"The ultimate function of a prophecy is not to tell the future, but to make it" (W. W. Wagar, as cited in Tauber, 1997). In many situations, especially in the classroom, this statement can be true. Teachers' impressions and expectations of a student can become self-fulfilling prophecies, in which the student may live up or down to what is expected of them.

Self-fulfilling prophecies, first defined by Robert Merton in 1948, are expectations about a person that elicit behaviors that conform to the expectations. These resultant behaviors essentially work to confirm the original perception of the person and continue the prophecy. In the classroom, self-fulfilling prophecies can be helpful if the expectations are high, and detrimental if the expectations are low (Tauber, 1997).

A classic experiment on self-fulfilling prophecies involved not students, but rats. In this experiment, Rosenthal and Lawson tested the hypothesis that experimenters could obtain from animal subjects the results they expected to obtain. Psychology students were given rats that had been randomly labeled "maze-bright" or "maze-dull." After working with their rats in a series of mazes for a period of time, students' results showed that the rats labeled as "maze-bright" performed significantly better in the maze. The students working with "maze-bright" rats also rated their rats as tamer and easier to work with, and their own abilities as higher than the students with "maze-dull" rats (Rosenthal & Lawson, as cited in Tauber, 1997).

Robert Rosenthal, along with Lenore Jacobson, extended his research into the classroom (1966). They manipulated teachers' expectations of their students, by telling teachers that certain students had been tested to show they were about to enter a period of academic and intellectual blooming. By the end of the year, these students were rated more favorably by their teachers, and showed intellectual gains as measured by the Flanagan Test of General Ability.

These experiments show that expectations can have a startling effect on the performance of students. But how does this effect occur? Good and Brophy (1978) have developed a five-step model to show how "a teacher's expectations for students often can lead, via differential behaviors, to the fulfillment of these expectations" (as cited in Tauber, 1997). The first step in this process involves the formation of expectations, or prophecies, based on any characteristic of the student, most commonly race, gender, attractiveness, or socioeconomic level. The second step, where the teacher acts in a differential manner toward the student based on the prophecy, is explained in Rosenthal's four-factor theory (1973, as cited in Tauber 1997). This theory for the communication of expectations involves 1) climate and nonverbal communication; 2) feedback, the amount of praise or criticism given to a student; 3) input, what the teacher actually teaches the child and the amount of effort they put into teaching; and 4) output, the amount of responsiveness the teacher requires and encourages from the student. These types of differential treatment were observed by Alan Chaiken, et al. (1974, as cited in Bernstein et al., 2000) in a study which videotaped student-teacher interactions. The teachers were told (falsely) that certain students were very bright. When they interacted with these students, the teachers smiled more often, stood with a more open body position, and made more eye contact. Students with higher expectations were also given a wider range of classroom activities in which to participate (Blatchford et al., 1989, as cited in Bernstein et al., 2000). Once the expectations have altered the teacher's behavior, the next step in the Good and Brophy model requires the teacher's treatment to convey to the student what behavior or level of achievement is expected. The student then alters their behavior and achievement motivation so that they are consistent with conveyed expectations. Finally, the student must consistently display this change for the prophecy to be complete.

Because the formation of expectations seems virtually impossible to avoid, it may seem like self-fulfilling prophecies are also inevitable. However, differences in the teacher's beliefs may prevent detrimental self-fulfilling prophecies from developing. One such belief is teacher efficacy, the teacher's confidence that they can influence student learning and motivation. "This sense of efficacy . . . affects teachers' expectations concerning student abilities. Teachers with a high sense of efficacy are more likely to view low-achieving students as reachable, teachable, and worthy of their attention and effort" (Alderman, 1992). Another belief is the teacher's locus of control, or how they attribute a student's success or failure. A teacher with an internal locus of control, who attributes a student's achievement to their own success or failure in teaching, is more likely to adapt their behavior to accommodate and help the student. Teachers with an external locus of control tend to attribute student failure to circumstances beyond their control. Education experts believe in a five-link model, where a teacher's beliefs influence the teacher's behavior, which in turn influence the students' beliefs and behavior, and thus the student's achievement. However, in this model, negative prophecies are prevented because teacher beliefs include the level of teacher efficacy and locus of control, not just the teacher's expectations of the student (Agne, 1994). These variables may be the difference between basic teacher perceptions and potentially harmful prophecies (Cauley, Linder, & McMillan, 1994).

Many different scales have been developed to measure different levels of teacher self-efficacy and locus of control. A scale developed by Rose and Medway (1981) involves twenty-five questions that present two different explanations to different situations. The teacher completing the evaluation can select an explanation that attributes the situation internally or externally. This scale can be used to determine the teacher's locus of control. Another unpublished scale developed by Albert Bandura (1997) consists of thirty questions that ask teachers to rate their sense of efficacy in terms of influencing decisions in their school, instruction, discipline, parental and community involvement, and school climate. These scales can be used to determine teachers' loci of control and levels of self-efficacy. Once these levels are determined, a correlation between self-efficacy and locus of control and the prevention of self-fulfilling prophecies can be established.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are factors present in the classroom, influencing teacher expectations and subsequently student achievement. While these prophecies may be beneficial, they can also stifle and inhibit the ability of students based on false perceptions and expectations. In these cases, where self-fulfilling prophecies seem to limit students, teacher efficacy must be developed so that even if the expectations are formed, the prophecy will not necessarily manifest itself.

The Program
Because it is essentially through teachers that self-fulfilling prophecies develop, any efforts to prevent the possible harmful effects of prophecies must be directed towards them. This program is designed to instruct teachers on the dangers of self-fulfilling prophecies, and how to recognize and prevent them in the classroom.

      Step 1: Educating about self-fulfilling prophecies
Before they can prevent self-fulfilling prophecies, teachers must first understand them. The first step in the program explains to teachers, in an instructional or inservice setting, what self-fulfilling prophecies are, how they work, and the effect they can have on the student. Teachers are introduced to prior experiments and research, as detailed in the introduction. They also become acquainted with Good and Brophy's model for the fulfillment of expectations and Rosenthal's four-factor theory (as cited in Tauber, 1997). Once a foundation for understanding the mechanical aspects of self-fulfilling prophecies has been put in place, teachers can recognize them in the classroom.

      Step 2: Recognizing self-fulfilling prophecies
The second step in preventing self-fulfilling prophecies is the ability to recognize them as they develop. In this step, teachers watch videotapes of staged classroom settings, where the teacher in the tape is displaying behaviors that would ultimately lead to the manifestation of self-fulfilling prophecies. The teachers are asked to evaluate the teacher; they are expected to notice things such as eye contact, body position, tone of voice, praise, criticism, and wording of questions. These subtle differences can make a large impact, and must be noticed and identified before they can be prevented. Teachers are also asked to do simple things like re-word questions so they could elicit a greater response from the student or develop classroom activities in which all students can actively participate. Through observation and simple activities, the teachers are exposed to self-fulfilling prophecies so that they can identify behaviors that may prove harmful.

      Step 3: Developing teacher efficacy and internal locus of control
In order to truly prevent self-fulfilling prophecies, teachers must believe that, regardless of their perceptions of the student, they have the ability to teach the student effectively and enhance the student's ability to learn. This belief must be increased by developing teachers' self-efficacy and an internal locus of control. Because these beliefs are internal factors that often extend beyond the classroom, they are difficult to influence. Factors which most influence the development of self-efficacy are past experience, mastery experience, and vicarious experience (Henson, 2001). Because past and mastery experiences are either impossible or impractical to recreate through this program, the focus will rest on vicarious experiences; by watching other people succeed in challenging situations, teachers begin to believe they could succeed in the same situation. The vicarious "experiences" consist of hypothetical or fictional episodes in which teachers succeed in teaching a concept, improving the classroom environment, or helping a low-expectation student. Through these examples, teachers in the program increase their self-efficacy and begin to internalize their locus of control, thus enhancing their belief that they can affect their students' learning regardless of expectations. This disregard for first perceptions and previous expectations is what leads to the prevention of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Experiment Proposal
Hypothesis
The two part hypothesis for this experiment states that 1) If a teacher goes through a program designed to internalize loci of control and to raise levels of self-efficacy, the teacher will be evaluated to have an internal locus of control and a high level of self-efficacy; and 2) If a teacher is evaluated to have an internal locus of control and a high level of self-efficacy, then he or she will be less likely to exhibit differential behaviors toward a student as a result of false expectations. Because the teacher is less likely to exhibit differential behaviors, the false expectations are less likely to manifest themselves as self-fulfilling prophecies. The two parts of this hypothesis, combined, state that if a teacher goes through a program to improve their locus of control and self-efficacy, they will ultimately show less differential behaviors that lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Methodology
Variables. The independent variable for the first part of the hypothesis is whether or not the teacher participates in the program, while the dependent variable is their locus of control and self-efficacy level. The independent variable for the second part of the hypothesis is the teacher's locus of control and level of self-efficacy, as determined using the Rose and Medway (1981) "Teacher Locus of Control" and the Bandura (1997) "Teacher Self-efficacy Scale." The dependent variable is the teacher's behavior, as determined by the length of time spent working with each student, the number of questions asked of each student, and the style of comments given to each student (positive, negative, or neutral).

Population. The sample is composed of all the teachers participating in the experiment, while the population is all elementary school teachers in a suburban, middle class, school district. For simplicity, allow that the sample has been selected randomly and that it proportionally reflects all characteristics of the population.

Experimental Controls. Many control techniques have been included in this experimental design. Subjects are both selected from the population randomly, and randomly assigned to either the experimental group (participated in the program) or control group (did not participate in the program). The method in which students are assigned previous grades was also random. Additionally, the classroom observation is conducted in a double-blind fashion; the teachers are unaware of the hypothesis and precisely what they are being evaluated on. The observer is also unfamiliar with the hypothesis; they merely make objective recordings.

Prediction. Predicted results would confirm the hypothesis. The program to inform teachers about self-fulfilling prophecies will successfully internalize loci of control and increase level of self-efficacy. These characteristics would then be shown to correlate with a decreased likelihood to exhibit differential behaviors that may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Discussion. While ideally the program will serve its designed purpose and fulfill expectations, there are many things that may influence the results. The subjects might not truly represent the general population of teachers; they might have unusually high or low levels of self-efficacy that do not correlate with the population.

Additionally, a one-time observation is likely not the best method of evaluating usual classroom interactions between teacher and student. This is particularly true since the evaluated time will also be the first time the teachers have interacted with these students. However, to ensure a controlled environment, this type of setting had to be established. Variables such as these would likely have an impact on the results of the experiment; however it is difficult to predict the nature of the impact without actual implementation.

Ethical Guidelines. Several steps would be taken to ensure that this experiment meets APA ethical guidelines. Before the procedure, permission would be obtained from the parents or guardians of the minors participating. The parents would be provided with a detailed description of the experiment, in order to ensure that their consent is informed. There would be no risk of harm to the students because the experimental setup is as similar to a typical classroom setting as possible. Additionally, teachers would need to give consent prior to participating in the study, without being informed precisely on what they are being evaluated. The report describing experimental results would be written with anonymous subjects; there would be no names or details given about the participants beyond what is pertinent to the results of the experiment. After the experiment is completed, teachers would be debriefed and given a copy of the results, as well as full access to the observations that involved them. Students and guardians would be similarly debriefed.

Alderman, M. K. (1990). Motivation for at-risk students. Educational Leadership, Vol. 48, 27 - 30.

Bernstein, D. A., A. Clarke-Stewart, L. Penner, E. Roy, and C. Wickens. (2000). Psychology: Fifth Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cauley, K., F. Linder, & J. McMillan. (1994). Educational Psychology 94/95. Guilford: The Duskin Publishing Group.

Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. [Online]. Available: http://www.emory.edu/education/mfp/EREkeynote.pdf.

Rosenthal, R. and L. Jacobson. (1966). Teachers' expectancies: determinants of pupils' IQ gains. Psychological Reports [Online]. Available: www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/rosenthal66.pdf.

Tauber, R. (1997). Self fulfilling prophecy: a practical guide to its use in education. Westport: Praeger Publishers.