Page |1
Ottaway (1962), defines sociology of education as a social study and in so far as its
method is scientific, it is a branch of social science. It is concerned with educational
aims, methods, institutions, administration and curricula in relation to the economic,
political, religious, social and cultural forces of the society in which they function.
As far as the education of the individual is concerned, sociology of education
highlights on the influence of social life and social relationships on the development
of personality. The sociology of education is the study of how public institutions and
individual experiences affect education and its outcomes. It is most concerned with
the public schooling systems of modern industrial societies, including the expansion
of higher, further, adult, and continuing education. It is a philosophical as well as a
sociological concept, denoting ideologies, curricula, and pedagogical techniques of
the inculcation and management of knowledge and the social reproduction of
personalities and cultures.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is a sociological term used to describe a prediction that
causes itself to become true. Therefore, the process by which a person’s expectations
about someone can lead to that someone behaving in ways which confirm the
expectations (Schaedig, 2020). In the classroom, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs
when a teacher holds expectations for students, which through social interaction,
causes the students to behave in such a manner as to confirm the originally false (but
now true) expectation. For example, lower expectations for students of color and
students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and higher expectations of middle-class
students.
There are two types of self-fulfilling prophecies: Self-imposed prophecies occur
when our own expectations influence our actions. Other-imposed prophecies occur
when others’ expectations influence our behavior. All opinions one values can cause
this prophecy (Schaedig, 2020).
Page |2
The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional,
conflict, and symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2012).
Functionalism asserts that Education serves several functions for society. These
include (a) socialization, (b) social integration, (c) social placement, and (d) social
and cultural innovation. Latent functions include child care, the establishment of
peer relationships, and lowering unemployment by keeping high school students out
of the full-time labor force. Problems in the educational institution harm society
because all these functions cannot be completely fulfilled.
Conflict theory holds that Education promotes social inequality through the use of
tracking and standardized testing and the impact of its “hidden curriculum.” Schools
differ widely in their funding and learning conditions, and this type of inequality
leads to learning disparities that reinforce social inequality.
Symbolic interactionism focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on the
playground, and in other school venues. Specific research finds that social
interaction in schools affects the development of gender roles and that teachers’
expectations of pupils’ intellectual abilities affect how much pupils learn. Certain
educational problems have their basis in social interaction and expectations.
Of these three major theories major theories, the self-fulfilling prophecy relates to
the third theory, the symbolic interactionist theory. Symbolic interactionist studies
of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in
other school venues. These studies help us understand what happens in the schools
themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is relevant
for the larger society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground
Page |3
activities reinforce gender-role socialization. Girls tend to play more cooperative
games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne, 1993)
Research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the
students learn. When teachers think students are smart, they tend to spend more time
with these students, to call on them, and to praise them when they give the right
answer. Not surprisingly, these students learn more because of their teachers’
behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend to spend less
time with these students and to act in a way that leads them to learn less. This is
related to labelling.
Labelling refers to the process of defining a person or group in a simplified way –
narrowing down the complexity of the whole person and fitting them into broad
categories. At the simplest level labelling involves that first judgement you make
about someone, often based on first-impressions – are they ‘worth making the effort
to get to know more’, are you ‘indifferent to them’, or are they to ‘be avoided’.
According to a number of small-scale, interpretivist research studies of teacher
labelling, the labels teachers give to students are sometimes based not on their
behaviour but on a number of preconceived ideas teachers have about students based
on their ethnic, gender or social class background, and thus labelling can be said to
be grounded in stereotypes.
A closely related concept to labelling theory is the that of the self-fulfilling prophecy
– where an individual accepts their label and the label becomes true in practice – for
example, a student labelled as deviant actually becomes deviant as a response to
being so-labelled.
Page |4
Labelling theory is one of the main parts of social action, or interactionist theory,
which seeks to understand human action by looking at micro-level processes,
looking at social life through a microscope, from the ground-up.
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968) conducted a classic study of this
phenomenon. They tested a group of students at the beginning of the school year and
told their teachers which students were bright and which were not. They then tested
the students again at the end of the school year. Not surprisingly, the bright students
had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that the
researchers had randomly decided which students would be designated bright and
less bright. Because the “bright” students learned more during the school year
without actually being brighter at the beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have
been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more time with them and praised
them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. This process helps us
understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.
Other research in the symbolic interactionist tradition focuses on how teachers treat
girls and boys. Many studies find that teachers call on and praise boys more often
(Jones & Dindia, 2004). Teachers do not do this consciously, but their behavior
nonetheless sends an implicit message to girls that math and science are not for them
and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research has
stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways in which they may unwittingly
send these messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest
and achievement by girls in math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).
All these shows that self-fulfilling prophecy affects the academic performance of
students even in Cameroon.
Implication of self-fulfilling prophecy on academic performance of students
Page |5
1.
The labels which teachers give to pupils can influence the construction and
development of students’ identities, or self-concepts: how they see and define
themselves and how they interact with others. This in turn can affect their
attitudes towards school, their behaviour, and ultimately their level of
achievement in education.
2. Building on the above point, a positive labelled is more likely to result in a
good student being put into a higher band, and vice versa for a student prejudged to be less able. Positively labelled students are more likely to develop
positive attitude towards studying, those negatively labelled an anti-school
attitude.
3. When teachers form expectations on students, they tend to think and behave
in a certain way towards those students. In doing so, they introduce bias into
a student’s normal performance. This bias can be of positive or negative
effect, depending on the teacher’s view of the student.
4. In 1968, Robert Rosenthal, and Lenore Jacobson conducted a study in which
they discovered, what they coined the Pygmalion effect. Simply put, the
Pygmalion effect suggests that higher expectations lead to higher
performance. (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003) In their study, Rosenthal and
Jacobson found that teachers with high expectations for particular students
provided those students with more support and encouragement, more
challenging material to learn, more feedback, and more opportunity to speak
in discussions. (Schneider et. al, 2012) This led to a significantly higher
performance in the students of high expectation. Conversely, when teachers
had low expectations, they failed to provide much of the support provided to
those they held higher expectations for. The measured performance for those
students was lower, partly due to the lack of support and feedback they
received.
Page |6
5. Boys group up thinking that certain roles, activities, subjects, courses, career
are for a particular gender or individual and look down on themselves,
hampering on their self-esteem and motivation to acquire certain skills and
competence.
Teachers in Cameroon seeing the implication of self-fulfilling prophecy should do
the following to stop it
 Set high expectation for all students independent of gender and ability.
 Give equal attention and support to all students without bias
 Avoid any form of labelling
 Allow and encourage all children to take all courses, subjects etc. they are
allowed to take.
 Praise, motivate and give positive feedback to all students without bias.