Is the Interactionist Approach More Effective Than a Macro Approach to Understanding Education?

722 Words3 Pages
It is important to develop effective theories for understanding education, mainly to ensure that the students are being educated properly. These theories can also identify different needs for different schools. Finally it can also help implement changes for school policy. Ways in which theorists can conduct their research to come up with their theories is either on a macro scale or on a micro scale such as the interactionist approach. The internationalist view differs from the Marxist and the Functionalist views firstly because of the idea of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a Functionalist view that society and those social positions are achieved by individual merit such as their educational qualifications. But an interactionist view would be that this theory ignores the activities outside of school and that things happen outside of school which could affect the child’s social position. Furthermore, interactionalists argue that it is a person’s self-concept, their view of themselves that define who they are; not their qualifications. Marxists and Functionalists believe that schools play a role in legitimizing social inequality but an Interactionist believes there is more to school than that. They argue that it is a person’s self-concept, their view of themselves that define who they are and they will be able to move from their assigned social class if they work to do so. Interactionist Paul Willis; who is a Neo-Marxist conducted a micro approach on some school boys and discovered the negative effect the self-fulfilling prophecy had on their behaviour and so therefore their education. This helps understand education because it can help see the effects that a negative self-fulfilling prophecy can have on pupils. Following on from Paul Willis’ evidence to show the negative behaviour of pupils bring on a similarity between the two macro approaches. As macro approaches,
Open Document