17 Based on the explanation about four factors which influence perception,
it can be concluded that every individual has his or her own point of view on something. The same objects or events can be perceived differently by different
person which leads to different behavioral responses or attitudes. Related to this research, perception is the way lecturers feel or think and consider about the
implementation of self-fulfilling prophecy on the way they teach ELESP students.
2. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The meaning of this concept is that if we expect something to happen in a certain way, our expectation will tend to make it so. In the world of education,
between lecturers and students, it can also be found termed, self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lecturers’ expectation, whether it is high or low, can be defined as self- fulfillilng prophecy. A number of lecturers tend to convey differential
expectations to students, which appear to have self-fulfilling prophecy effects on them. The term of self-fulfilling prophecy as Merton 1948 originally states in the
beginning is a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception comes true. In other words, the prediction
that were made by a person at the beginning of something will affects that person’s behavior in such way the person makes the prediction happen.
It is also supported by Madon, Willard, Guyll Scherr 2011, who explain that self-fulfilling prophecy is a false belief that leads to its own
fulfillment, and it involves three events. First, one person a perceiver must hold a false belief about another person a target. For example in negative self-
18 fulfilling prophecy, a lecturer may underestimate
students’ potentials, believing that the students are less capable. Second, the perceiver lecturer must treat the
target student in the way that matches his or her false belief. For example, a lecturer who underestimates
students’ ability would have to treat the students as if he or she lacked ability. In class, the lecturer perhaps not calls the students,
spending only a little time with the students and tracking the students into a low ability group Rosenthal, 1973; Smith et al., 1998 as cited in Madon, Willard,
Guyll Scherr 2011. Third, the target must respond to the treatment he receives by confirming the false belief. The student who is treated as if he or she lacks
ability must learn less than other students in the class. Thus, “self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a perceiver’s false belief influence how she or he treats a
target which, in turn, shapes the target’s subsequent behavior in the direction of the initially false bel
ieve” Madon, Willard, Guyll Scherr, 2011, p. 578. Meanwhile, Kaufman 2012 simplifies the concept of self-fulfilling
prophecy based on Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 theory with the cycle of how self-fulfilling prophecy works. The cycle can be seen as follows.
19
Figure 2.3 How the Self-fulfilling Prophecy Works Kaufman, 2012
Twenty years after Merton 1938 originally published self-fulfilling prophecy theory, Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 in their empirical tests provide
the first direct evidence that teacher expectations, whether it is high or low might be self-fulfilling. As state in Madon, Willard, Guyll
Scherr 2011, “Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 hypothesized that one reason disadvantaged students may
perform more poorly in school than their more advantaged counterparts is because that is what their teachers expected them to
improve academically”. To test this, Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 conducted an exam that supposedly identified
“late blooming” students, or children who were expected to experience substantial academic improvement in the coming year. Rosenthal and Jacobson chose random
students and informed the teachers that these children were “late bloomers”.
