Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and Unknowns, Resolved and Unresolved Controversies

Abstract

This article shows that 35 years of empirical research on teacher expectations justifies the following conclusions: (a) Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom do occur, but these effects are typically small, they 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.

An investigation of the relationship between teachers’ expectations and teachers’ perceptions of student attributes

“…This phenomenon became known as the self-fulfilling prophecy, as originally defined by Merton (1948). Many researchers have investigated the self-fulfilling prophecy effect of teacher expectations on future performance of students in both naturalistic and experimental settings, concluding that self-fulfilling prophecies generally seem to have only relatively small effects on student achievement (Jussim and Harber 2005;RubieDavies 2008). In this research tradition the term ''teacher expectations'' refers to inferences made by teachers with respect to students' potential to achieve based on the teachers' current knowledge about these students (Good 1987;Riley and Ungerleider 2012).…”

“…Studies focusing on naturally occurring differential teacher expectations for demographic characteristics of students and their families have thus far resulted in inconsistent findings (Alvridez and Weinstein 1999;McKown and Weinstein 2008). In their review, Jussim and Harber (2005) conclude that teachers are not biased because the differences in teacher expectations for stigmatized demographic student subgroups closely correspond to differences in those groups' academic performance in previous grades and achievement tests. However, a substantial number of studies published after Jussim and Harber's (2005) review have found significant differences in teacher expectations for students of different demographic groups after the previous performance of students was controlled for (e.g., Glock and Krolak-Schwerdt 2013;McKown and Weinstein 2008;Rubie-Davies et al 2006;Speybroeck et al 2012;Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007;van den Bergh et al 2010).…”

“…In their review, Jussim and Harber (2005) conclude that teachers are not biased because the differences in teacher expectations for stigmatized demographic student subgroups closely correspond to differences in those groups' academic performance in previous grades and achievement tests. However, a substantial number of studies published after Jussim and Harber's (2005) review have found significant differences in teacher expectations for students of different demographic groups after the previous performance of students was controlled for (e.g., Glock and Krolak-Schwerdt 2013;McKown and Weinstein 2008;Rubie-Davies et al 2006;Speybroeck et al 2012;Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007;van den Bergh et al 2010). Generally, for students with equal performance records, teachers tend to have lower expectations for future academic performance when the student comes from a less affluent family and when the student is a boy.…”

Who believes in me? The effect of student–teacher demographic match on teacher expectations

“…We examine the formation of public school teachers' expectations of student educational attainment. Teachers likely play an important role in shaping students' beliefs about their academic prospects (Burgess & Greaves, 2013;Dee, 2015), particularly among relatively disadvantaged students who rarely interact with collegeeducated adults outside of school settings (Jussim & Harber, 2005;Lareau & Weininger, 2008;Lareau, 2011). More concerning, teachers' beliefs can affect students' performance.…”

Effects of the structure of classmates’ perceptions of peers’ academic abilities on children’s perceived cognitive competence, peer acceptance, and engagement

“…This body of evidence is drawn from research on teacher expectancy effects (for review see Jussim & Harber, 2005), classroom goal structure (for review see Urdan & Midgley, 2003), classroom task structures (Simpson & Rosenholtz, 1986), and teacher frame of reference (Marsh & Craven, 2002). The literature from these separate but overlapping traditions has identified teacher practices that are associated with the self-fulfilling prophesy effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) and with students' academic motivation and perceived competence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Lüdtke, Köller, Marsh, & Trautwein, 2005;Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998).…”