Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Sociology

GSOC.AL4 Internal Factors in Class Differences in Educational Achievement

AQA 7192 · Calculators not allowed · about 75 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Use sociological terms where relevant. For questions requiring full sentences, write at least one complete sentence. Spend about 75 minutes in total.

Which researcher carried out the Pygmalion in the Classroom experiment, claiming teacher expectations can change pupil performance?

A) Howard Becker
B) Rosenthal and Jacobson
C) Basil Bernstein
D) Paul Willis

(Total for Question 1 is 1 mark)

Define what sociologists mean by 'labelling' in the context of schools and pupil behaviour.

(Total for Question 2 is 2 marks)

Identify and explain one example of how a teacher label could lower a pupil's achievement in the classroom.

(Total for Question 3 is 2 marks)

Identify and explain two ways that streaming or setting might produce class differences in educational achievement.

(Total for Question 4 is 4 marks)

Describe one key finding from Howard Becker's work on the ideal pupil and teacher labelling in schools.

(Total for Question 5 is 3 marks)

Describe two features of pupil subcultures identified by Lacey in his study of a comprehensive school.

(Total for Question 6 is 4 marks)

Item A: A form class in a mixed secondary school. The form tutor, Ms Khan, has been told by senior staff that three pupils, Amir (working-class), Chloe (middle-class) and Yusuf (working-class), have been placed on the same 'target' band. Ms Khan believes Amir and Yusuf are 'likely to struggle' because of their background and so gives them shorter, simpler classroom tasks, checking them more often. Chloe receives extended, open-ended tasks and positive, detailed feedback. After a term, Chloe's test scores improved by two grades on average, while Amir and Yusuf improved by half a grade. Using Item A and your sociological knowledge, explain one reason why teacher expectations in Item A may have affected Amir's and Yusuf's achievement.

(Total for Question 7 is 4 marks)

Outline and explain two ways that labelling in schools can affect a pupil's long term educational achievement.

(Total for Question 8 is 4 marks)

Explain two ways that streaming and the formation of pupil subcultures can influence attainment gaps between social classes.

(Total for Question 9 is 4 marks)

State one methodological criticism often made of Rosenthal and Jacobson's Pygmalion in the Classroom study.

(Total for Question 10 is 2 marks)

Define Basil Bernstein's idea of restricted and elaborate speech codes as applied to classroom interaction and achievement.

(Total for Question 11 is 2 marks)

Describe how the process of differentiation and polarisation, as described by Lacey and Ball, can operate inside a school to create class differences in achievement.

(Total for Question 12 is 4 marks)

Compare a Marxist explanation and an interactionist explanation for why in-school processes produce class differences in achievement. Give two contrasting points.

(Total for Question 13 is 4 marks)

Explain one strength of using the labelling perspective to understand class differences in achievement.

(Total for Question 14 is 2 marks)

Explain two evaluation points that might be used to criticise Bernstein's speech codes theory when applied to class differences in achievement.

(Total for Question 15 is 4 marks)

Discuss how far sociologists would agree that in-school factors are the main cause of class differences in educational achievement.

(Total for Question 16 is 12 marks)

Mark scheme · GSOC.AL4 Internal Factors in Class Differences in Educational Achievement

Question 1

B1 B (Rosenthal and Jacobson)
Answer: B

Question 2

B1 identifies labelling as the process of attaching a definition or stereotype to an individual or group by others, for example teachers
B1 development, e.g. this label influences how the labelled person is treated and how they see themselves
Answer: Labelling is the process of attaching a definition or stereotype to an individual or group, for example by teachers; this label influences how the pupil is treated and how they see themselves.

Question 3

B1 identifies an example, e.g. calling a pupil 'lazy' or 'low ability'
B1 explains how this lowers achievement, e.g. the pupil internalises the label and reduces effort, producing lower attainment
Answer: Calling a pupil 'lazy' or 'low ability' may lead the pupil to internalise that label and reduce effort, so their attainment falls in line with the expectation.

Question 4

B1 identifies first way, e.g. working-class pupils being placed in lower streams
B1 explains first way, e.g. lower streams receive lower expectations, less challenging teaching and fewer academic resources, harming achievement
B1 identifies second way, e.g. streaming separates pupils by behaviour as well as ability
B1 explains second way, e.g. polarisation can form subcultures in lower streams that reject school values and reduce effort and attainment
Answer: Working-class pupils put into lower streams receive lower expectations and less challenging teaching, which reduces achievement; streaming also separates pupils by behaviour, so lower streams can polarise into anti-school subcultures that reject school values and lower attainment.

Question 5

B1 identifies a key finding, e.g. teachers judge pupils against an 'ideal pupil' standard
B1 development, e.g. characteristics of the ideal pupil include politeness, neatness and responsiveness
B1 further development, e.g. pupils not seen as fitting the ideal are labelled negatively and treated differently
Answer: Becker found that teachers judge pupils against an 'ideal pupil' standard, including politeness and neatness, and pupils who do not fit are labelled negatively and treated differently.

Question 6

B1 identifies first feature, e.g. differentiation between pupils by teachers leading to streaming
B1 development of first feature, e.g. teachers' categorisation leads to unequal treatment and status differences
B1 identifies second feature, e.g. polarisation into pro-school and anti-school subcultures
B1 development of second feature, e.g. anti-school groups reject school values and may lower their academic effort
Answer: Lacey described differentiation by teachers that leads to unequal status and treatment, and polarisation into pro-school and anti-school subcultures where anti-school groups reject school values and reduce academic effort.

Question 7

B1 identifies the relevant mechanism, e.g. lower teacher expectations led to different treatment for Amir and Yusuf
B1 explains how the different treatment worked, e.g. shorter tasks and more checking reduced challenge and opportunity to learn
B1 links mechanism to outcome in Item A, e.g. Chloe had more challenging tasks and feedback so her attainment rose more
B1 applies sociological concept, e.g. labels and the self-fulfilling prophecy explain how expectations produce the observed differences
Answer: Ms Khan's lower expectations of Amir and Yusuf led her to give them simpler, shorter tasks and more checking, reducing challenge and learning opportunities; Chloe was given extended tasks and better feedback, which promoted improvement. This pattern fits labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy, where teacher expectations shape pupil performance.

Question 8

B1 identifies first way, e.g. internalisation of a negative label reduces pupil motivation
B1 applies or develops first way, e.g. over time lower motivation causes poorer exam results and restricted future choices
B1 identifies second way, e.g. differential access to opportunities or sets
B1 applies or develops second way, e.g. being in lower sets limits curriculum, teacher expectations and access to advanced qualifications, reducing long term attainment
Answer: A negative label can be internalised, reducing motivation and effort so exam results fall and future options shrink; labelling can also lead to being placed in lower sets, limiting curriculum access and teacher expectations, which reduces long-term qualifications and achievement.

Question 9

B1 identifies first way, e.g. lower streams often have lower teacher expectations and poorer teaching
B1 develops first way, e.g. this produces lower attainment among working-class pupils more often placed in lower streams
B1 identifies second way, e.g. polarisation into anti-school subcultures in lower streams
B1 develops second way, e.g. anti-school subcultures value resisting school rules and do not pursue academic success, widening class gaps
Answer: Lower streams receive lower expectations and poorer teaching, which reduces attainment for working-class pupils who are disproportionately placed there; polarisation can create anti-school subcultures in lower streams that reject academic success, further widening class attainment gaps.

Question 10

B1 identifies a recognised criticism, e.g. the study used ambiguous measures and the 'spurters' identification may have been unreliable
B1 brief development, e.g. critics suggest observer effects or sample issues may have influenced results
Answer: A common criticism is that the identification of 'spurters' was unreliable and measures were ambiguous, and observer effects or sample issues may have influenced the reported results.

Question 11

B1 identifies restricted code, e.g. a style of speech using short, context-based phrases common in some working-class families
B1 identifies elaborate code or development, e.g. a more explicit, complex, context-independent style associated with middle-class families that advantages pupils in school
Answer: Restricted code is a context-based, short form of speech common in some working-class families; elaborate code is a more explicit, complex, context-independent style associated with middle-class families that can give advantages in school.

Question 12

B1 identifies differentiation, e.g. teachers categorise pupils by ability and behaviour
B1 develops differentiation, e.g. this categorisation affects expectations, sets and access to resources
B1 identifies polarisation, e.g. pupils move towards pro-school or anti-school subcultures
B1 develops polarisation, e.g. lower-status pupils often form anti-school groups that resist authority and reduce attainment, reinforcing class differences
Answer: Teachers differentiate pupils by perceived ability and behaviour, affecting expectations, sets and resource access; polarisation then pushes lower-status pupils into anti-school subcultures that resist authority and lower attainment, reinforcing class differences.

Question 13

B1 identifies Marxist point, e.g. Marxists see schools reproducing class inequality through the hidden curriculum and role allocation
B1 identifies interactionist point, e.g. interactionists focus on micro-level processes like labelling and self-fulfilling prophecies
B1 develops Marxist point, e.g. schools teach obedience and accept social hierarchies that benefit the ruling class
B1 develops interactionist point, e.g. small-scale teacher expectations directly change individual pupil outcomes through labels and sets
Answer: Marxists argue schools reproduce class inequality via the hidden curriculum and role allocation, teaching obedience to benefit the ruling class; interactionists explain class gaps via labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy, where teacher expectations at the micro level alter individual pupil outcomes.

Question 14

B1 identifies a strength, e.g. it highlights the role of teachers and interactions in producing inequalities
B1 develops the strength, e.g. it explains how micro-level processes can produce measurable differences in attainment
Answer: A strength is that labelling highlights how teacher interactions and expectations can produce inequalities, showing how micro-level processes can lead to measurable differences in attainment.

Question 15

B1 identifies first criticism, e.g. evidence of restricted code among working-class families is mixed and overly deterministic
B1 develops first criticism, e.g. pupils can learn school discourse and teachers may adapt their language, so cultural capital is not fixed
B1 identifies second criticism, e.g. class differences in achievement persist even when language differences are accounted for, suggesting other factors matter
B1 develops second criticism, e.g. material resources, school funding and institutional practices may be more decisive than speech codes alone
Answer: One criticism is that evidence for restricted code is mixed and deterministic, since pupils can learn school discourse and teachers may adapt; another is that class gaps remain after accounting for language differences, pointing to material and institutional factors also being important.

Question 16

Level 1 (1-3): Basic statements about in-school factors or out-of-school factors with little development or supporting evidence.
Level 2 (4-6): Some explanation of in-school factors and some alternative causes, but limited use of studies or theory and limited analysis of the balance between them.
Level 3 (7-9): Clear explanation of in-school causes, using appropriate studies or concepts (for example labelling, streaming, pupil subcultures, Bernstein), and considered evaluation using external explanations, with some judgement.
Level 4 (10-12): Thorough balanced discussion drawing on a range of sociological perspectives and studies. Explicit analysis of strengths and limits of in-school explanations, consideration of out-of-school factors such as material deprivation and cultural capital, and a supported conclusion on the extent to which in-school factors are the main cause.
Indicative content:
- Arguments that in-school factors are main cause: labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy (Becker; Rosenthal and Jacobson) directly link teacher expectations to pupil outcomes; streaming and setting produce differential access to resources and knowledge; differentiation and polarisation create anti-school subcultures that reduce working-class attainment; Bernstein's speech codes explain how classroom language advantages some pupils; empirical classroom observations and ethnographies support micro-level mechanisms.
- Evaluation and alternative explanations: material factors outside school, such as poverty, housing, nutrition and access to private tuition, affect readiness to learn and long-term attainment; cultural capital and habitus (Bourdieu) explain how middle-class families provide educational advantage outside school; selection and school choice mean that school intakes differ by class, so school effects interact with intake characteristics; methodological critiques of labelling and Pygmalion studies question the size and generality of effects.
- Sociological perspectives: Marxist views focus on structural reproduction of class via the hidden curriculum and role allocation, seeing in-school factors as part of a wider capitalist system; interactionists emphasise the importance of teacher-pupil interactions and labelling as immediate causes; the New Right may emphasise family and cultural causes outside school.
- Conclusion guidance: balanced answers will recognise in-school factors have a significant and well-documented role in producing class differences in achievement, but strong evaluations note that they operate in combination with out-of-school material and cultural factors, and that the extent to which they are 'the main' cause depends on the weight given to structural versus interactional explanations and the empirical context.

Internal Factors in Class Differences in Educational Achievement - Worksheets, Questions and Revision