The Self and Identity: The Looking-Glass Self and Symbolic Interactionist Approaches – Activities

Suggested teacher activities: the looking-glass self, symbolic interactionism and later interactionist approaches to the self

AQA 7192 3.2.1 Culture and Identity. Built from L16 The Self and Identity: The Looking-Glass Self and Symbolic Interactionist Approaches.

The activities below are all built directly from The Self and Identity page. Each one is labelled with the AQA assessment objective(s) (AO1, AO2 and AO3) it is designed to target, and with a short explanation of why. This is intended as a menu for teachers to select from, not a single fixed lesson plan; the suggested running order at the end offers one sensible sequence, but individual tasks can be lifted out and used on their own as a starter, homework or assessed piece.

The three assessment objectives (AQA A-level Sociology)
AO1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of sociological theories, concepts, evidence and methods. This means accurately defining terms and correctly naming sociologists and their studies.
AO2: Apply knowledge and understanding of sociological theories, concepts, evidence and methods to a range of issues. This means using a concept or theory correctly on a specific example, ideally one that was not simply copied from the notes.
AO3: Analyse and evaluate sociological theories, concepts, evidence and methods in order to present arguments, make judgements and draw conclusions. This means weighing competing arguments against one another and reaching a reasoned overall judgement, rather than only describing both sides.
Activity 1: Key terms retrieval quiz

Using the key terms checklist at the end of The Self and Identity page (the self, the looking-glass self, symbolic interactionism, the generalised other, front stage and back stage, stigma, master status, and so on), set a short, low-stakes quiz in which students define each term from memory. Students then swap answers with a partner and mark them against the definitions given in the page.

Assessment objectives covered
AO1: This task is almost entirely AO1. It checks that students can state sociological concepts and terminology accurately, which is the foundation the other two assessment objectives build on.
Activity 2: Think, pair and share on structure versus action

This activity uses think, pair, share, a three-stage discussion technique. In the think stage, students consider a question entirely on their own, in silence, for a set period, and jot down a brief note of their answer.

In the pair stage, they turn to a partner and compare, explain and challenge each other’s answers for a set period.

In the share stage, a small number of pairs are chosen, by cold call or by asking for volunteers, to summarise their discussion to the whole class.

Pose one of the six questions below, drawn from the structure versus action debate covered on The Self and Identity page:

Timing is what makes this technique work.

Give a full, protected minute or two of silent think time before any talking starts; students who are rushed into pairing tend to repeat the first idea that comes to mind, rather than a considered one, and quieter students in particular need this space to form a view they are ready to defend.

Keep the paired discussion itself time-boxed too, typically two to three minutes, with a clear countdown so pairs know how long they have left.

While pairs are talking, the teacher’s job is to circulate and genuinely listen to the discussions taking place, not to use the time setting up the next task.

Listening in allows the teacher to identify which pairs have a genuinely strong exchange worth sharing with the whole class, catch and gently correct any misconceptions before they spread, and choose, rather than guess, who to call on in the share stage.

Assessment objectives covered
AO3: This task is predominantly AO3. Weighing the structuralist and social action positions against each other, and reaching and defending a personal judgement, is exactly the skill AO3 rewards.
AO2: Applying named concepts such as the looking-glass self, front stage performance or master status to a real or hypothetical example during the pair discussion also draws on AO2.
Activity 3: Apply front stage and back stage to a new example

Ask students to choose a role or situation not covered on The Self and Identity page, such as a part-time job, a school open evening or a first day at a new club, and identify two examples of front stage behaviour (Goffman, 1959) and two examples of behaviour they would expect to stay firmly back stage. For each example, students should explain briefly what impression is being managed, and for whom.

Assessment objectives covered
AO2: This is a strong AO2 task. AO2 specifically rewards applying Goffman’s concepts to unfamiliar material, rather than reproducing the job interview or Love Island examples already given on the page.
AO1: The task also draws on AO1, since front stage, back stage and impression management must first be defined correctly before they can be applied.
Activity 4: Labelling and master status case study

Working in pairs, students choose a public figure, other than a Love Island contestant, whose reputation has been dominated by a single label, for example a politician known chiefly for one scandal, or a sportsperson known chiefly for one incident. Using Becker’s (1963) theory of labelling and Hughes’s (1945) concept of a master status, students explain how the label was applied, whether it functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and whether the figure appears to have been pushed toward a deviant career as a result.

Assessment objectives covered
AO2: Applying labelling theory and master status accurately to a new, independently chosen case study, rather than restating the villa contestant example from the page, is what makes this task predominantly AO2.
AO1: Correctly defining labelling, master status, self-fulfilling prophecy and deviant career, and attributing the theory to Becker (1963), is the AO1 element.
Activity 5: Blank perspectives grid

Give students a blank version of the six-perspective table (functionalism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, feminism, interactionism, late modernity and postmodernism) and ask them to complete the “view on the self” and “key thinker or study” columns from memory or from notes. Once complete, students swap with a partner and check each other’s answers against the version on The Self and Identity page, correcting any missing thinker or misapplied view.

Assessment objectives covered
AO1: The main demand is accurate recall of six named perspectives and their associated thinkers, for example Parsons, Althusser, Oakley, Mead and Cooley, Giddens, and Baudrillard.
AO2: Completing the second, more detailed table, which applies each perspective separately to the structuralist view, the looking-glass self and symbolic interactionism, requires students to apply a general perspective to three distinct approaches, rather than describing the perspective only in the abstract.
Activity 6: Applying the AI companions case study

Using the extension case study on AI companions and the crisis of the generalised other, students work in small groups to debate whether an AI companion can support the development of a healthy self, using the figures on how widely these apps are already used among UK teenagers, or whether it is more likely to distort the looking-glass self and prevent a full generalised other from forming, since a chatbot has no real community and rarely, if ever, disapproves. Groups should reach a group judgement, using at least one structuralist point (who profits from these apps) and one interactionist point (how a user’s own sense of self is actively shaped through the interaction).

Assessment objectives covered
AO2: Applying Cooley’s, Mead’s and the structuralist concepts specifically to a real, current technology is the main AO2 demand of this task.
AO3: Weighing the structuralist and interactionist readings of the case study against each other, and reaching a group judgement on which is more convincing, is the AO3 element.
Activity 7: Exam-style extended-writing question

Set the following essay question, already suggested in The Self and Identity page’s check your understanding section: “To what extent does the case of Snapchat dysmorphia support symbolic interactionist explanations of the self, rather than structuralist ones?” Students should be told to use Cooley’s (1902) looking-glass self and Rajanala, Maymone and Vashi’s (2018) case study to support the interactionist claim, and at least one structuralist counterpoint, such as the industries shaping the images being imitated, before reaching a reasoned overall judgement.

Assessment objectives covered
This single task deliberately covers all three assessment objectives at once, which mirrors how AQA marks extended sociology essays.
AO1: Demonstrated through accurate reference to named sociologists and their studies.
AO2: Demonstrated through applying their arguments specifically to the Snapchat dysmorphia case study, using real evidence such as Yeung and Martin’s (2003) research on reflected appraisal.
AO3: Demonstrated through the final weighing-up of the interactionist and structuralist readings and the reasoned judgement the question explicitly asks for.
Suggested running order

A sensible sequence for a lesson or homework set is to use Activity 1 as a starter retrieval task, Activities 3 and 5 as the main teaching input and application, Activity 2 as a discussion task once the structure versus action debate has been introduced, Activity 4 or 6 as a follow-up application task, and Activity 7 as a formal assessed piece once the topic has been covered in full.