Talk:Pygmalion in the Classroom

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

How is this related to educational reform? Is it only relevant to the American educational system? --Elabro 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Pygmalion effect. Pygmalion effect#Rosenthal-Jacobson study is more informative than this stub.--88.73.57.47 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the stub a little more informative. I also showed an important criticism of Pygmalion. Iss246 (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I add that although Pygmalion in the Classroom has largely been debunked, the study has remained popular with textbook writers, perhaps because of the dramatic effects purported to have come about by way of the intervention. Of course, the Pygmalion effect is not the only misleading idea that continues to survive in popular social science textbooks. Many inaccurately stated ideas have remained in textbooks including, for example, misleading characterizations of such important ideas as Durkheim's concept anomie.^[1] Iss246 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Puffer, P. (2009). Durkheim did not say “normlessness”: The concept of anomic suicide for introductory sociology courses. Southern Rural Sociology, 24(1), 200–222.

[1] Puffer, P. (2009). Durkheim did not say “normlessness”: The concept of anomic suicide for introductory sociology courses. Southern Rural Sociology, 24(1), 200–222.

[1]