In the spring of 1964, Harvard researcher Robert Rosenthal approached a San Francisco Elementary School with a research proposal. He claimed to have created a special new assessment called the “Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition” that could identify students with superior academic potential at an early age. He planned to measure the accuracy of this assessment with a one-year pre- and post-test model. The district agreed to the study and Rosenthal administered the exam to the students of Spruce Elementary School.
According to Rosenthal, his pre-assessment identified a handful of students (about 20% of those tested) as having “unusual potential for intellectual growth.” He told the teachers the names of the students and suggested that they would likely show drastic academic improvements within one year.
After returning a year later and administering the post-test, Rosenthal’s assessment appeared to be legitimate. The students identified as gifted showed significantly higher average increases than the rest of the student body. The increases in first- and second-graders were especially skewed, with students identified as gifted showing more than twice as much growth as their peers.[1]
Rosenthal then revealed the truth. The so-called “Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition” was simply a standard IQ test. And while they did improve far and above their peers, the students identified as gifted were chosen at random, showing no significant performance on the pre-test. The only variable in the study was the teachers’ perceptions of the students’ academic abilities.
Believe They Can Succeed and They Will
There’s a lot to learn here. As much as we try to keep our opinions to ourselves, our students will sense how we feel about them. More importantly, they will live up (or down) to those expectations. The teachers in this study did not openly declare their favorite students in front of the class; rather, through the tone of their feedback, encouragement (or lack thereof), class discussions, or general interactions with students, they subconsciously projected their beliefs. In one way or another, the “gifted” students in Rosenthal’s study were treated more favorably. What would our students be capable of if we treated them all this way?
In an era of educational technology overload, this study reminds us that the best tools for student success are not technology-related at all; they are human. It is the teacher, and how that teacher makes a student feel, that makes the biggest impact. With Artificial Intelligence promising to revolutionize our practice by providing on-demand tutors, instant feedback, and real-time, personalized instruction, it’s becoming increasingly important to remember this truth.
As much as I’m excited about AI and believe that technology can facilitate transformational learning experiences for students, it’s not a magic bullet. Technology cannot impact learning if the conditions for learning aren’t right. A student’s self-perceived academic abilities, heavily influenced by the teacher, are a fundamental part of those conditions. All the water and sunlight in the world won’t help a garden grow in sandy soil. Fortunately, Rosenthal’s study proves that we have more control over the quality of the soil than we may realize.
Share this Article:
Reference:
1. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3 (1), 16-20.
Leave a Reply