brianmodelski14-weuhz

By: Brian Modelski

Symbolic Interactionism is the process by which people make meaning from common and shared symbols (O’Neill, 2025). An individual’s everyday interactions can dictate how they portray the world around them and themselves. Everyday conversations can develop cultural norms and specific behaviors for a generation of people (O’Neill, 2025).  It can help shape personalities and how people choose their career paths. They want to choose a culturally acceptable profession. 

In the field of education, symbolic interaction is seen through the lens of social capital. Social capital represents the values and benefits received from retaining relationships (Lee, 2014). In school, it’s the cooperation amongst peers during group activities, or the tutoring given by a teacher to students, or the team effort given by athletes on a basketball team that can increase social capital. Students are connected by their environment and their location. This environment can affect the social networks that start to develop over time. Once the students start to see the value of these social connections, they will want to retain them to improve morale and self-esteem. 

However, symbolic interactionism is changing in the 21st century due to the introduction of a new digital age. Social networking has vastly enhanced due to the invention of social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Furthermore, the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence has altered the way students make meaning and decisions. Social interaction is no longer just face-to-face, but is now face-to-screen, further impacting how students view themselves, the social capital they will retain, and the purchases they make (Naeem et al., 2025). The digital age is forcing teachers and students to rely more on technology than on each other. 

For one, symbolic-interactionism is altering in the field of education as evident in rational-choice theory. Rational choice theory uncovers the idea that people will continue to make decisions and actions if the benefits outweigh the risks, and if the decisions reflect the person’s identity (O’Neill, 2025). In education, this can be seen through the lens of students attending classes to improve their academic performance. If students feel that not attending class will not impact their score, the risk will go down. With the use of artificial intelligence, school districts across the country have been concerned with the level of plagiarism and cheating taking place among students. Therefore, students are making the rational choice of using the device and platform to replace their work. If students can use the device as a way to reduce their personal workload and the risk of using it is minimal, then they are going to continue to use it. However, if schools retain strict plagiarism policies, the use and dependency on artificial intelligence might change. My school district emphasizes strong digital literacy. My district supports students using it for graphic organizers, for creative ideas, and for tutoring purposes. However, replacing the work with the student’s own can have negative consequences for the academic achievement of the students. Students’ demand for their technological devices has scared educators like me. The consistent need to complete work online or have access to their phones shows that the greatest benefits for the student come the second they put their thumbs on their cellular device. 

Furthermore, from a social capital perspective, students are becoming increasingly reliant on Artificial Intelligence platforms to support their learning. Lee (2014) argues that the social capital of teachers and students is based on academic performance. If the student does better in class, they may associate their grades with the instruction skills of their teacher. However, today, students might be receiving more validation from Artificial Intelligence than from the teachers themselves. In my experience, providing worksheets to students based on a reading, if the reading exceeds two pages, the students will automatically turn to Google or artificial intelligence to support their understanding of the content. The digital age has required teachers to adjust to new levels of instruction. Giving out essays in my district is almost a thing of the past as most of my colleagues are in great fear of just receiving thirty essays of ChatGPT language. Students are starting to see the social capital of these platforms, as it can increase efficiency. However, student learning and test scores might eventually show a lack of reading and writing proficiency.

In conclusion, symbolic interactionism has evolved, and social theories will change due to the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom. The digital age has required students to view their phones and school iPads as their biggest contributor of social capital. A heavy reliance on the object can have future implications for student learning and for the field of sociology. We are approaching a world where online learning could become the most consistent form of classroom learning. Social interaction is now becoming human-to-screen and less screen-to-human. Future research will focus on other sociological categories, such as functionalism and conflict theory in the classroom. 

References:

Hutchison, A. (2024). Making artificial intelligence your friend, not your foe, in the literacy classroom. Reading Teacher, 77(6), 899–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2296. 

Lee, M. (2014). Bringing the best of two worlds together for social capital research in education: Social network analysis and symbolic interactionism. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 454–464.

Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Ranfagni, S., & Howell, K. (2025). User-generated content and brand engagement: Exploring the role of electronic semiotics and symbolic interactionism on Instagram. Computers in Human Behavior, 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108642.

O’Neill, J. (2025). “Moving choice to center stage” in the relationship between the self and offending: Integrating symbolic interactionism and rational choice. European Journal of Criminology, 22(2), 256–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708241275759.