Cavender 1

Ashley Cavender
Paige Clemens
Megan Dickey
Daniel Jackson

Carol Sieverts

English 1010

24 October 2018

Rhetorical Analysis for “Teacher Labelling and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.”

The writer of this article, Karl Thompson, is the Head of Sociology at Reigate Sixth Form

College. Thompson claims he has taught A level sociology for 15 years and has worked as an

examiner on all of the modules for the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) (​The Free

Dictionary​). The AQA compiles specification and holds examinations in various subjects at

GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education), AS and A Level. (“About Us”) The

credibility of Thompson is questionable due to his article being self published, however,

Thompson does state where he gets his source of information from.

The site this article came from revisesociology.com which is a blog site specifically

designed to help students taking the sociology course. Much of the blog posts contain course

notes and exam preparations to help students with their sociology course. The author states that

much of what is written on the blogs is his own interpretations. This consequently makes the

reliability of the site questionable.

Thompson’s blog focuses on families and households, education and research methods,

global developments, crime and deviance with theory/methods, and AQA focus. As we
 Cavender 2

previously mentioned, Thompson does give a disclaimer stating that the information and advice

that is posted is his own interpretation and students use the information to their own discretion.

Thompson argues that the labels that teachers give to their students have a lasting impact

on those children, even as they grow into adults. This is especially true, he believes, as it relates

to their future achievement in education.

For the purposes of his article, Thompson defines labelling as “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.” He states that labelling can occur when a teacher evaluates a

student based on behavior or it can occur if a teacher labels a student based on preconceived

notions of ethnicity, gender, or age. Thus, teacher labelling can be founded on stereotypes.

He further believes that the effect these labels have on students is connected with the

theory of self-fulfilling prophecy, or the tendency of people to conform to another person’s

views about them.

Thompson then discusses previous studies on the issue of teacher labelling. The first

study he examines was conducted by David Hargreaves and two other men. Thompson believes

Hargreaves found that teachers often will speculate on the personalities and traits of a student

and then label them according to their perceptions; it is often difficult for the teacher to change

his or her view once the label is established, Hargreaves discovered.

He also mentions a study by Ray Rist. Thompson says that Ray argued that teacher

labelling often occurs because of the students social background, not on their actual abilities. He

also cites research from Rosenthal and Jacobson to back up his argument.
 Cavender 3

Thompson fairly presents some criticisms of teacher labelling and self-fulfilling

prophecy. He uses Margaret Fuller’s research to show that sometimes labelling has an opposite

effect. He states that girls in this study by Fuller, when labelled as under-achievers actually

performed better because they pushed themselves harder because of the label. He also points out

that labelling theory is based on the autonomous influence of the teacher without outside

influences, which he states is obviously not a reality. According to Thompson, each child is

influenced by many people.

He ends the article by reinforcing his belief that the teacher labelling theory is accurate

by presenting a study by Waterhouse. In this study, the way teachers interacted with students was

examined. Thompson says that the study found that once teachers labelled their students as either

“normal” or “deviant” they found it hard if not impossible to interact with the student differently

than the way they would based on their notion of that student.

Logos is established half way through this article. It gives a good overview on how

labeling is affecting students and teachers in the classroom. The labeling theory is one of the

main parts of social action. By applying this method, it gives us a better understanding for human

action by looking at micro-level processes.

In a lump sum, it can be compared to looking at social life through a microscope, from

the ground up. There is a consistent message being told in this article and makes the concepts

very easy to understand for both experienced and novice readers. The article conveys its message

in a way that gets the intended message out there. The article uses credible sources that are taken

directly from the classic book, “Deviance in Classrooms.” In this book, they analyze the ways in
 Cavender 4

which students are “typed” and “labeled.” Additionally, they interview both teacher and student

and also observed two secondary schools.

Audience awareness is essential for an article to be successful. Thompson knew that his

audience was his own group of college students, and any loyal readers to his educational blog.

Knowing this, he uses simple yet precise language to get his message across. This creates and

increases his appeal to pathos. Often when people see large words, they shy away from the

article for fear of boredom or misunderstanding. However, Thompson fixes this problem by

making it easy for the average college student to understand and learn from.

Thompson states his ethos by pointing out his 15 years of teaching and states he presents

information to help give perspective on sociological topics and to help pass the course. The

author properly cites information and uses good academic language to professionally give

information.

As was previously mentioned, Thompson uses effective language. His message comes

across clearly through simplified word choice, making it easier for the average person to

understand. He uses a professional and informational tone. His choice of using easier words

shows that he would like his message to reach far and wide, through most levels of education.

Thompson uses minimal jargon or slang. He does not develop stereotypes but rather explains

how and why others may do so.

There are both textual and visual elements to this text. Thompson provides a flow chart at

the beginning of the article that breaks down labelling in the classroom and how it can lead to

self fulfilling prophecy. He also provides an image of the cover of the book “Deviance in

Classrooms,” which helped him further the research upon this topic.
 Cavender 5

The flow chart was especially helpful to develop the argument of the article. It

summarizes the message of the article very well and makes it simpler to understand how one

things leads to another in the process of labelling. If there were more than two visual elements to

this article it may have been more helpful, but we were able to find more than enough

information pertaining to our topic without them.

Thompson has excellent document design. Each time he introduces a new topic, he bolds

it which makes it easier to understand what the next section will be about. He also uses lists to

make it easier for the eyes to move along the points he wants to make. In the bullet lists, we are

given facts that pertain to the article. In the numbered lists, we receive information in

chronological order. For example, he shows us the steps in the labelling process and how one

leads to the other.

Thompson utilizes frequent paragraph breaks which again makes it more likely that his

article and message will get out there. The average person does not like to read long blocks of

text, so we felt that he was smart in breaking it up.

In conclusion, we feel that this article from Thompson is a well written document and a

good resource to help support our strong response. He summarizes and conveys the research

clearly and informatively. He uses appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos effectively. We plan to use

his collected research in our strong response.

 Cavender 6

Works Cited

“About Us.” ​AQA | Cells | Cell Structure | Structure of Prokaryotic Cells and of Viruses​,

www.aqa.org.uk/about-us​. 6 November 2018

“AQA.” ​The Free Dictionary​, Farlex, ​www.acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AQA​. 6 November

2018

Thompson, Karl. “About” ​ReviseSociology, 6​ December 2015 revisesociology.com/a-level-

sociology-revision/. 6 November 2018

Thompson, Karl. “Teacher Labelling and the Self-fulfilling Prophecy.”​ ReviseSociology,​ 1

November 2017, www.revisesociology.com/2017/11/01/labelling-self-fulfilling-prophec

y-education/. 6 November 2018

 Cavender 7

REVISION EXPLANATION:

As a group, we were very disappointed when we received this grade. Unfortunately, we

haven’t been holding each other as accountable for the work as we should be. That is why we
received a poor grade on this project. However we feel that it is also on each individual to hold
themselves accountable for their part of the work.
We feel as though the workload for the assignment was imbalanced as most members of
the group worked very hard for this project to be successful and one depended everyone else’s
hard work. A member of this group has had his name excluded from the revised version of this
document. He submitted his portion 3 days past our group’s decided deadline, didn’t read
through the rest of the document at all (which resulted in a slight contradiction of previously
stated information) and did not assist in the revision process.
Since receiving this grade, we met as a group outside of class. We have revised our
introduction to more clearly introduce the author of our selected article, and what the article is
about. We also added a conclusion. The original paper didn’t contain a conclusion because no
one was assigned to writing one. Megan was in charge of making assignments for this paper, and
recognizes that it was her mistake.
As was previously mentioned, some of the information in our paragraph about ethos
slightly contradicted the information provided in the first paragraph. We have made sure that it is
neither redundant nor contradictory.
We were also docked points due to lack of proofreading. There were a few grammatical
errors in our original paper, as well as repeated and contradicting information. To avoid getting
docked again, we have thoroughly proofread this revised draft, and we find no issue with it now.