Teacher Practical Guidance:
Teachers Labeling Students
Category: Assessment & Planning
Rank Order
111
Effect Size
-0.53
Achievement Gain %
-20
How-To Strategies
Alternatives to Labeling:
1. Emphasizing Individual Needs
Instead of labeling students, educators can focus on understanding each student’s unique needs and strengths.
2. Encourages tailored instruction that meets diverse learning requirements without confining students to specific categories.
3. Use formative assessments to inform instruction, teachers can better support all students in achieving their potential.
4. Encouraging a growth mindset within classrooms helps foster resilience and adaptability among students.
5. By emphasizing effort and progress rather than fixed abilities, educators can inspire students to strive for improvement without the constraints of labels.
6. Establishing high expectations for every student is vital. When educators believe that all students can succeed and provide them with appropriate support, it creates an environment where every learner has the opportunity to excel.
How-To Resources
Link – GUIDE (Hanover Research Brief) Benchmarking Special Education Programs
Link – ARTICLE (Educ Week) Are labels students from succeeding?
Link – ARTICLE (All Learning) A call to stop labeling our students
Link – ARTICLE (UNC) Disadvantages of labeling
Link – ARTICLE (NWEduc) The Pros and cons of educational labels
References
Chassin L., Young R. (1981). Identifying with a deviant label: the validation of a methodology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44: 31-36.
Deil-Amen, R., Rosenbaum, J. (2002). The unintended consequences of stigma free remediation. Sociology of Education, 75(3), 249-268.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.
Goff, P., Steele, C. M., & Davies, P. G. (2008). The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 91-107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.91
Franz, Richter, Lenhard, Marx, Stein, & Ratz (2023). The influence of diagnostic labels on the evaluation of students: A multilevel meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review.
Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, & Roberts. (2002). Is “Learning Disabilities” Just a Fancy Term for Low Achievement? A Meta-Analysis of Reading Differences Between Low Achievers with and without the Label.
James, C. E. (2012). Students ‘at risk’: Stereotypes and the schooling of Black boys. Urban Education, 47(2), 464-494. doi:10.1177/0042085911429084
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-155.doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
Jensen G. (1980). Labeling and Identity: Toward a reconciliation of divergent findings. Criminology, 18: 121-29.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.doi:10.1037/h0034225
Rosenthal R., Jacobson L. (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Teachers Labeling Students
DEFINITIONS
Consider two students of the same personality, behavior, or aptitude; label one (e.g., Asperger’s, naughty, struggling) and not the others. This research investigates the effects of these labels. Labeling can lead to effective intervention and/or could lead to discrimination or exclusion. link
Negative Impacts of Labeling:
1. Fixed Mindset and Low Expectations: Labels can create a fixed mindset, where students are perceived as incapable of growth beyond their assigned category. For instance, labeling a student as a “low achiever” can lead educators to lower their expectations, which may limit the student’s opportunities for advancement and hinder their self-esteem. Research indicates that when students are labeled negatively, they may internalize these labels, believing they cannot succeed academically.
2. Stigmatization and Stereotyping: Labels often carry stigma, which can affect how students are treated by peers and teachers alike. Students labeled as having learning disabilities may face discrimination or exclusion, which can exacerbate feelings of inadequacy and isolation. Furthermore, teachers may stereotype labeled students, attributing characteristics to them based solely on their labels rather than recognizing their individual strengths and needs.
3. Glass Ceiling Effect: The concept of a “glass ceiling” arises when labels confine students to certain performance levels. Studies have shown that labeling can limit students’ potential by creating barriers to higher achievement. For example, students labeled with learning disabilities may be placed in lower-level classes or given less challenging work, which reinforces the idea that they cannot perform at higher levels.
DATA
-
3 meta-analysis review
-
139 research studies
-
8,300 students in research studies
-
3 Confidence level. Hattie (2023) p. 217