What Teachers Do and Expect Matters More Than What They Say, Somali Study Finds

In the classrooms of Mogadishu, a teacher’s quiet decision to ignore a student may do more damage than calling that student lazy out loud. That is the striking implication of a new quantitative study of secondary schools in Somalia’s Benadir Region, published in Discover Education, which dissects teacher negative labeling into three distinct channels and finds that they do not operate equally. Behavioral negative labeling, such as ignoring students or giving them unequal attention, and expectation-based labeling, in which teachers signal that a student is expected to fail, both significantly shape student motivation. Verbal negative labeling, the discouraging words teachers say, showed no significant effect at all.

The research team, led by Dahir Mohamed Ahmed of Salaam University with colleagues from SIMAD University, surveyed 249 secondary school students selected by simple random sampling during the 2025 academic year. Questionnaires were administered in January and February 2025, with 270 distributed and 249 returned, a response rate of 92.2 percent. Students rated their experiences on five-point Likert scales, with sample items including statements such as my teacher uses discouraging words toward me, my teacher ignores me during classroom activities, and my teacher expects me to perform poorly. Motivation was measured through six items covering interest, effort, and engagement, while academic performance was captured through students’ self-reported achievement and learning progress, because official examination records were not consistently available across participating schools.

Technically, the study is a cross-sectional survey analyzed with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, or PLS-SEM, using SmartPLS software, with descriptive statistics run in SPSS. The authors treated teacher negative labeling as a second-order formative construct, meaning its three dimensions collectively define the construct rather than being caused by it. Verbal labeling captures what teachers say, behavioral labeling captures what teachers do, and expectation-based labeling captures teachers’ underlying beliefs, each providing information that cannot be inferred from the others. The measurement model showed acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.737 to 0.867, composite reliability above 0.80, and average variance extracted above the 0.50 threshold. Discriminant validity was confirmed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, cross-loadings, and the more stringent heterotrait-monotrait ratio, with all HTMT values below 0.90.

The structural results are the heart of the paper. Behavioral negative labeling exerted a significant effect on student motivation with a path coefficient of 0.482, and expectation-based labeling followed closely at 0.427, both significant at p less than 0.001. Verbal negative labeling, by contrast, produced a negligible and non-significant coefficient of 0.025. Student motivation itself was a powerful predictor of academic performance, with a path coefficient of 0.697, significant at p less than 0.001. Mediation analysis showed that motivation carried the indirect effects of behavioral and expectation-based labeling onto academic performance, with indirect coefficients of 0.336 and 0.298 respectively, while no mediation was observed for verbal labeling. The model explained 66.4 percent of the variance in student motivation, a substantial figure, and 48.6 percent of the variance in academic performance, a moderate one.

There is a twist that the authors handle with unusual care. The significant coefficients for behavioral and expectation-based labeling are positive, meaning that higher reported labeling scores were associated with higher reported motivation, the opposite of what labeling theory would predict. The researchers explicitly warn against reading this as evidence that negative labeling helps students. They suggest several plausible explanations, including a reactance response in which students increase effort to disprove negative expectations, cognitive dissonance reduction among students who hold high academic aspirations, and cultural factors such as strong family expectations and respect for teacher authority that may buffer negative effects. They also note a statistical possibility: students who are more aware of teacher behavior may simply be more academically engaged, making awareness rather than labeling itself the associated factor.

The theoretical machinery behind the study integrates three frameworks. Labeling theory, rooted in the work of Becker and Lemert, explains how students internalize classifications such as weak, lazy, or problematic, with Lemert’s distinction between primary and secondary deviance describing how repeated labels can become part of a student’s academic identity. Self-Determination Theory adds that motivation is sustained when three basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, are fulfilled; behavioral labeling undermines relatedness, expectation-based labeling threatens competence, and verbal labeling may threaten autonomy. Expectancy-Value Theory completes the picture by arguing that labeling lowers both students’ expectations for success and the value they attach to academic tasks. Tinto’s Student Integration Theory further suggests that negative labeling weakens students’ sense of belonging and academic integration.

The Somali context matters for interpreting these numbers. Decades of conflict have weakened teacher training systems, leaving many teachers without pedagogical strategies for diverse classrooms. Large class sizes limit individualized attention and may increase reliance on labeling as a management strategy. Teacher authority is highly respected within Somali culture, making students particularly sensitive to teachers’ judgments. According to the Federal Government of Somalia Ministry of Education, secondary school completion rates in the Benadir Region remain low at 42 percent, and national assessments indicate that over half of secondary school students perform below expected proficiency levels. In such an environment, expectation-based labeling may carry particular weight, which the authors propose as one reason it influenced motivation more than verbal comments did.

The paper is candid about its limitations. The cross-sectional design means the findings are statistical associations rather than causal effects. All variables were self-reported by the same respondents at a single point in time, and although Harman’s single-factor test and full collinearity VIF analysis, with all VIF values below the conservative threshold of 3.3, suggested common method bias was not a serious concern, the possibility of shared method effects cannot be completely excluded. Academic performance was measured through students’ self-perceptions rather than objective records, and the study was confined to the Benadir Region, so generalization beyond it requires caution. The authors also report acceptable model fit, with an SRMR of 0.061 below the 0.08 threshold, and positive Q-squared values of 0.386 for motivation and 0.268 for performance, confirming predictive relevance.

For teachers, school administrators, and policymakers, the practical message is unambiguous even where the statistics are surprising. The authors recommend that teachers foster supportive, respectful, and inclusive classroom environments, provide constructive feedback, maintain high but realistic expectations, and encourage all students equally, while avoiding behaviors that students may perceive as negative labeling. Administrators are urged to organize continuous professional development on labeling awareness, classroom communication, and equitable treatment, and to establish monitoring mechanisms that encourage positive teacher-student interactions. Educational authorities should develop policies and training programs that promote positive relationships and discourage harmful labeling practices.

The study’s broader contribution lies in showing that not all forms of teacher negative labeling are equal, and that what teachers do and expect may matter more than what they say. By decomposing labeling into verbal, behavioral, and expectation-based dimensions, and by identifying student motivation as the psychological pathway linking teacher practices to academic outcomes in an under-researched, conflict-affected setting, the research opens a clear agenda for future work. The authors call for longitudinal and mixed-method designs, objective performance indicators such as examination scores, and examination of additional mediators and moderators including academic self-efficacy, resilience, family support, school climate, and educational aspirations. Until then, the findings stand as a reminder that classroom psychology, not just curriculum and resources, shapes whether students in Mogadishu and beyond stay motivated to learn.

Subject of Research: A survey of 249 secondary school students in Mogadishu shows that behavioral and expectation-based negative labeling shape motivation, while verbal labels do not.

Article Title: Teacher negative labeling student motivation and academic performance in secondary schools in Mogadishu Somalia

Article References: Ahmed, D. M., Warsame, L. M., Osman, M. A., Elmi, A. S., & Ali, A. H. (2026). Teacher negative labeling student motivation and academic performance in secondary schools in Mogadishu Somalia. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02061-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02061-0

Keywords: teacher labeling, student motivation, academic performance, PLS-SEM, Somalia, secondary education, self-fulfilling prophecy, labeling theory, educational psychology, structural equation modeling, Teacher, negative