I remember studying mythology in 8th grade and becoming obsessed.  Next level cool, right?  All these amazing stories, ideas, and creative ways of understanding our world. Later in life, I was able to visit Greece and Italy, and the stories of many lifetimes ago became tangible.  It was humbling to witness what was left of the most important beliefs of those who lived during such a vibrant period in our planet’s history.   It was intriguing to see it “live”.

Today, I’m stuck on one particular myth that has crept back into my life by the most unlikely path.  The path: Research. The myth:  Pygmalion.   I wrote the following as part of my dissertation and have shared it with several teachers and groups of educational leaders since. It’s a powerful and important message. Settle in for story time.

The Greek poet Ovid wrote of a sculptor who detested women.  The character was Pygmalion, a boy who vowed to never fall in love.  In a twist, this young artist became quite accomplished at creating statues of the one thing he despised most of all – women.  And sure enough, even though he swore he would never love a woman, Pygmalion fell in love with one of his own statues.  The statue’s name was Galatea.  Pygmalion loved Galatea so much he began to believe she was real.  Venus, the goddess of love, made his belief reality, and brought Galatea to life.

The tale, then, is used to illustrate the power of positive beliefs – Pygmalion’s beliefs were so strong that they could make a stone statue come to life.

That brings us to the 70s.  In a controlled experiment, researchers Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson set up an experiment to measure the power of teacher beliefs (Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L., 1968). They wanted to know how much of an impact teachers’ expectations had on student achievement. Their study, published initially as Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968), illustrated a teacher expectancy effect.  An expectancy effect can be defined as creating the reality an experimenter believed to be true.   Here’s how it went down.

At the beginning of the year, researchers administered an IQ test and randomly selected several students to be designated as “bloomers”, or described as students who were on the cusp of exponential growth. This designation was randomly assigned, but teachers did not know that.  This designation created an expectancy; the teachers should expect these students to grow more than the other children who were not designated as bloomers.  Over the course of the year, researchers conducted in-class observations in the classrooms with “bloomers”.  At the end of the year, the IQ test was given again in order to determine if children labeled as special would have different learning results than children teachers perceived as normal or slower learners.  They did.  In fact, first and second grade students demonstrated statistically significant differences in their academic growth compared to the control group of children (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).

How could this be?  Analysis of teacher’s decisions indicated they provided more opportunities to those children they believed were on the cusp of great growth.  This was illustrated in longer wait time, more challenging questions, and probing for extended thought (Rosenthal, 1992).

In essence, because the teachers believed selected students were capable of greater growth, their behaviors created greater growth in those students.

Although this study was initially criticized (Elashoff & Snow, 1971 ) and was controversial for the emotions it evoked (Winestaff, 1987), a later meta-analysis of expectancy effects, or results matching expectations, validated Rosenthal’s findings. The meta-analysis was a study of 345 studies examining expectancy effects, and their results were clear: expectations become reality (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978). “The implication for teachers is that teachers (as human beings) are more likely to have their students reach their “expected” outcomes” (Hattie, 122).

Let that sink in.  It is powerful.  Pygmalion-level powerful.

Think About It:

We must monitor our beliefs and ideas about kids, because those beliefs and ideas will become reality.  What a hefty, important responsibility.  Later, we will discuss some strategies for doing just that.  Until next time, maybe begin by reflecting.  Ask yourself  – What do I expect of my individual students?

If this is what happens when educators have positive expectations about students, what happens when they have negative expectations about students?

How could this theory apply to behavior? Sports? Music? Art?

Elashoff, J. D. & Snow, R. E. (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered: A Case Study in Statistical Inference: Reconsideration of the Rosenthal-Jacobson Data on Teacher Expectancy. Worthington, Ohio: C.A. Jones Pub. Co.

Rosenthal, R.; Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom (Expanded ed.). New York: Irvington.

Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 377-415.