INC3701
Assignment 3 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 23 June 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
The Bell Curve and the Construction of “Normality” in Society and Education
1. Introduction
The bell curve, originally developed as a statistical tool in the 18th century, has over
time been applied to human traits and behaviours, contributing to the construction of
"normality" in both societal and educational contexts. While it provides a useful
model for understanding statistical distribution, its application to people has led to
problematic practices in sorting, judging, and excluding individuals. In education, the
influence of bell-curve thinking has shaped pedagogical approaches, assessment
methods, and learner categorisation. This essay explores the historical development
of the bell curve, its role in defining "normality", and its implications in both
educational and broader social contexts. The discussion also highlights critical
perspectives on bell-curve thinking and explores inclusive alternatives that recognise
human diversity.
2. Origins and Evolution of the Bell Curve
The bell curve, also known as the normal distribution, emerged from 18th-century
mathematics, particularly in the work of Carl Friedrich Gauss and others who used it
to describe statistical regularities in astronomical observations (Teaching for All,
2019: 8). The curve represents how values in a population tend to cluster around a
mean, with fewer values appearing as one moves away from the average. While this
model was useful in analysing natural and mathematical phenomena, it was later
extended into the social sciences.
In the 19th century, the bell curve began to be applied to human characteristics such
as intelligence, behaviour, and criminality. Sociologists and statisticians used it to
represent the ―average man,‖ placing commonly occurring human traits at the centre
and less common ones at the extremes (Mahlo, 2019: 9). Over time, this statistical
concept evolved into a normative framework, wherein the average became idealised,
and deviations from the average were often labelled as abnormal or undesirable
(Teaching for All, 2019: 10).
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
, 3. Defining "Normality" through the Bell Curve
The bell curve has had a significant influence on how "normality" is socially
constructed. In many societies, particularly in the realm of education, ―normal‖ came
to be defined by the most frequent occurrences at the centre of the curve. This has
led to a binary logic, where traits or behaviours outside the statistical average are
viewed as abnormal or deficient (Fendler & Muffazar, 2008: 64). In schools, this logic
is used to classify learners as "below average", "average", or "above average", thus
framing performance and ability within a rigid comparative structure.
This notion of normality reinforces value-laden judgements—those who fall in the
centre of the curve are often seen as ―good‖ or ―capable,‖ while those on the margins
are seen as ―challenging‖ or ―less able‖ (Teaching for All, 2019: 9). Such definitions
fail to capture the complexity and fluidity of human development and experience,
particularly in diverse societies like South Africa.
4. Educational Implications
4.1 Learner Categorisation and Sorting
In education, bell-curve thinking supports the practice of sorting learners based on
test scores, intelligence measures, or behavioural norms. Learners who do not
conform to the ―normal‖ pattern are often placed in remedial classes, labelled with
special needs, or considered unfit for mainstream education. This process reinforces
educational inequality by privileging certain abilities and devaluing others (Florian &
Walton, 2018: 169).
4.2 Teaching Strategies and Outcomes
The belief that intelligence and ability are fixed and distributed normally leads
educators to focus their teaching on the so-called ―average‖ learner (Mahlo, 2019:
10). Those who struggle or excel are seen as exceptions to be managed separately.
This results in one-size-fits-all teaching strategies that fail to meet the needs of a
diverse classroom. Learners who do not fall within the normative centre often
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 3 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 23 June 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
The Bell Curve and the Construction of “Normality” in Society and Education
1. Introduction
The bell curve, originally developed as a statistical tool in the 18th century, has over
time been applied to human traits and behaviours, contributing to the construction of
"normality" in both societal and educational contexts. While it provides a useful
model for understanding statistical distribution, its application to people has led to
problematic practices in sorting, judging, and excluding individuals. In education, the
influence of bell-curve thinking has shaped pedagogical approaches, assessment
methods, and learner categorisation. This essay explores the historical development
of the bell curve, its role in defining "normality", and its implications in both
educational and broader social contexts. The discussion also highlights critical
perspectives on bell-curve thinking and explores inclusive alternatives that recognise
human diversity.
2. Origins and Evolution of the Bell Curve
The bell curve, also known as the normal distribution, emerged from 18th-century
mathematics, particularly in the work of Carl Friedrich Gauss and others who used it
to describe statistical regularities in astronomical observations (Teaching for All,
2019: 8). The curve represents how values in a population tend to cluster around a
mean, with fewer values appearing as one moves away from the average. While this
model was useful in analysing natural and mathematical phenomena, it was later
extended into the social sciences.
In the 19th century, the bell curve began to be applied to human characteristics such
as intelligence, behaviour, and criminality. Sociologists and statisticians used it to
represent the ―average man,‖ placing commonly occurring human traits at the centre
and less common ones at the extremes (Mahlo, 2019: 9). Over time, this statistical
concept evolved into a normative framework, wherein the average became idealised,
and deviations from the average were often labelled as abnormal or undesirable
(Teaching for All, 2019: 10).
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
, 3. Defining "Normality" through the Bell Curve
The bell curve has had a significant influence on how "normality" is socially
constructed. In many societies, particularly in the realm of education, ―normal‖ came
to be defined by the most frequent occurrences at the centre of the curve. This has
led to a binary logic, where traits or behaviours outside the statistical average are
viewed as abnormal or deficient (Fendler & Muffazar, 2008: 64). In schools, this logic
is used to classify learners as "below average", "average", or "above average", thus
framing performance and ability within a rigid comparative structure.
This notion of normality reinforces value-laden judgements—those who fall in the
centre of the curve are often seen as ―good‖ or ―capable,‖ while those on the margins
are seen as ―challenging‖ or ―less able‖ (Teaching for All, 2019: 9). Such definitions
fail to capture the complexity and fluidity of human development and experience,
particularly in diverse societies like South Africa.
4. Educational Implications
4.1 Learner Categorisation and Sorting
In education, bell-curve thinking supports the practice of sorting learners based on
test scores, intelligence measures, or behavioural norms. Learners who do not
conform to the ―normal‖ pattern are often placed in remedial classes, labelled with
special needs, or considered unfit for mainstream education. This process reinforces
educational inequality by privileging certain abilities and devaluing others (Florian &
Walton, 2018: 169).
4.2 Teaching Strategies and Outcomes
The belief that intelligence and ability are fixed and distributed normally leads
educators to focus their teaching on the so-called ―average‖ learner (Mahlo, 2019:
10). Those who struggle or excel are seen as exceptions to be managed separately.
This results in one-size-fits-all teaching strategies that fail to meet the needs of a
diverse classroom. Learners who do not fall within the normative centre often
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
