Broken Frame and Emergent Meaning: The Case of Student Evaluation of Teaching

Abstract

Symbolic interaction stresses the personal definition of the situation, while frame analysis seeks to uncover the background assumptions within which interaction takes place. Although some see these as opposing approaches, the argument here is that they are complementary, particularly where social change undermines previous rules for interacting. The argument is illustrated by focusing on the emergence of student evaluation of teaching as an institutionalized method of increasing accountability, and the meaning of these evaluations for administrator-, faculty, and students is considered against the background rules of relationship among the three categories. The closing section examines the impact of social position on selfexpression using Mead's "I" and "me" concepts.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BECKER, H. S.

Whose side are we on?

Social Problems, 1967, 14, 239-247 .

BLUMER, H. Society as symbolic interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin , 1962.

CAMERON, W. B. Mashed potatoes, oysters, and teacher rating scales . Phi Kappa Journal, 1976, 56, 33-36 .

DAVIS, K. , & MOORE, W. E. Some principles of stratification . American Sociological Review, 1945, 10, 242-249 .

GAITHER, G. Accountability. Teaching-Learning Issues, No. 18, Knoxville, Tennessee: Learning Research Center, The University of Tennessee , 1972.

GOFFMAN, E. Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill , 1961.

GOFFMAN, E. Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press , 1974.

GONOS, G. "Situation" versus "frame"; the "interactionist" and the "structuralist" analyses of everyday life . American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 854-868 .

MEAD, G. H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1934.

10.

ROSE, A. M. A systematic summary of symbolic interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin , 1962.

11.

SPICER, E. H. Human problems in technological change. New York: Wiley , 1952.

12.

THOMAS, W. I. The definition of the situation. In J. G. Manis & B. N. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon , 1967.

13.

VERNON, G. M. Values, value-definitions, and symbolic interaction . Paper presented at the Sociology Colloquium, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1967.