational practices. While this provides a detailed understanding of individual dynamics, it overlooks structural factors that may explain why some groups of children fail in school.
Interactionist explanations of school failure?
Interactionist explanations of school failure suggest that teachers and schools label students, and these labels shape the students’ self-identity. If labeled as failures, students may form anti-school subcultures, while those labeled as successes are more likely to achieve good results and receive praise from the school.
Ability grouping, resources + class size
Debate around ability grouping, banding, and streaming in schools centers on whether students are selected based on ability or talent, with some schools using entrance exams. Interactionists criticize this system, arguing that students in higher streams gain confidence and do well, while those in lower streams internalize failure. Studies, like Ireson et al. (1999), found no link between ability grouping and performance, while Duckworth et al. (2009) suggested that the impact of ability grouping on attainment is limited. These findings support labelling theory, indicating that working-class children are more vulnerable to negative labels, which can lower self-esteem and lead to poor teaching. Even in schools without selection or streaming, social class differences in attainment persist, suggesting that labelling theory offers insight but doesn’t fully explain underachievement.
Teacher practice and behaviour?
Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) study on the self-fulfilling prophecy involved giving an intelligence test to children in a deprived California neighborhood. They randomly selected students and told teachers they would show sudden improvement. A year later, some of these students performed better. The study suggested that teachers’ beliefs can influence student outcomes, although it faced criticism for issues with reliability, ethics, and validity. Despite this, the study became influential in showing that teacher expectations can affect student performance.
Interaction and gender?
Labelling theory gained popularity in the 1970s and has been used by feminists to study gender. They observed that teachers often behave differently towards boys and girls. Jones and Dindia (2004) found that teachers praised boys more, sending unconscious messages to girls that they were less valued. Stanworth (1983) noted that career advice was strongly gendered, while Becky Francis observed that boys are now less positively labelled in schools.
Interactionism and ethnicity?
Studies suggest that teacher racism contributes to ethnic minority students’ failure, with teachers often labeling certain cultural groups as failures. Research by Cord (1971), Sewell (1997), Mirza (1992), and Gilbourne & Yodell highlights racial biases in teaching. However, these studies were conducted when societal attitudes toward race were different, and most modern schools are now more sensitive to racial issues.
Evaluating the interactionist approach to education?
A strength of the interactionist approach is its evidence-based research from within schools, which can help improve educational practices. However, critics argue that these studies are small-scale and not representative of the entire education system. Additionally, the labelling of boys and girls reflects gender stereotypes that persist outside of schools.
