SELFCONCEPT 0's mun, .smnmcm omens AND _
SCHOOL Acmevmem or EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS:
A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION os- NEGRO

' AN‘QCAUCASIAN STUDENTS

mm Far m. Dogma a MA. _.

Mucmam STATE UNIVERSITY

Richard Jahnsbn Morse“ _
19.53

 

 

ll flllllll @qu Lu! jfl II; «J "7""11‘, lljlllallfl ll _

W LIBRARY

Michigan State.
University

r 1’ If!” A”; '3' f" 9" la!" (37.5 I II *L If“? If‘ I ‘M I I 513$: a5 ‘ _‘>i~ :y-yq. ’ u‘u g... '5.“ g . u. ,1 f;- 91" ~34“. f‘v‘L la 3’“ p;'.{ 'o .' ,7‘ 41‘ . T
.‘H CHL' -Mfiu ." *u' Elf" ‘ \ [‘3‘ “3’ 3 'L ‘ - ’ ‘1' 1.... \ : Ly: . h ‘ O A}. j .u.- t’uk, r‘fi " 3) tv‘ N; . 'l’fij Q'fiQLn-‘z f ,4. ‘0‘ #1. A, "

1w :3- 541:; 117%., f ‘1 rm t ' *i .‘I ‘-"-"“-~: ‘ 911“”!‘3'5 ‘Wipl f; ‘. “7 I!- .g ,r ' - Fr ‘ - _'* x: 1' W .. 1!! ;.' r5 0'
CW :1 J; '. 4 “5‘33"...«1...» 21.. 32 i 7;»..‘93 .‘ I 35 Ce}; ; ; .."2..~.-%I~ I 4* 33. a- a! ring.» ._ 1.31:1 .-' ; 5
'1 '5‘: ‘3.- ‘V "\ Rfi’ 4" ‘ fl ‘. ‘_" " 3 '_Y ff"? V "'v f“ 9“- ‘1

CL, . ti 2.132%. ‘w i D w-fib JV ”it-J .t. M 5* ax in. infiéa' 'i $ All

 

A Thaaia
fiuhmitted to he Callega 0: Social Smiance of Michigan
State Univerfiity of Agriculture and Applieé

science

In Partial fiulfillmcnt
of tha Requirements for the :agrea

Haster'of &xtn

by

FiChard Johnmon Horea

1963

fepflrhmant of Sosiolagy ana Anthroyalogy

. a». . {Ii 5“ In,“
E; r L . ‘kfi- a"

34255:“? 0?? many, 5:

' v r\,,- fi'ék -."'b " 1.. srn raw . s'f- r3 7‘ 3.» , i c v ’“r {KL
. 1.4 ‘1” " I : X ‘54 .‘;I’ ‘0 v, ‘- fi' . ‘J '2’1-‘3‘ &‘ 'I‘ 3.) N‘ f’nw“ L‘ )1. 1‘

H“?
‘.!" v f‘

‘.. r‘ y. 54.3 u. .175 "r A. aw»?
' 6

w :1. AQQMJ-g .M P‘E-fil £‘t1?.-"§uflh‘_g~.a§r A c "T.', 7“ ‘ J’V‘\'.":‘f . 1“
0;; IotoI "~35 : I. :‘gqlfi fofm’. :2. H ‘ lug‘." 1". -;- ; :7 . _Q;..‘- CIR -‘€..% % I O ‘4} ‘. § ‘1‘.“ $ 5 .4“ .5;

1‘1".
I

3:":

3". "i '-.: “ts ' ~.=.. '9 ' *3.” _ .~“ 'v' 2: 1 4...». s~6~ -:'~.,:
03' u- x .s; 1-20 fix I} may 3 s. mi. ‘2’ .s‘ .

an Abatract

Suamittad to the Collega of 30:131 Srience or filchigan

atata Univarsity of Agriculture anfl agglied ficianca

In Partial Fulfillmmnt
of the fiwzuiramantg {or the fiagree

Hafite: 0! arts

by
Etchazd Johnwon floraa

1963

Department of Sociology and Anthroyolegy

approved

3"!)1'fi‘fx'v
hi. 1.; m; '

r1»; I"
u

4.
n
x

1-7"

.
I,- .- 3‘

RicthJ Jothon Moraa
3.25515” IEAC’I”

Jae purgnaJ 0: this analysia waJ to invaatiqnte thJ
relatianship betwewn claJJroom laaranq and Jelfjiaage Jana}
xefiro and faucasian JtuJenta in the urbaninJ and 1ng trL 1-
tzJJ Jifiwest. A particular concern of the invastiqation wJJ
the JiferJntiJl interaction betwean Ralf-cancept and cl amt
racm achievement among 39310 and Caucasian JtuJJnts. it wag
anticipated that ethnic Jiffexances woulJ have a pronounJJJ
efcht upon tne relation ship between the two v xiahlas . ThJ
rpecific purpose of thiJ investigation, than, was to lave ti-
thJ ayatemJticfllly the talitienwhtp thwJJn Jelfuconcegt
ran classroam learning amen? both aggro and Caucaaian JtuJJnt;
1n the aocial conditiona mentioned abova, and to conpara
ryatematlcally thc two nets of tinfiinqn thus obtainJJ.

Ehm total Jample for this investigation congiatJJ. 3f
rchtically all nghth.flrfl£39 atuJJnta in one miJ IJ-JtzeJ,
u:3.an-1nJusttialszJ social getting in tia “tuv~~t. The
NJJrJ anJ Caucaaian samglea conaxwtad of 114 and 1432 staJJntJ
{thectively. Th3 two aamples incluJJJ JtuJentn tram each
Of taut junior high schOOIE in the community thug JeJJribJJ.

The majar thasis or proPo.1t1cn nJvancJJ 1n thiJ
‘n nieetication, which Hum teeteJ 1n the form of threa speaific
?'not:JJJa, wan JraJn fxom tha uymhclic interactianimt thory
of human hehaviox. It stated thnt self-concept of ability

V/is a functionally limiting factor in Jehocl achievaJnt.

the threa Bpé“1f1¢ hypothesas were farmally JtatJJ as fallawa;

111

v 2'

Thu self-concept: oJJJbility of Segre and
Caucasian studenta are related to their achieva-
aunt whan intelligence is controlled.

Txha welt-cancepta of ability in specific Ichocl
subjects of Jeqro anJ CaucaJian atJJenta vary
from one subjec to t? a other :33 from their
ganeral self-concepCJ of ability.

Tha expectation. of significant other: an get-
caivad by fiegro and Caucasian stufientn at: x.
poaitively correlated with the ntuJJnta' aelfo
concepts #3 leJJJJta and with their claJaxocm

achievement.

Tha evidenca presented in support of Rypothesaa l

nnJ 3. and for both tha Negro and Caucaeian students, gave

nttang support for the hypothssea. The evidence prGBthefi

in sipport of Iypotheeis 2, while not J1;ite as conclusive,

inJiCJtad that the hypothesis in tenable. It wan tthJEJrJ

cancluded that the major thesis aJvenceJ in this investiga-

‘ion is tanablg.

The ”“10: finaxnga o£[thc camparatiVJ aspect of thia

investigation may‘bc-listed as tollowJ:

1.

JXCtpt for thte? of tha vafiablaa invmstigatw
JJLJ“ ., w- J

the moan Jgoze; obtained by tha CaucaJian than

JJnts wera all aignificnntly quJtJr than the

mean score. obtainad by tha negro atuaente. The

thzea scalas Jn which the chrc students scored

highar Meta: (l) the 3J1£~Concept in English

iv

3o

4.

5.

5.

Jcalay (2) the Total Importance 0: Grades scale:
and (3) the Total Image of Tarenta Scale.

The data infiicctad a significantly higher lJvel
at motivation to achiave in schccl work amnng
thc fiegro atchnta than among the caucaaian
ntudants.

The Negro students. mean score far all of the
actual achievement variables (Total GER ana
grades in mathematics. Engliah, social stuéias,
and sciences) were uignifiicantly lower than the
Caucasian studenta' mean ncoraa.

salfoconcept or ability is positively related to
school achievers”: among both that negro and
Caucasian students. The relevant coefficients
at carralation were .426 for the JJJroca anJ .£10
for tha Caucasians.

Jaltuconcept at ability is positively related to
claasroom adhicvcmcnt when intclligenco is con-
trolled among both Jegrc and Caucagian atadcnta.
The relevant coefficients of correlction wera
.406 among the Regroaa and .475 among the
Caucaciana.

sclfnCJncept of ability in a better predictcr of
classrocm adhiavemeat than 1% far both tha Hegrc
and Caucasian utuaents. The Obtaiaafi beta

weights (in the multiple corrclation among STA,

V

7.

B.

9o

13.

IQ. and 5-3) were .416 to: selfucancapt and .032
for IQ among the Heqxaea. anfl .442 for welt.
concapt ana .362 for IQ among the Caucasiane.

IQ is weightad significantly higher an a pre-
flictor of achiav¢ment among the Caucasian ntuaenta
than it 1: among the :egro studanta. The com-
parative beta weights (55 noted abavw) wart .5?2
for flagroea and .362 to: Caucasians.

The hypatheais that melt-concepts of ability in
Spittllc school subjects vary tron one oubjm

to the ether and form the general self-concert

of ability waa substantiataa among both tha
aggro and Caucasian students.

I'ho hypothesis that a etuuents' salf~con :ept of
ability is poultive{y anq significantly relate 3
to the imaggs he percé1$;;a$£¢n1£1cant other: A
to hold of him 13 tenabla for bath the negro Rafi
Caucaatan studentI‘Ghefi parents. teachare, anfi
pants at. 1dent1fie¢ as significant othersl

The hypctheain that a atudant'n claaaraom :chiava-
menu is positively and xtgnificantly relatefi to
the imagaa ha percaivaa significant othar person»
to hold 0: him is tannbla to: both the N¢qta and
Caucafiian stufienta Hfian parants, teach&rn. and
pasta ara iéantitiad as tha significant othar

peraana.

v1

11.

12.

13.

14.

concapta of al111ty and tha (:5: M55 th5y perceive
» I

The rwlationsf in b5tw55n Hfd”%ntfi' general 5516a

. A.
'1‘ (El/"4": ," j

1
their favorite taachero to holfl a: thié 1r akilstins
u-
19 significantly 9555552 among tha C5555515n
ntufiunts t%xan among tha negro 5tu35555. T55
Obtainaa coefflclfints of correl5tion 55:5 .533
fax the Caucasians and .443 for the 55gr055.

Zhe relationship bucw5an 5Lu55nL5‘ genarul 55-lfa

r}. f ’ u b . ‘I I‘ ‘ {"1'.‘ ‘ )

concnpts of ability and tha 1555”: they pércaive
their parents to hold of their abilities t:

\
:igniflcantly great5r among tha 55gro atudants
tnan annag t‘.15 Caucaaian etuflants. The obt51555
corr5lation coefficient. were .596 to: the
fiegroes and .212 for the Caucamiana.
Th5 rfllaCXOnnhips bwtwean atuueutn* general :5
concepts of a titty «nu the 155925 they r5:551$5'
their peers to hold of chair abilitiesfils
aign1t1cant1y graatat among the 559:0 5tu£¢ut3
than among the caucaaian etudenta. The rel5vant
coefficienta 55 correlaticn 95:5 .439 for tha
Hegtoaa and .235 for the Cauca5inns.

The relationship batwean atufients' grade point

,-

-..)y
6- ~/ --_.'

averages ané the{1magea they perceive their

parents to holfi.o£ their abilitiaajta significantly
graqter among the ‘<5ro starlents than anong the
Caucasian 35555555. The Obtained caefticiants of
cartalwtion W5re .359 for the Regroes anfi .145

tor the Caucasiana.

v11

ACKHOE's‘L 313% ENTS

I wish to aapreaa my aincoto gratitude to Professor
Janna B. Mckootof the Dapartmcnt of Sociology and Anthrorulogy.
oy'najor adviaor. to: hia untiting intaraat and timely
auggentionn during the davalopnant and consumation of this
thoaic. 1 wish further to thank Protector Mckaa to: the aid
'nnd concorn ho haa given no throughout the tirat atago of
my qtadnata atudiaa.

Tho data rnpottad in thia thaaia are part of a
larger invaatiqntion being conducted by Profaaaor Wilbur a.
Brooxova: of the Buroan of Educational aaaaarch, Michigan
itata Univaraity; That rnaaaxch in being aubaidizod under
a grant and. by tho Couparativo Rasoarch Program of tho Office
of Education, 0.8. Unpnrtnontroi'noalth. Education. and
Welfare. 1 am deeply indebtad to tho above named for the
was of tho data.

1 with alto to acknowledga the committca who naministnro
en tha oral axnnination to: this thnaion Processor James 3.
Makes. Chairman, and Proteasora wilbut 3. Brockovar and
nachia o. Hallor. a apacial not. at thanka is directed to
than (or their noxvicna.

Finally. I ova nota- o! gratitude to Shailer Thomaa
and Ronald L. Johnson. To fit. Thomas. Ranenrch Aaaiatnnt
in the Bureau.o£ Educational Research. Michigan Stat. Univnr-
city, to: introducinQ'no to tho data contained in thia

thenin and offering many unatul suggestions throughout the

viii

analynia. and to Mr; Johnaon tor hia pricclaal contribution
of tin. and effort in aaaiatinq in tho task of aaaurinq the
atntiatioal accuracywot tho results obtainad and reported

in thia thcaia.

ix

ThilLfi 0P CEST fifoS
Fago
cwgpraa
{a IntI°¢uCt1°n o a a a a a a a o a a a Q o a o a a
A. Contentn of thin Chapto: . . . o . a a a o o
3. Th. Ptonlfim a o a a o a a a o a a a o a a o o
l. Crustal fitatnment of the Problen . . . . .
2. specific stntamont of the FIOblam . o . a

3. importance of tha Inventigation . . . . .

$3 ‘4 ~n hi hi rt ti

C. Elan nnd Content of this Thesis . . . . . . .
no aummary of Chapter 0 a o a a a a a a a a a a 13
II. Tiptfi‘mlthL ?RAKE O? W WCE AflD $TA?£%EUT

05’5in9anu-‘aaaaoaaoaaaaaoaaa 1-1
A. Content: of thin Chapter . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . ll

1. Summary of Hevinw of Litornturo . . . . . 21
C. who $heoroticul firamo of Wafnrcnco . . . . . 22
a. Statwmnnt o: Hyyothenen . . . . . . . . . . . 24

E. Eummary 01 Chapter a g a o a a o a a o a o a 024

{11. H: u‘fifiL GY a a a o a a a o a o o o a o a o a a 25
A. Contenta O: thl’ Chaptet . . g Q . g g g g . 26
fl. The Univnrne Rafi $amp1é a a a a o a a o o o a 26

C. Gnarationnl Definition of Tarms and Easearch
inntrumontn and Techniouea . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Sa1£~concept of ability . . . . . . . . . 27
2- EntelliqfinCG o a a o a a a a a a a a o o a 23
3- 3”h1@V¢ment o a a a o o a o a a a a a a o 49
4.‘$nlf~ooncept of ability in syncific

lubjfictl o a a o o a o a a o a o a a a o a 49

R

L21.

5. Gnnaral ne1f*concnpt or ability . . o . n o

6. Peroaivnd cxgnctntions o: aiqnificnnt

others a a a a a a a o o o a a a a a a a a
Rethod of Tasting fiypothnsaa . .

methofi of comparative Anelynia .

F. flammary of :hnptnr . . . . . . .

RXELJVLQCE FIEQDER‘ZES o o o o o n o 0 O

A.

B.

E“:

Cafttf‘nta Of thin €hflflt9' . g g .

Tnstaofiiypothennn......-.o..oo

1. fiywothnnin I o o o a a a a o o a a a a a a

3.

iiyE-Othflfiifiltgaaooooaoouoooo

nvpotherin III 0 a o 0 a a o o o o a o o o

flummnry of Tests of Bypotheaefi . o a a a a a

Comparative Analysis . o a a o n o I a

1.

Eifferencfln bntwoen the Engra

Caucasian Hana Scoren for the

Vatl&blfifl o o a a a o a a a a

titfornncas bntwean the negro

Caucasian correintna Data . .

Eumaty 0t Chag‘tfir . g g Q Q Q g

and

Major

O

fiii'fiE-I‘EARY ALI-i1.) CGECLUSIQSS . g g g Q . g

A. Summary of $310: Eenonrc“ Finflirg

1.

‘0

3.

summary of rnnzarch objeotiva:

O

0

?age

43

52

$1
61

0.00.0051

Summary of theoretical finflings . . . . . . 62

Summary of finncr ptivc-compnrativa find-

ings a o 9 a o o a a o o a a a a a a o o 0

xi

63

vs
A" .

E.

FEQQ

Thooraticnl Implications ot the Research
Einfiinqa o a a a a I a a a a a a a a a a a a 55
substantivo implications of the Comparative
Findings 0 a a a a a a a c o a a a n t o o o 67
Froblomo of furthnr finnnarch . . . . . . . . fl?

summary a! Chaptor a o o a a a a a a a a a o 73

811:.‘OMAF‘Y . g g g. g g Q g t 0 9 ‘ Q g Q g g g 0 g g 72

A??E§CIX.

f2. 2" if- )3". if"), I '1'

in

9-M -_-§_"\~a
hit: 3 «It‘fiIX

f". 1‘ 2:" "h v I. X
.‘H' 9‘" L‘sfi .u. .

A. anltaflonccpt of Ability finalen . . . . . .

fl. importance of srnfin Scale . . . . . . . .

c. Pnrcnived Expnctntion of iigniiicant
chfitl 3331*” o a a a a aa a a a a a o a a

fi. Correlation nntria 0! Major variation . . .

xii

LI;

III.

{8?
I

L13? 0? TAB £5

Paga

Cocfficisnts a: Corrclation hotwcan aighthwarnfin
firaéo Eoint Avcrngo. fioasurcd intelligence, nné
scliuccncngt of Ability for rccro and Caucncien
highthwzradn Stucnnts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
coefficients of Correlation bfitwnen Qannrnl
Sclf-ConCEpt of Ability in Spocific Subjects

with Total snfi Subject trade ficint Avcrcccn for
Eagro and Caucasian Eighthnaradn Studentfi . . . 40
Mean Self-Conccpt of Ability icorca and Moan

Grnéo Point Averages in All Subjects can for

Each a: Four School Eubjcctn for Segre and
Caucasian Lighthufirafin htuficnts . . . . , . . . 42
Coctiicienta or Correlation noonq General
$cl£~Conccpt of Ability. Bell-floncept of

Ability in Specific nubjccta uni aighth-gradc
Grnécn in.¥our tubjectn for yegro ana Caucasian
Etuéfint3 - o o a an a a o a a a o a o a 0 a o o 4‘
Biffercncca bntwcnn All Possible Combinations

of the Cncfificiantn of Correlation betwann
Specifiic :«c nna fignciiic fiuhjcct Achiovnment

for macro and Caucaninn Eighth~6rnfic Etuficntn. 45
confficinntc of Corrnlation Eatwnen ficflcral

sac and Gonoral Achicvamcnt (5?A) and flgecific

$~G and Genernl Achicvnmnnt for negro and

Cnucaninn Eighth-Grada fituéanta . . . . . . . . é?

xiii

1W
1. i
I

‘f

rage

Cocfzicientn of Correlation between the

studcnta‘ Cenorai finlf~Concnptm of Ability

and tho Images tho Stufinnta ficrccive fiiqnifi-
cant Pcrnonn to Raid of Their Abilities for

333:3 and Causation Kiqhthdfrndn fituflentn. . . 49
fiocfticinntn o: torrclntion bctwccn the

Etnflontn‘ GrnG% Faint fivnrngan and the Imagca

the Studentn Perceivm significant Earnonm to
gold or Ehcir Abilitinn for Negro and

Caucaainn tighthwnrnflnrn . . . . . . . . . . . 5?
Means, Stanflard Pavintionc, and T-fieatn

fictwnnn Scores for All variablas for the

fingro and Caucasian Eighth-Grads Students . . 54
Comparativn Cnnffictents ct Corrnintion and

fidTfistfi for the W$fit0 nnfl Caucasian

fitudcntn o n a a I a a a a a a o c n o a o o o 55

xiv

(.‘h'APTER I

123“! RODUC'I ICE

A. Contente or This Chapter

in thie introductory chapter the problem of the
theeio ia introduced. Both generel end epocitic etatemente
of the problem are aet torth. Also included in thin chapter
are a brief etatenent or the importance of the investigation
and a general outline of the organization of the investigao
tion in terme ot chaptera and their contenta. The main
theoretical principloo introduced in the etatement or the

K ”1/

problem will be expanded in Chapter II.

a. The Problen

9&92‘93 gtggemcnt g; ‘22 Eggbggm. Ono of the grav-
eat tank: racing contemporary emoticon eociety ie that oi
producing enough specialieta to occupy‘her vaat proliferation
or epocialired poeitione. Certainly. the demands for highly
trained pereonnel are tar greater than the preeent supply.
And it eeemo reoooneblo to euppooo that the current trend
townrde epeciaiieation will continue: and. indeed. the
future demnnda tor highly trained opecialioto will be even
greater than they presently ere. Euture American eociety,
than. will demand e citizenry or highly trained man and
women with high level. of both general and teChnical educa-

tion.

2

The implications which thin otato of attairo holéo
for tho Americon educational oyotom oro unmistakable-tha
tutnro will demand that on incroooingly high proportion of
Americans be educated ond. indeed, that they be onucated at
increorinqu high lovele. Unfortunately, houaver, it poems
thot the American educational oyoton in not yet oriented to
the oéucetion at ouch voot numboro of highly trained persons.
was: educotion in o relatively new concept in American noun
cationol philooOphy. Tho previouo view. which is still
widely held, onvioionod higher educotionol ottoinmonto an

1

possiblo for only I limited number of persons. Ono prominont

writer on the subject. for inatonco. hoe posited that only
15-20 por cent or Anericon, high-school youths can profit

2 Thus. having

by o curriculua conducive to oollogo studios.
boon guidod by principles that pooit ‘limitod talent.” tho
American educational system hao done little to enconrogn
ito atufionte. in ony'qroot prOportiono. to pursue studios
in the more odvencoa and/or “difficult“ fields of ltarning.
To be ouro, it has even diecourogod ouCh endeavors on the
part or o majority or it: otudonte. Brookover, in commnnt-
ing on thin matter, hos observed that:

our ochool oyutom ot ell lovoloo-olomontnry, oecond«
ery. and highor oducotionnuhor been designed to

”A

1‘ Wilbur a. aroaxover. ”A. Social Psychological Conc-

coption of Clooeroom Learning,“ gclggl nng Eogiogx, 81

irfirbrml‘y. 1959). p. 3‘.

2 Jomoo a. Conant,

 

3

separate and ocroon the student boéy no that only

o minor prooortion would pursuo training for roloo

as scientists, professors, lawyers, engineers and

o ooloct groun of othor occupational leaner-.5
Tho majority of Amorican youtho, than, have been directao
towards more modoat levolo of educational attainment.

certainly. the above state of affairs proaanto tor
American society o serious problem-co dilemma. much or which
might to tho by-product of faulty oaeunptiona. 0n the one
hand, nonrica hae chooon to follow the road or scientific
expansion, with ito great demands for incroaninqu high
levelo of training in all tiolao of learning. On tho other
hand, rho has dovieed o philoooPhy'o! learning which holds
that only o relatively small and/or constant graportion or
her citizens oro capable of achieving such high lovala or
learning.

Tho cnrront manor of facing this dilemma is can of
maximizing the identification and orploitation of tho
“limited talent“ where it oxiota. Recently. howovor, a new
and revolutionary approach to the problem hao begun to
emerge-nan anproach which mango tho revolutionary assumption
that ability to mantor the moro advanced or difficult fielén
of learning may‘be dovolopcd, givon the proper social infiucon

mento. This point of vino io ouggentod by tho frameworks

A ___ -_._ AA.

fl —_ WW —-——‘—~ wt...

3 wilhur B. Brookovor. goth 5&5.

4

4

of both porceptual psychology ond tho symbolic interaction-

iot approach to human behavior.5

It has perhaps rccoivcd
its fullest cxpoaition in the work of Brookovar.6 tron this
point a: vicw, “all behavior of the individual in meaningful
troa the point of visa at tho individual. tho best unflat-
stanfig 4mg and proélctlon of bohavlor (learning) would thus
coma from knowledge of tho individual’o porcoption at tho

rituntion.’7

It in hold. thcrctorc. that any investigation \///
of what an individual doc- lcarn. and what he is capable of
learning. must necessarily inquirc as to his parccption of
what he fools ho is capiblc of learning.8
It tho toroqoing nnrunptionn arc valid. on enpirical

demonstration oz their validity fibula greatly clarity a

 

“— .w L‘“ ' ' *u“ ____

‘ For an elaboration of thin framework. on. Arthur

v‘io 530%an and Donald Einng. . - ,

fiflition (race York: Harper on” hrothera. ‘
Camnl. 'xntelligonco from a Porcoptunl Faint of Viov. '

:. M . .,. .. - . - 47 (July.l952)

    

 

5

For an olchoration of this framework. an. Tanotau
fh'lbfitant' SQ ‘ ._ ,1 (Eflglfifim C1 1::3' 3'$.J. ’1
Frontico-fic . Inc.. pp. 2 - 5: 32-549 6¢o701 97-127:
Una 233’293.

6 hilhur a. Brookovcr. op.cit.. pp. 84~E19 and Wilbur
n. nrookovor. 3g.gl.. Hols-Concogt ot fibili ty;nnfi fichool
for nvom«¢.. t: Final Ronort o1 COOporotivc iconarcn Trojoct ”o.
1 East Looming. Michigan: office at choarch and Public.-
tionc. Michigan State Univornity. 1962).

7 Wilbur B. Brockovor. at.cl.. “the Rolationahip of
91! Image to Achievement in Junior IZigh 5: 31 Ctudontn.’
(’imeogranhod). p. 1.

 
 
 

 

3 gbgs.

S
crucial aspect of Amorican educational philosophy. Inaoed.
American society would no longer need to suffer the hanéicap
of ”an insufficient supply at the prooumobly biologically
giftod learners. On the 0th.: hono, tho possibilities
would be limited primarily by*our ability to create tho kind
of social oituotion in which the donired learning would
Occur.“9 Tho general locus of this thesis is, therefore,
the presentation of some empirical findings or an invostigo-
tion of ono uvonua through which. it in folt. tho learning
of American otudontu might be cxpandedc~tho students“ self-
Hlmogos as ochool learners.

The reaoarch Currantly in ptOCBSB by the ouroau of 5‘
Eaucotionol Rcooarch. fiichiqan State University. focuses
upon thio very mama problem. The Bureau or Educational
fiasoarch in asking a series of questions pertinent to tho
relation of colt-concopt of ability to school achievement:

1. To what extant or. the relevant colt-images or 6/7
junior high school rtudent- an learners general-
ized to all school subject! nod to what crtent
arc they opacitic to particular school subjecto?

2. ‘hou do tho cclfuioaqoo of seventh grnoo ato- V//
dent. on loarnorc dittcr by 2.6.. con. and
£umily“background7

3. How do tho self-images of roventh grofio azu-

dento as loarnero differ by school achievement

~/
with car. 1.0.. and family hookground controllcc? "

9 wilhur a. crookovor. “a social Psychological Con-
ception of Classroom Learning," fichoo .nd 5 . t , 87
(February. 1959). p. 87.

     

G
4. who are the relevant significant other: to b/'
whom scvanth grade student: relate themselves
in examining their behavior as school laarnere?
5. How do tho significant othora o! aovonth graéo
students differ by sex. family backoroand, and
achievement levels of the otudantaiiO

Tho fluruau of Efiucationnl ficnaarch piano to uoo tho
information obtained in answcr to thfififi questions no the
foundation for an experiment in increasing school achievomont
through the mofliticction of self imagca, an anticigatoé
second phase of their research. The unawara to tho atovo
questions will also provide data to test aavaral relevant
hypotheses ioplicd in tho questiona.

:naamuch ac knowledge with rogardo to tho relation
of calf-concept o! ability to achievemont might be incroaoeo
greatly as a result at the abovo raocarch. the investigation
coffers from one major limitationfinit is being confiuctefl
solely among members or the dominant. omarican tociaty.
fl.?ho systematic investigation of rolfaovaluation as it ro-
latca to school achicvamont among minority youth. particularly
Negro youth, has been excluded. since it was fol: that the
racial factor would significantly influence salt-concept.
consequently. knowledge regarding the relevant variables

tygical within ouch groups, which significantly influenua

1° Wilbur B. arookovor. 'Balatiouship of Solfnzmagoa
to Achievement in Junior sigh 5:133: finbjocfn,' (wimeooraphod
application. transmitted to tho Commiaaioner of tomcation,
U.h. Office of Education. vapartment of flealth, Education.
and telfaro). pp. 2-4.

7
their salt-concepts and, hanca, their levels of achiavement,
will not be Sorthccaing from the investigation.

\ The specific

 

 

f3:pfi£¢ cf the rezsaxc” teportsd in tax; theaig, than, was

t3 axtend and comglem¢nt the xefiearch cutrmntly 1n FIOTSEE

by the auzeau a! faucattonal R¢$aarch through: (1) a

. -l.-
1?"?{7 '11:.

c atwfy of tke relati¢nahip betwemn S31f¢¢onCé§t

i 'a
’nfl

J

a;3 achiavement among atadent$ of both the dominant group
:33 one minority graup-9egrc$es and (2) a systematic~fleg~
crlitlwe camgarincn of this minatity grow; with the éoninant
grfigp. More specifically. the aim at this research was :0
(1) replicate, aging both Segre ané Caucasian subjects, tka
filit stage of the longitudinal invastigatton currently in
praccua by thm flureau of Eiucatloual Femaarchy uni-(2) placa
these finding» in a bxbade: perspectzva through a systematic,
‘aacriptiva-cvmparativa Analyflie.

The importanca of

 

this study lies in the fact that at (1) atrords a ralativaly
évfinitivg replicata tent of the propnnitiona an: hypothvsms
advanced in thfi parent etufiy, among both minority and
majctity youth»: ad (2) places thesa findings in a broafier
paragective thr0ugh a ayatewatic, camparntive analyaia, thus
affarflinq acmw implications of the influence a: “racial“
(at, bettur, minority—graup atatuz and/or ethnicity) factnra
ugan self uagas. Further, tha finfiings 0: this raanaréh

pzoviéam the {Qunfiation for an erpfirimant 1n theraasinq

a
achievament among Hegto subjects, though auch an experimant
does not constitut¢ a part at thln laveathatlon. Finally.
thaugh the comparative aspect at this investigatlan is 9:1.
martly descriptive, 1t 13 fwlt that it will raveal thn typea
a! raceardh quagtlons that might land to a hlgrer level of
ahhael achievement among minority'ybutha. Infloed, 1: 13
{#1t that the camparatlve unpact of the reaoarch will affora
same concrete or practical implications to: adhool taachera
and aflmlntstratora, who are n9¢asaarlly concernad with thfi
problem poseé by tho relatively low lcvolu of achievement
amang minarlty youths. Tho camparatlvo analynll, than, is
grpetted ta shed mare light an ths relevant variables tyglcal
within thg Kagro~ybuth oubcultura that significantly influ-
ence their self-cancepts and; Nance, that: claazroom achieve.
want. Knowledge in this area. it in falt, could increaaa
grwatly the unfierstanding of thn internal dynamicn 1n the
sccial life of fieqzo yvutha an Amwrtcnn enciety, particularly
gfith retarence to their social ashtlity. acculturation,

awaifillatien, and other ganaral sapactn at nocsal dynamica.

C. Plan and Contant at thin Thesis
In this lntrcéuctnry Chaptar aha tesaarch nrablem
baa been set forth, the problem baa bamn atatad in bath
general and specific tarms. And tha importance of the invest-
igation has bnan apellfid nut.

In Chapter'll tha thaorgtlcal bafikgrauni of the

9
invantigatian is mafia morn axplicit. Tha statament of the
thfinrmtical fruma of retrranca in praceéad by a camawhflt
lelectiva revicw of the rclcvane literature: it is follmrsfl
by the majar propcaition a! aha invartigatian, whicfi in
fallowad by tha thrao sps¢ific hypotheses that arr tertad
in the 13V&fitijatififl.

Chapter III deal» solely with the mathoficlogicrl
praceflures. In that chapter the following are set fartha
(l) a brief description of th: samples used in the inventi§a¢
tion: (2) the aperational definitions or terms and a das-
crigtion or the research instruments, (3) a dascription of
the statistics used to tore the hypotheses: and (4) a
éascriptioa or thn method of comparative analynia.

Chapter Iv constitutes the central cars or the
analyaie. it flail: spacitically with the statirtical trrts
cf the three wpaciti: hypothesea which the preaent invaztio
gation war éesigned to test. also in th&t chapter the com-
Farativc fiat: are presentea. The chapter is considere&
cfintral tn the praaent analysis becaurc (1) it provides the
statistical test at the major theoretical graponition aévancefl
at the untrue of the investigation: and (2) it proviflea a
camparifign of tha minoritybgroup data with that Obtained
tram the ficminant group. wha latter napact of the prerant
invaatigation is particularly aignificant in that it provides
valuatla infarmation with ragarfin ta the influance of

minaritywqroup atatus aha/or ethnicity upon self—evaluation.

10
In Chaptar v the invautigation 19 concluflad. That
chapter conzifita of a brimf summary a: all the chaptaza that
ptacadaé it. The major focus of the chapter. howaver, in
upon the research findings nnfi the thearetical implications
fihat thpy hold. also. a numbar o! uuqqeatiana far turthnr

IEfififltCh arm met forth in Chapter v.

a. aummary a: Chapter

in this chapter tha main thaais 0: tbs stufly has
bean intrcduced. The need for the syntamatic investigation
a3 waif-evaluation as it relates to flChOOX achiavement among
minszity yauth we: straaaad. fits justification of thia
atufiy waa atatcd an follownz (1) it affords a relatively
ééfinitiva r@tast of the gaveral hyyoth&sas navancmd in an
aarlier stuéy, amang both majority and minorityugraup ycuthnp
aaé (2) it places these findings in a hroadar perggective
t%rcggh a aywtfimatia comparative anfilymia. thus affctfiinq
aqua implications of the intluenca at minnrityugrnup angina
(knfi/Ot ethnicity) upcn melfuimagea. Thfi major thaais of
tha stufiy will be furthmt allborated in tho follcwing chapter.
where the thaoreticai framework and major propgsition at the

gtuéy ara afit fartho

CESAPTEZR II

TEEE mmnmzcm. PRIME OF RESTRSNC? NU?)
STATEifiEE‘JT OF THE RYF'OT H55“ 8

A. Content: at run Chapter
71m put-pen of thin any“: to threetold: first, a

“10¢:th min at th- "luau: literature u presented.

The lttoraturo selected to: thin m1” providios the unplu-
cnl but. to: the major thoouucal pupa-tuna that this
research was dumbed to use. secondly. the thoonucu.
in” of autumn u Gourmand and and. non «nude. And
“rally. the major thou-cued. prom-um and m than
specific hypothosn at. totally named.

a. anion of the Lites-nut”
Although the .01! h.- lonq occupied a central post-
Hon 1:: the cymbals: interaction“: approach to acct-1.
psychology, 1:: «Implement. u “pineal. “search has beam

1

antiwar count. seam-1 muon- aay be «21:04 to account

f w... ‘W JW ___w—‘ “L w ‘.

 

*3?” a more comptohmlvo nun» or the lltotaturo
on the: pelt-cones“. an Ruth C. Wyuo, W
(Lincoln: Universuy or mobruka Pun, .

1 L. s. Cottxoll. '30:» ancient-d Problm in social

Formaloqro' W 15 (19”): 99o 705-
712' Kneel- n. H. pox. Loam nq can and tho Salt-camptfi
..‘: 1a.. ' .. ‘nz'. ”-9.! '     * ..‘ '5' g 51 ‘1’”). 9. 1‘8,
H. m I. - - raucous.”

  
 
 

. .- - Optlnd the Reaction 0! mm.‘
W. 23 (Mar. 1960). p. 351.

11

12
for thia. PerhaAs tha moat ganoral {aaaon cantata arounA
the ditficulty*c£ translating tho thaoriaa of tha symt.olic
interactian1st trafiition lato testablu hypothAA $3.2 Ant,
pArhApA, mare Apac1£1¢a11y, the reason lies in thA lack 6f
congeneua regarding the clash of phenomana to which tn
self ought to‘be oparationally orfiared.

The self hen been called an 1maqa, a conceptton,

a concept. a feeling. an 1ntarnalization. a aelf

lacking at oneaelr, and most commcnly simrly tha

belt (with pnxhapa most ambiguous 1mplicationa of

All). Qua of thAAa Aesignationa of tha self ham

beAn attitufiea...3

YAt, 1n Apito of these difficultiaa, the 1&8: dAcAée
has been marked by sown initial Aévancao 1n thc emyirical
invaatigation at VAtioua not1onn o! I01! and/or salt.
conceptienn. Tha f1nA1ngs o: scma of thAsA inveatigatians
ara Aummarizad below.

Several researchea have beAn reported wh1ch were
prim3x11y concerned with the develogment of measures cngabla
of éiatinguilhtng between cubjects‘w1th‘h1gh and low self-
AAtAAA (ae1£~COACEptiona) and/bx batwaan aubjacta who

exh1bit rea11tydbaaad and Gefeuetvo xeaPonaes.‘

M A- __... _._ A... ..

W— ., 1 w w Am ‘7— W WV

2 Frank a. Miyamoto and Aanfcrd H. flornbunch, “A tAac
oi tha Antarnctioniat «ghothnaie a: AnitafonCAftiow.
’ " . ' (Hay, 1956). ID. 3'39.

 

3
Fwn1t1cal Invast1znt10n a: salt Attitufiea,

Maniford A. xuhn and ThomAa A. Fcfartland, “An

 

:‘W. 1.9 (Fablmaty. 1954), p. 68.

 

‘

Jamas F. T. Augental and ?A1en L. Aeymour, 'Inveat1~
gationa into tho Aelf-Concept. -A - . ,A A. (1 t
(1950), rp. 433-499) Atnn1ay Coornrsmith. ”A MAtnofl for Ate:-
mining belfarntanm, 0‘ «huhrmnl An? finn1§;*}wvvno}fiqz,
5? {19'9), pp. A7~943 AAA 3anltor1 A. Kufifi Aid thamsa A.
Acznrtland, 33., m... 15;}. £33.78.

 
 

 

13

5 for examglc. reports a methsd of dtetmlning

Cmnyflramith,
selfaeateam-baaad upon several meaauraa: (a) a aubjsct's
tenpomga to the “self-Efitaem Inventory“ (constructed on the
basin of items amlactsd from the Rogera ana aymona Seglafi),
(b) a rating of caxtain of hi: (tha Bubjact'a) behavioza
presumably tainted to salt-«steamy and (c) inficrmation on a
cafigtellation of experimental and.mot1vational variablaa.
taggeramith founé. {at a qraup a! 13 u 12 - year 915 chilatgq,
(substantial agraament between self-evaluatian and‘hehavxoral
axpresmiona an a majority of the cases. fie ulna fauna that
parsona who had.moro success experience «are significantly
higher in self-evaluaticn than individuala with fawn: such
tfl?flt1&flt6£. fitgh teat-retest reliability was repartad far
both the aaltofisteam Invantcry and tha behavioral rating
aaales.

Another ingenious effort to dawa10p a meaaura as
salf-eoncaptimn (which has bean eupanded and moaitied sinca
tfifl reference hara citad) waa zaported by Kuhn and ficfiartlana.7

ihay attempted to damanstrnte tba advantage: to emp1r1¢&1

...... . ___‘ _.....

“WV...— w WW w... Y_._ w

5 Cmmrmith, 19c, ggt.

  

6 C. fiagara and a. nymond. fi;'¢hathfirag. 3.:
ggégg;£p§§gg (Chicagas university a Lhicrgo ixesa.

7

 

Kuhn and McPartlana. 10¢. 14’

cl 0.

14
zennarch tron treating the self as attitufiaa. Tha dnvice
which thny constructed to identity and mnenure aaltnattituéea
conniatad of a tingle sheet of paper. giving the followinj
inntructionsl

Theta aza twenty numbered blanks on the raga
below. Please write twenty anywnrn to thn
single quastion “Who am I?” in thn blankn.

Junt glvm twenty fitffarnnt nnnwera to thin
Quention. Answer :3 11 you were giving the
annwnra to yourself, not to nomehody else.

write thm anawera 1n the order that thny occur
to ynu. non't worry abaut logic or ”importance.'
Go along fairly fast, in: timn 19 11mlta$.3

Thu tantrumant was initially administertd ta 3
sampla of unfinrgrnéuato students. It wan found that the
hunter n2 responses pat respondent evened by thena instruc-
tinna varied :xon twenty to one or two. the median number of
rnzponaes pnr rospnnfinnt bning aeventeen. Theno responnen
(wh1ch took thc gnnntal form: '1 am no...' frequently
amittinq thn 'I an ....' 0.9.. ‘a utudent,’ ‘an athlete,”
etc.) were dealt with‘by a torn of content analysis.

... catngorized dichotomoualy either as con-
aennunl referencns or an aubconsennual referencen.
inane contant categories distinguished between
atntemnnts, which refer to groups and classes
whens limits and connitiona of mesbership are
matters of common knawlaflga, L.e., consensual:
and thonn which rate: to groups, classen, nttr1¢
hates, traits. or any othcr mattern which would
require interpretation by the respondent to be
precinn or place him relative to other pvog1&.
L.e., subconnennual.9

 

15

The following wete~c1ted as examples at tbs canmenaual
variaty: 'Itudant.' ”girl.“ ”husband.“ 1.6., “statamgata
referring to conaansually dafinad utatusma and clazsaa."lo
txanplea of the aubconaenzual variaty ware alwo cited:
“bored.' 'ha:py,‘ '23d.‘ ctc.. 1.a. 'atatemeaca ...w1th
rafarenca to congenaual classes obscuraa by ambiguous mafil¢
ficatians.'11

Kuhn and ficFartland tapartéfl high zaliahilxty for
tha asaignment of response: to thaaa content catagariaa by
éififarent analysta. '..o diffiarences 1n categorization bwtgwen
two judgaa occurlng loss than three times in one hundred r93-
ponsas.'12 when the renponaea were groupad, several out.
atanfiing {aaturea wart obvious.

aubjacta t¢naad to exhaust all at the cnnfienaual

refatvncea they woulfi mako'befioro they mafia (if

at all) any fiubconaenaual ones... The numbet o:

consensual refetancas made by respondents variaa
from twenty to none ..,13

In the reaaarch on which their initial test of the
instrument was parformed, all canaenfiucl tefareaéas were
placaa on one 51d: of a dichotomy, while “none~reeponzen”

meta combined with tbs nubconaenaual tnferencma an thm-athex.

M A‘ A...___

Ar‘é.. p. 7O.

11 23336.. p. 70.

12 Ybié. ' p. 70.

a.

, a... P". 70.

      
 

15
fin infiivifiual subject's “locus scora‘ wam simply tha number
a: cansanaual referancaa ha mafia on tha 'Twuntyufitatemantg‘
Tfifit.

The abova m attuned charactaristica at the “Tweutyu
Stfitflméntfi' Twat aatiafiiad the daflnition a: a Guttman agala.
Tfiw caefficlmnt of repIOfiucibzlxty reportefi for the $¢alfi.
bammd on 151 responagnta, was .903. The teat-retest reliabil-
ity cf tha scale was approximately *.35.

En ordar ta 333933 tbs pragmatic aurceas at failura
0: their tachnxgua. Kuhn and ficrattlana carralatea attter-
eatifil raligious affiliation with locus scares éarived from
their saltuattitudag inattument-u“Twentyufitatamfinta“ Teak.
aha eviéenca thus pravided gave support to the following
amyirically-qrounfiad inferancaun

l. “fins canseneunl (mare directly aactally anchoreé
companant at tha aelt—attituées) are at tha top
0: tha hierarchy of aalt-attitufian.

2. “Persons vary over a rathar wide range in tha
voluma of consensual and aubnnnxenmaal cum-
ponentn in their salt-conceptians ...

3. _'?he variation inciuéed in (1) and (2) can ha
«stabliahed and meaauraa by the emptrzcal tfich¢
nlquea of nttitufia rassatch¢.agec1fically. the
Guttman Tachniqua ...

4. “Lanna scares vary with xellginua affiliatinn.
an cur'tnitial valxfiation has: anoua, momherg
of 'aiffarentilistic' rfiligious gzaupa having
oigniticfintly higher locus scorms than éo
mamberm or the ‘canventional' rallgigua grouya ...

5. “fieligieus affiliation refnranccs ara aignifia
cantly meta salient among the gait attituflaa afi
members of “filtratentilxatic' taliqioua qraupa

than amcng memb9r5 or ‘mmjarity‘ or canV@ntiana1
religious graups.

17
6. “Corrcbcrat1valy. tha raltgiaua graup a3 a
refaranca groan nppmara (a: mare frequfltly as
an answa: to a dirfict quagt: an arang thoam m~d.m
by mambera of 'difiarantialiatic' 131131035
gtoupg.“14
Other raaaarchera have can¢etn¢d themselvas with
tag nature and origins at melt-conceptiona. maveral in-
vafltigatora have recently rapartad firflia3r th;:t an: tain t5e
gameral view that one'a calf-concepticn is 1353933 fram tha
15
ta tienz ct othct 1n?*vidxm : ta Eta.

azalpar.13

for Lnstnncs. rapcrted «mall. but consist-
an: positive correlations between parantal cvaluations aha
chilmran’a aeltuevaluationa. Similarly. Miyamoto and

Larnbunch17

repartaa finding: that inflicatad that the rasfiansrk.
or at least the attitudea. of othars in ralated.to aalf~
.canception. Thay alao raported that the subject'a petccpa

tign of that rafiponaa 13 evan mare clearly talatmd ta his
yeraanal imaqa of himself. And, even more sxgnificantly.

they zeparted that an individual'a calf¢canception 13 more

cl¢s¢1y related to his eatimata at the generalizad attitufia

A4...“ 4 A...» _- __ . . .
.- 4— A .‘_

w ~ ‘7 w . ~r v.— ‘—

1‘ 2215., p. 75.

15 ralcalm M. fialpax. 'Earental fvaluation 0f ”hilfiz

 
     

M. r:‘anis, 0r. c1t..

i5~-w Ingmaalfiiz. 55 {1953), fip.
{3 . awé-d7 1v3flo€o and finrnbusch. 0n. cit,, pp. 33 5-4:? 1
ah.“ ”11'ebeck, 91". cu‘, pp. 331- 3‘59.

16

“@1951. an. Sgt.

17 fliyamoto anfi sornbufich. igg.c§t.

13
tuward him than :0 tha percalved attitufiea or reaponfiaa of

likewlgn, regartafi
iinéings which augyorted tha view that can'u aglf-conceptian
13 influancafi by others' percapttons of him. Eut he founfl
no tenflency far the flfilf'fifitiflflffis to affest the views of
Qna held by Othars. En further rapartod anly partia aagpcrt
{fix the cantentian thxt tha aalf~concept 13 no fiifferant

fram othér baliafa, Ani, finally, Vifiabecklg

attampt&d to
tgst tha prepositfion (that one’s selfncsnceytlan 13 learnad
{rem tha xaactlcna cf ethara),‘but in a meta ditgc: £33k1¢n-
by emparimantnlly’varying the reactions at others and ohmerv-
lag nubaequent changes in welt-ratinga. His findings
eugportefl the general preposition that “ealtncanceptionn ara
learnefl, and the ev51uat1va reacttanw cf otherm play a signi-

.20

£1c&nt part 13 the 1&arn1ng pacemae. Further, v1fiabeck'a

data aupportad tha hypnthanis that "ona'a aalf~concept1¢‘

15 an organization of fliscreta selfuratinge which.ara utiligefi

by tha principla of atimulus ganeralizatian.'zl
ibuugh an entwnnive pfizuual cf the litaratuta faileé

to reveal any etufliaa-w;idh fecaaed primarily upcn the

la Manifi. z? 5?. Sit.

13

av wv—Wwva—w— 7V— vv—fim WW -——-— ~—

viaaLMax, ant. cit.
20
'73“, ‘5 .

..Jidg. p. 615?.

19
tficutiticatlon of students' aelf¢coacc.pt*nns as laarnr :3 1n
53333313 33b3333 matrax 3:333 and the tclation of 3uch 331i-
caicaytiona ta achiavemant in 3peci£1c school aubjmcta,
3333331 of the abova studies p33v13ea valuable 133113331333
far the thaoretical 9:0903it10n3 which are to felIOW. Lvan
mars ralavant for the purpoaea of this 1n333t133tlcn, hatu
aver. ara tha {allowing investigatiann, with which £313
331*31133 reviaw of the 11t333turo 13 333313393.

22

33139 callega mtuéents 33 3 3333333, fcth inverti-

gat3§ the relaticnfihip'batwean 331f-canceyt and regain}
improvament. The 33313 3:330313133 in his research was that
theta 33313 be significant éi‘ffirnncea in t¥xa eel! p3t393-
31333 33 subj3ct3 339 improves, did not 133:333, and 3:33333
333 in 3 331133 3 33331.3‘3333333333 3:33:33. fiha data
03333333 gave support to the general pregaaxtiofi. Further,
snyport for the prnpcsitlcn was indicated by “finding3 3333

as changes in salt-concept and 33353 point averaga ..."2:,

231.13, mm curtains-an! .1

“ac. those who achieve 33 well as 33033 who 33
not, dp so 33 a ranglt of the 33333 at their
633:} 3.3113 EY3tm-5," 3

W w W

a
‘2 9. M. roth. ‘Tha 9013 of 931'mcancafit In Achiaveo
m 3:1:r*hfl;fi'; 9f 3333,1333t31 vaunnti n, 27 (June, 1? 5?),
3‘3) .

1,...

3t.

‘53
do 3 .3 ‘5.
Lbi(0.' P. ‘31.

a

3‘3 .3.
It‘f-Lzfi.. p. 21.31.

29

fioflwinzs

investigated the r313t30n3hip 3333333

”immature“ aelf-concept3, which he defined "in 33333 of 331!
canfifimnce, fteeéom to 333:383 appxnprimte feglings, liking
£3: oneaelt. 33tisfaction 33th on3'3 attainmants, 333 £331-

23 3 »
“ 333 wertain

$333 of per3on31 appraclation by othera.
33333313331 £1333111t133, maifily reafiing 333 arithmetic.
333 findings cf this investigatxcn 3333 33 2311333:
1. E Mignlfitfint, pfifittivfi rfilfittenfihig V39 {533$
between immature fialf-CGncept 333 £33313; 313*
ability (.72 an the third grade level anfi .52
on the sixth grafie level). 33th carr31331333
33:3 flignificant {ram zero at the .31 13331 35
atatiutlcal confifien33.
2. A aiqnificant pesitive r31331033313 was reperted
hmtuaen nalfuaon333t anfi arithmetic fiiahbillty
(.73 on tha third 3:333 level 333 .63 on tha sixth
gr3éa 13331). figein, both Egafficianta 93
correlation reportafl 3333 significant from 3335
at the .61 lavml of stati3tical cmnfifiencc.
3. R granter relationahip w33 Imported 333333“ :3.
mature 3313~3333333 333 rc3fling and 3313333313

9
‘N
'

disability than b3t333n a31fi~3on333t and Lisa

ability in other 333031 aubjecta.

*3. 3_. A ‘__.L_ *3 A - - .- .a_ ‘3 - .h. A.

w —.... —‘___. W- ,_ w—

3
*5 Raymond Franklin 333313, ‘333 £313t1333hi3 3333333

33333333 Mali-concwpt and Certain fiéucatiafial $13ab111t133'

(unpubltmhad ”Qatar'g theaiz. micnagan abate university.

3333 Laaaing. 1957).

25

w w *— r— -——

"S-q ‘ '5
fusif."‘ p. 4"

21

4. ?hm talatlonahip betuean immatura self-concfigt
and zaadinq disability wee lower. but act signi-
ficantly so, than that batwaan immatura «alfu
concept and ntlthmatic diaability.

5; A greater relationship was reported between im-
mature calf-caucapt and reading and arithmetia
disabilities {or the third-gradm level than far
the sixth grade level.

Further evidence 1n support of the theoretical pro~

positian to follow>1n provided by Clark.27

who investigatad
tha relationahip‘batween the acaéamlc partormanca and
“neaéamic expectanciaa,‘ bald to: selected freahman. male
cellega students by certain significmnt othara. Clark gavm
tha {allowing description at his sample-
?he total fiample was composed of 359 nonvprobation~
nry atuflenta whoae gtade-polnt-averagen flaring their
freahmaa yaarn were consistently 2.00 or‘higher, 349
profiationary students whose graaa point-averages
ware canaiatently‘balow 2.00. and 127 raiser» whasa
gradeupggntuaveraqea to: the tall tQIM‘VGta 2.00 or
hi Ghfir. ‘3
Clark raported a petitiva talationahip betwean the
acadamic expectancies held for ntuaents by aignifteant others
aha the students‘ actual academic parfarmanca.

This selective

 

ravlaw of the literaturo has provtded Ina empirical‘baaxe for

fl ‘ _L._4 ; a A“. .4 M

~— ‘ _— w "w

27 w. E. Clara, '?ho Ralationahip Between Cellaga
Acaflamlc rerflormanca and Expectancles' (unpubliahad noctur‘s
thesis, Michigan atate Hnivexaity, East Lansing, 1960).

‘3 Ibid.. 'Abgtractg'

22

the theoretical formulationa and/o: hypathesea that follow.

In short. it hafi summarized the empirical support for the

EGIIOwing general notions.

1.

4o

5o

The salt-concept (1.0.. that organization a!
qualities that the indivtfiual attributea to
himselt) cmatgea from social interaction. anfi,
thus, gutées and directs tho bfihéViOt a: inter-
acting individuals.

Variations in self-concepts can ba establiahed
aha measured by empirical techniques.

The salt-concept 1: not a rigid peraonality
trait: It in subject to Change.

Changas 1n self—cancept are reflected in
changes in performance and/or behaviar.

Group. and individuals significant or important
to another inflivifiual can influenca that indivi-
éual's aalfcconcept. and, henca, influence his

performanco and/b: behavior.

C. The Theorattcal frame of Rafarance

fba eXplanatory pttnclples used in this inventigttinn

ware drawn from tha perceptual approadh to individual behavlar

as exyaunécfl by combs and anygg.

29 and the aymbolic inter-

acttonist appxoach to social psychology. first onunciatod 1n

.LL

'._ w

29

W y—f t w , ——

Ctmbn and Siam-g, 325. git,

23

the work of. coon”.3° Dewey. 3" nod mama?

33

and nine. oupandod
by othcn. This firm non: acum- to explain hum
behavior in toms of how thing. new to tho indiviouah it.
toms“ upon the more conscious “pact.- of human behavior
and tries to relate than to tho individual‘s participation
in group “to. What qovom hula behavior. 1m this plat.
apoctivo. in tho individual“. unique perceptions at himself
and the world in which he lives, tho moaning: things have
for him. 1111mm behavior. than. in vimd £3 a pmou in
which the poi-sou shapes and control. his Won by taking
into account (through proouou ma on “mounting"! «on
he perceivoo u the annotation: of other» with who. he
interacts.

In this framework it it ”mod that tho child

learns what ho putative- ho is capable of looming. It in

 

“'wfi *— 4 * A ' W‘M‘w__ #1 *W_v'm

' 30 Charles Horton cooioy .2»...
age-1g; (mu you. scanners. 19223.

 
  
   

‘ 31 Jfihu r I . ‘3 ;
1106011.: Library. 1930

32 George Hubert Mud. .
(Chicago: Univoraity of Chicago

33:10:11.“: aim-ct, “Pamioqical import of. tho
21m Group.“ in 11. our“ and a. Winona. Cm.)
. . 1....--- (Now ”(one Hornet. 19 .pp. 185-
.1 1 110 too 13%. .Mooto Concept. and Method in the Study of
1m 1moioguont.' in shout. at. 11.. (ads)
1. .- a... (worm. Okllu Institute 0 13ml:
pp. 29-531 and A11!“ R. Lindmith and

Anni: L. strut-o, W, Ravi.“ Edition (on:
room Kenn mu on my, no... 1936).

.15.,

 

  
  

  

2‘
further aomumod that hio oolf-porcoption with rogorda to
loorniog is acquired through interaction with significant

Other persons who hold onooctotions of him oa a oohool learnor.

D. Statement. of éfmtlzoisoo
nxown from tho theoretical backgrouné sot forth
okovo. tho general proposition tested in this invootigation
woo 1111 oolf~1mogo is a functionally limiting footer in
school ochiovomont. To test this thoorotical prOpooition
the following throo specific hypotheses were formulateés

l. The golf-concepto or ability of flogro and
Caucasian otuaento aro related to their achieve-
moot when intelligence is controllod.

2. the oolfaconcopts of ability in specific
school oubjocta of negro coo Qaucosion students
vary from ono oubjoct to tho other an& from
their genorol wolfocoocopto o! ability.

3. Tha expectations of significant othora as por-
ceivoo by flogro and Caucasian otuflonta are
pooitivoly corroloted with the otufioota' oolfo
concepts as loarnera and with their olooaroom

ochiovomont.

a. Summary of Chapter
fihio chapter has conoiotod of the dolinootion of the
theorstiool framework upon which tho prooont invootigotion

lo boood. It incluéod a selective review of tho literatmro.

25

iwa criteria were usad in the nelection a: the literatura
thst was raviewcd here. The literatuxo melacted either (l)
flfimonmtrnted anyport far the major thaoretical framowark
unierlying ths investigatian, or (2) auggtsted the tenahility
of tha major thaoretical prepnsition that the prasant tfiu
search was designed to tast. So effort was mafia beta to
txhaust all at the literatuta which has cntraboxated the
ahave theoratical frame of taferanca, as: to exhaust all of
tha fituflias with wuggaativa implications tax the spacific
purpaaea a: this invaatigation. a more extenaiva zaview at
tha literature on tha salt-concept has been allnfied to «lag-
uhera in this chipter.34

The thaoretical framework was tollawad by the forwal
atatement at tha major theoratical premonition and tha thraa
agecific hygothetaa, the tast results of which art preseateé

in Chapter I? of this thania.

—AA_ A _

3

W *— W WW

‘ 1:32.110. {39. it.

SHAPE ER III

1/”

:4; 2:27}; .‘EO EX‘BLOSY

A. Contents of This Chapter t \
In this chapter the method0103ical proceéurea usééfia
in the investigation are premantea. xzis preaantatinn cén- \
eista at (our main parts. The firnt part is concarnafi with
a brief description of the samples uaad in tha investigaticn'
the second part nets forth the Operational dafinitions of

tht concepts and a doacription of the research instrumants
uttd in tha investigation: the third part at the chapter
incluflae a daficription oi the major statistical techniques
mead to teat the hypotheses: and, finally, the faurth part

of the chapter is devoted to a deactlption of the atatisticm
uaafi in the comparativa analyzis of tha fiata to: the twa

eata of oubjectan-fiegro and Cfiucnsian. Tha following chagtar
canaista of the praaentntion or the actual test ratults of

tha hypothasefi and the tinfiingm at the canparntive analyais.

n. the Universe and Sample
Tha univerua or pepulation for thiw invattigation
caatiwted of all eighth-grace ficgro and Caucaaian studenta
in the urbanized and industrialized Midweut. filthaugh {fie
méjér focus at the analysis was originally lntendefi to be
upon the regro etudentn in that universe, the hypotheten
were testw’ using both negro and Caucasian subjects. This

26

27
final analynia proved to be a prerequisite for the planned,
nyntematic comparative analyais.

The total sample invaatiqatad in this atufiy cangistad
at practically all eighthagrada student» in one Hidwestern.
mfitIOpolitan achocl aystem. Within this invastigation twn
aamgleu warn dalinaatefin the Hegro aamgle (fl a 114) ané the
Caucafiian sample (N n 1482). The total aample uted in thia
invaatigation thug conninted a: all eighth-grade Eeqro aha
Caueasian mtuflants who mat tha criteria of having bean in
the uchcol systam far tour yaata (1.0., sinca tha fourth
grate), amt tax whom tun seta of IQ scores wera available.
Tha comparative phase of tha analysis consiatad at a syutamu
atic comgatison of tha findings attainad in the parallel
invaatigationn at the two samples.

The careful generalization o! the sindings or this
rammarch mutt. at ccurae. be zeatxictad to accial canditiaaa
and subjects vary uimilar ta those teatea in this stufiy,
i.a.. aighthugrade aggro anfi Caucasian students in the utban-
itafi and infiuatrializaa Midweat. Ta generalize the {inéings
ragcrtea in this theaia beyond thoaa sacial confiitiona and

mabjecto might prove ta ha misleading.

C. aperational Eafiniticns of Termu and
aasearch inatrumenta and Techniquas

Tha general term. ”ael£¢

 

concept,“ hao‘baen defined operationally in tha literature
a9. “A set of interralatea melt-ratings. umuaily upon bipclat

scales using some parsonal quality at the refarant of tha

28

scale.‘1

Far the purpose of this 1fiVQ3tlgat10fl. the term
v33 Oparationalized as the reaponsea o: a aubjfict to an
eight-itnw, fixefi—alternativa scale d9 31.nm! to manaurv tna
LfithCtB. aaitccancnpts or ability in acadamic end$$VOtfi.2
h aecand m 31: of seven fixed~alterr ativa itema dealing
with tha importanca of grade: was designad and a.ainiatar¢fi
to flfitetmine whether salf~conce§ b of ability is in Mpsnfimnt

cf concern ahaut achievemant.3

The ea1f~concvpt of ability
reala waa {cund on a pretest o: rifty casca to form a GJttflfifl
35319, with tapro&ucibility a: .91. A geccnd test cf the
acala, with 513 malea and 537 famales 28V$fllefi a flutbmfin
scale. with raprcfiucihility o: .95 for malen and .96 £9:
famales. ha taliahility of tha self-concept at ability
scalaa, as @.et erminnfi by'"o;tn' methca, was .QZ for males

aufl .77 to: femaltaa‘

fhia tarm was aparaticnaliztd as tha

 

avergge at the individual ganjact'a ratinga an two eepfirxtq
te. tinfis with a ataadard intelligence tastauthe ' Sulifcrnla
T:?t of Mantal Maturity.“ iuis test was a Lninifitared Ly

tha ach¢al systwm in the fourth and sixth gtndea. The

A M..- L A.

————v—.— WWW W Vfiv—v

aichard‘Videbeck. 2:; “13" Pi 351'

m

5%? apggufiix 3.

   

 

  

3 9453‘}. Jagpimdlx L7.
‘ bi 111.5145: 3. fiIQOKB‘VGBt, ”'"L.Q L. "3.1:” “Friar .F affix-1119‘;
Efioa-rfiffif 13., “Ha n; $.39”? , “1351,; r'. 4F: "‘03.: 0?. flgaliazuti at} 5-...- «Mira-fetal!

Frojact o. uéb Lazt Lansing, Offica of Eeaearch and {3511*
caiziona, Michigan state Univmrgity, 1962), Appenéix C.

29
average of a aubjact'u twa acores thexefora constituted big
“intvlliqanca' rating for the put30fie5 a! this invaatiggtion.
fffia teat manual regatta a tfiat-zttfiat carrelation of .%0
Ear tue taat. A tetaat analyfile of tha teat canéucteé hy

thm 3m:aax c: Efiucgtiznal vewgzrth. ”achizfin Ftata Univmraity,

HO

{fivsalaa a carrelatiofl coat iciant of .65. Thia latte:
afialysls, however, was for teats tux: waza afiainisterad twv
ygarm apart, 1.®., the fourth anfl 313th~gra3e scorgg mentionefi
1213:3336 .

i:h;*gfififigg, For tha purpOSQfi a: th1$ analyxiy,

 

nchiavament was uperationalizad :3 the avarage of a subject's
granol gIAdea for the eighth grade. ?he qrafiwg in tha fan:
basic eubjacta—asngliah. mathamatics, sciance, and social
stagiea-waze uaaa in afilculating thla avaragn. a reliability
tax: was parfarmad, using seventh-gradm SEA (Stada Point
Average). The dbtainad tellabtlitiea (amplnying thn mayts'
mathafi) warm .91 for males and .93 fat temaleg, aging thirty~
five :unfiomly salocted cases {or oach sex.5

.1 Cent. 9! 5321...“?! n

   

term was operationalizad an a cubjects reaponsea to the
eight-item scale on salt-cancapt o: hility, asked with a
change of téfarencfi to the specific euhjacts mantionad ahava,

9‘3

3.0., English, mathamatics, social studies. and science.

{ea hppanfiix &.

This term in thm

 

safie as “aaltaconcept at ability.‘ The two terms are usefl
ifitarchangaably and denota a subject's temponnam to tha
eightuitam, fixeé-alternmtivu mcaia dasiqnaa ta maaaura ins
subjficha‘ neifincnncapts of ability in acadfimic enaaavora,
which was deacribea abcva.

v31 carettmtigng of gigjifirafituglfifixg. is:

-.

 

. I
tfia purpoaex of the prevwnt analyaia, this term wea

afieraticnaiizafi as a nufij3ct'a raaponsaz ta 3 series of
,7

xerrwiweu

quaatians dasignai to elicit the aubjacts'

      

engaatations aad evaluationa of himself, a3 hflld by certain

significant athara (1.9.. paranta. favatita teacfifirs. anfl

hfiufi frignfia), with zagardn to the agma qunatiana afikefi ta y/E
elicit the subjects’ ae1r~avaluaticna.3 Pratasts revaaleé
that tha garmons umfid haza a3 significant othfira are most
trwquantly mantionaa by atufieatm as baiag im30rtant in thgir

liVfifig

7 It :3 important to ncta that tag thaoretiC&l frama
bf réfnrsnau gm?laymd in thin inv¢ati$auigfi “Wthaimfie thfi
infiiviéuai in him awn uituationo “0‘ 3“ ”that pfirgmnfl. git“-
atimflao Hhat the infiiVIdflal flaws not Ban, think. faal. or
cgngiflflz ta exist, then, 6093 net Ccnfitituta a Part at his
situatififis no: influwnee hig bwhav1¢t in tht situation. The
Frimar? cancarn of thin invastigfitiofi 1“ tharafore With what
tha a uficnt Eerc:i 2: ta ha :39 33?“?39t10“3 ”“fi/°r &"&lufitiana
held of him by Significant ethfirat not ‘33 919“1£‘“5“t °thezfl'
afitmai immfiaa af tha wtuflvhtfi’ abilittflfl. 5% Lhfi latter fiflflfifit
influenca the stufiantx' behavior until thay are perceivafi by
' 3-333 atud-fintfi.

8 £63 k??anéiz C’

31
D. Method at Taating Bypothasaa
Eaveral conventional statistical techniques was»
used to cast the hypotheaes eat forth in this invastigaticn.
fiypotheuea I and III were tested through the man of cor-

ralationnl analysis. Two ordarsg

of tha product meant (or
Feraonian) coefficient of correlation ware employea in thaea
tests: the zero ord¢r (r) and the tits: order partial
(212.3). And the product mement, multiyle correlation (31.23)
wan amployaa.

Tho zeta order corralahion coafficient (x). it
statistically significant, indicatas the existence. 3&QIQQ.
nné élrectian.ot association batwaen tug vatiublaa. Beta
0269: intercorrelation: were obtained for all of the variu
ables includad in the analysis. The coefficients were com-
puted on the Michigan State University high apead digital
camputet, KEBTIC, with a KS-M program.10

In order to Gatormina whether the degrees of care
relation ware statistically significant from zero, tha "t“
tegt of significanca was applied to each corralation 00¢

11

efficient. In such can. whore the magnitude of t was

found to be statistically liqniticant, the cattelation of the

 

  

”“ A “T “ *— WWJ‘“ __
9 Hubert H. aiaiocx. .32.. s; , as (New
Ygxkn Hcflrawmfiill 390% Company, Inc.. . pp. ~334.
10

Thou: intercortolationl for both the Regroes ans
Caucasians are pracanted in Appendix D.

11 The formula employed tar tha 't' teat of signifi-
caace was that qivan by‘fidwards. t . r———'-—

J E ”Ix-2

l - z

 
 
 

 
 

See All¢n L. Bauerds. fitatiati a gaetgafigflro‘ *
501?.C-fl (sew York: flo t. Rinehart and kinaton. l

 

32

given variableu were takan a3 support for the hypothesis pro-
posed.

in testing the null hypothesis (1 a O) the .05 leval
at probability was employed as the critation for accaptance
c: rajtction.

the fixst créar partial correlation coefficient
(r12.3). it statistically significant, indicates the cegrea
of relationnhip'bctweon two variables when the affact of a
third veriablo has been controlled» The partial carrelatian
catfiicinnta worn computed making use of the formula given
in Blnlock'e‘figglal_§§§§1ggigggz

The third correlatianal technique naed~in the tests
at hypotheaen I and III, tho multiple correlation ‘Ri.23’0
is a measure at how much of the total variation in a deepencl-
eat variable caa‘ba explainod‘by two infiepanéent.vatiablea

acting together. The formula used in the computation or

 

this statistic in ulna given by mellow}3
7w i2 V “ ‘

In this fonmult tha taro order correlation coo
exticiants axe employed to compute tha partial coefiticiantaa

I" r I’

12 'D 13( 23)
‘12.)“

1 ‘ ’13 ‘ ' ’23

mm filalock, 220'39‘" p. 334.
13 This formula makes use of both the 56:9 ordat ané
partial coefficiantst
$2 2 2 - 2
R1.23 ' ‘12 * '13.; ‘1 ‘12’*

fat Zbid,, p. 349.

33

aignificance tests were performed to determine
whéthar tho dagreen of correlation were signi£16$nt for both
tha partial and multiple correlation coefficienta. Analytis-
of-variance testa for the significance of partial and
multipla correlatian coefficients Hart amployad.1‘

The tent of fiypoth¢818 II required the ate a: a
ttatiatic auitabla to: determining whather the obaerved
éifferencea in mean ratings on several scalar within tha
infiiviéual uamylas wart significant. In othar words, it
was necessary ta determine whether the ohservad éitrertncaa
warm at nuch magnitudas that they could not be attributes
to chance tartar: or sampling variation. rho teat atatietic
emylcyed for thir purpose in dareribtd by Allenls. it in
an adaptaticn or the corrolatcd “t“ teat, whidh makes usa a:

the 'stuéentized ranqa.'

AA.“ Ar...— A . . _ A 7 .__ .

1‘ fiiacuaaians a: that: techniques and tha necessary
formulas are pratunted in‘gggfil. pp. 354 it.

15 Thu baaic formult unad in the computation of this
statistic is: Aé;
agents? malnu-r)

 

where n rrpreaents the éegreer of irradnm. ma regrerentm the
peeled variances, and r reprasantt the obtained coefficiant

at correlation for each of the ten combinationn at manna coma
rarefi. wring the .05 probability level, tha critiral value
was any value equal to or qrwatar than tha obtained '6‘. tea
flattence Allen.. “Individual Conparirans,’ (mimoouraphefi Paper,
Hfifit tanning. 1961): and Terrence Allan,‘floublo Clamsificatian:
Eixefl Effects Model.‘ (Mimaographed, tart Lansing. 1961).

£30 5.

34
E. Hethod a! Comparative Analysis

The camparativo phase at this investigatian consisted
of . ayatamatic comparison of the results obtained tram the
two aamgles invastiqatod. Two statistical techniques were
employed in thin computativa analyail. teats were performad
to determine whether the obtained carrelation coefficients
(2) within thc two lamplen differed significantly betwenn
the lamplti. 1.0.. whather the two papulation: were idantical
(’1 n 92): and ditterencenotumonnn test: were pextormea to
camyarn tha mean scores to: tn. two samples on the variablts
investigatad.

The utatiatical technique amylayafl in the comparison
a: the coefficients at coxrllation was that suggested by

alalccx for testing the differenco between two cartelatians.16

 

4*W. AW...‘ I i i... “‘31 w‘* “W

I“ In thin taut, whidh is banad on twu independent
aamplas. tha r'a are transtarmed into 3's. and a formula to:
the standard error of the difterenco between the two 3': is
used. which is nnalogous to that for the etanéard arror o:
the fliftetunco between manna. and*Vhidh in as follows:

21‘22' {#QVJ-r.
The value or 2.. “'éf=::%"4l"’

1 2

was looked up in the normal tabla. In testing the null
hypotheaea that the populatian corrolaticnn veto identical
(i.e., p a pa ). The .05 probability level was used as the
crittrioa for2 acceptanco‘or rejaction. see Blalock. 92,555,
$3.0. 309*311. r

 

.(Z d . 1c!) atgaqqodgq ttnn on: harass: or pa£0t§aa sea
{aaat fiztttqnqozd 50' aq¢ 'sunam stauns uaamqaq safazaggxg
aq: 30 10:19 pxapqus on; :0 caewIzaa ua 9? “x - X 936%fi

 

:3 «‘x D
-—w,w A <WT. . a
not :99: ova; so; utnmxo; 9Q& at
my 7‘1“ ‘“ ““_V T“ AW!“ ‘ ‘“ ‘ 5* “““

 

’paauetoxd 01¢ uoxaufitqaanut crux

3° BfiuTPUIJ an: A1 zaadvqa u: “ntufittu! catataudwna an:

at pawn 6313:1303: In: 30 uotwdtzauap t (y) 'fittvur; 'pua

laacaqzodfiu cut :03: 0: push senbtuqaoa twatautzous on: go

uonzitnsap u (a) lczmzawt name”: on: :o nonduasap I

put azdaauoa 30 uuozuru139p tnuotanxado oq: JO notauzuacaxd

on: (a) lucraofixauoaur on: u: paan cezdmwa an: no any:

~dyxacap a (I) 30 punctuuoa a; 'Ktzoxxg 'uotzustzaaaut aqa

u: pafiotdma uaznpoaoxd tuotfiOtcpaqatulqu :0 notzuauasazd
aqz uoaq avg xaqdeqa liq: 3o uxoauco fixtmtzd bu;

33:51:23) :0 mums '43

“993393 993 (-6/ a 'n” "o°g) UUVOW‘HOIQitndod uaanqaq

oauaxo;;xp on 30 «1:9q10d&q {Inn on; 'anItta fiq paqaafi

L!
.693 care can pafictawa qua: uuawm-30noauaxaggrp aq;

fit

96

*sfiuypuxg 49199391 eqq 30.xxummnn 3311a u unzn
paprtsuoa at aaadnua an; OApnas sq: u: panafiznsanu1 aatfiuaa
an: sq; meg; pmutwqqo 95u19u1; sq: 30 stsfitwuu onxqfizwdao:
aq: :0 anatauoa Jaadaua sin: 30 axed 'taux; §ua 'puaaaa
an; '1: xaqdeqa u: yaauuayc casaquodfiq atztaada oazqq aqz
:0 mafia: teatacyzaan aqq auzasuoa notaaauasaxd utqq 30 axed
next; on; °9aauasaxd ext uoxzwfitaaoaut ITQQ zo sfiurguxz aux
avq; laudaq: :ueaazd an: at It a: 'sxmfitnuw antgezeduca 30
poqzam sq; 3o noxqfitzasay I put lazuawnzzsut unseasaz sq: go
uczwdtzaeap c paw pasn rune: 30 uuoxaxuxgap twueraazado aqz
Iuorznstzsonut aqq u: paan catdmna on: 30 notadtzaaap Jatzq a
uofln man once; cu: clan; 'uorznbrasonut oq: u: poem saznyaa
.on flametwoqzw mu qua nuanced: at“? H! madam:
'uexzefitaaanut sq; :a’naaaqqod£q_atgtaade oazuu an: pun nay;
ataofloxd [wataaxoaqa zorem aqa 30 aumwaquqa twmxo; aux qzxn
aaantauoa can gandeqa an; 'atztaada taom.Opum pun pazuauztag
zaqzzn; awn eauoaazax 30 outs; teatqozoaqa scrum sq; pue
pazuesazd can oznzazaatt gunnery: 30.531591 ontuaotao I oxen;
'aauaaogaz zo smuz; trataoioaqa an: so notzwzoqvto nu uodn
xturgw peanbo; 11 xaqdnqo OnJOHowwzz twa$zexoaqz qu pun
matqozd nu: :0 uorzanpoxqut tun “31A tttzumxxd pauzaauaa
seat: Jozdqu *qzzoy zen uaaq,oauq notzwbtxaaaut uxqz 30

Afioxogoqzem pun staaqz zorum oqa azaqdnqa 00015936 u:

zezdeqa :tqg 30 anuazuoa 0v

3 0!; If! £2! 3 EDI-7V T? 82!!

AI fiB‘LiVED

qatn uaaa 'thz 6&oqa urge: «q; '(t 6Iq3$ 30 3 M03) pattozq
-uoa $1 3° 330330 3%: amount“ PU? with 'Vda PU? 3-3 uaenqaq
saueraxggaca uoxzetaxzoo no 3390 on: sq: go sapnatusum antqctaz
egg 0: wart t ataaqzodxn so :93: thsnxa egg °pattozz
-uoa a: :0 13%;:9 am: anouztn v09 qzzn I fltqwa at vazuaaaxd
as: uo1anxaxzoa 30 annexaxggaoa aueaataz an; 'go;¢;;
«asanut oatdwna on; :0 quoq Jo; pattoxauoo (3:) eauaextzazut
30 qaagze an; ant» pouxazqo exam (Vdfl) afiwxaaa autod ogaxfi
09715 qqqfira pun (3-5) 831035 :daauoa-;tws tixouab uaanzaq ($.1t1)
uatzctazzoa twraxwd go czuoxatzzaoa ‘ctaxtwuw twuotzgzmz
.103 :0 tan oqs qfinoxq; 96:39: sau.ctneqzod£q qu;
'9911013U09
at asuafitttaaut nag» zuamsaatqoa zxoqq a:

pazutsz 01w cauapnza apazfioquqfita ua1soanza

   

paw axfien JO fizxttqa JO anfiaauoa-ztaa eq; 0 a sfiqsuafig
'paqzzaaep Inn: Azrunwmoo an: “I 910¢q33
qfitq zozunr Jun; 30 none max; snuopnqa pe§ntaut satdaaa
on; 'butazan taxman poztturxnsnput-ueqzn 'uxazaaaptw 9 ur
aquagnna apfizfi-qqqfixo unrsvanag gay: pun oxfiag pt: istgau;
stun 3o 1:: zazdqu u: poqxzosap satdmna on: on: wax;
pauxuqqo Iqop no paauq st-nOqu,szsaz csouz JO noxququaasxd
oxxzua an; 'aasaqnodfiq atztasds Iozqz )O'fi103 sun at peanaa
sen '3uawanaxqpu tooqas at 1013.; buxzxutt Kttwuotzsun;

: at ofiamyuztaa awn: *xpnzs lxqz go mtsaqg ugvm cu;

fiawwqaodfin an: 10 sasa; 'a

£2

\._-a ‘
‘r k

.at .4 away: 156 0‘75 #53 '19A0x0oze I

MM “A
.7..— Vv—v fi——.— .——-__

’C“€€.Id put $.31: '2 awn: 3931 on: 103 SO'D'd.

'3Lfitafibflfi3 Jo;
‘fir 'wzfi Enema C

EZ'Y’figg. van gaozfiafi :0; .L89’ azaa 3-3 pun
x} squatsrggaao uoxqvtazxoo etdzqtnu fin;

.. ----—-'-- ‘gwm-‘r ‘fi’fimw.¢--.nnsw .0 ..A 9"." o..— . . ,4

1".

         

‘3‘. -. ‘.4-oo-I-&- -._,- -. ‘wn'H-ru ...~ .-.~.. '41—..-- ‘..»-I‘ -.n - —

 

 

0161' ‘59:. was at9t' uEOE‘ DI - adaauoaugtag
'5LV' *?0 ' 61 «019' .9zv‘ 3-9 - Véfi qua
0’0?’ 850’ 3'9 otas' ESt‘ 01 - was was
ZBVICfl
8.3893 ’11:; vottcxauoa tart-g vIt-a
chug oxfiafi otqntzca untsean93¥_ozfimm
P'IIOJQUOD “IQVTJVA OH

 

 

 
   

a? 3 011 a x 3 ““"paaetozzaa sotqnxznn

v .- c.4- --— - -MA‘ ‘0 n. ‘nutb- -- fin».

gflzuafiflzfi opvJS-uqqfiza uutseanea pun 0:593 103 latttfia
3° 3dfl3u00~3198 fiufi ‘aauafitttazut paxnawem 'afiaxaau aura!
09:16 apazfi-qquxa uaaaqaq 00139191109 39 93u3131;39o3 0‘ 31 w;

'vaa :0 Iozatvazd auapuadsput uw at 2.3

qeq; exaaqzodfiq an: on axoddna anzxn; upuat pun .‘paxnzuam

t

:59: a: aqa unq: otqpxxta auazaxztp u oatnb aaznsaam

0t§33 aéaauaa-ztaa oqa. awn: 'Jaaoaooza fiqbpoqxodaz Lutpu$3

sq: aaqezoqpxzoa (t otqnx no c max) patxoaquoa at was noun

:1 pun 3-3 moaazan-auutsaoneg so; 59;. puw sauafiog 1o; 151’
o~uotnvtaxzca JO equarntzzaoo lane: Ktqaxaptauoa an;

‘fluutaaanuo am; am;

5‘9“ pun £9035E§ aqa 10; ger’-~aueat;1ufixa pun oataxsod 032

'aauagnqs uursaanea pun 0159a uzoq :0; 'vso pew 3-3 uaanzaq

uotzetaxzoa :0 annexaxggaoo on; 'potxozauoo 01 go 339339 aqz

85

'LLILL erg Luc QWIEQEJ 4c; ILQuLLnns untaeanag

wvczfi-qzuauas 819a 5L n39 gag: so azaarqno aqL .‘93tLuL; Luv

sLth qzoq :03 Ldaauoo-3taa Lana” 1Lq51q £13q5;13. p¢4g ILA
sea 31 aaqq $031059: TTET "Ia'aa 'zonoxooz E

'55; 'd "ETS ‘35 'ysotata Lag
’thtozauoa s! :auao sq: qum setqawzfia zuLLULJLLux an; 330 LLo
u; L5uvLa paztbxwtuwas I fiq pLanLoxi at at BIJGA 1b”‘hfiuup

sq; u: L5uwus upunlnoq usuatLu: LinILn QQLL t

A“ —_ “-4- .__._A A
M ‘-

w ‘w— v“ V. _._ -. ~- , "w

6:: panuaaazd emu; catnsax fig; '3 Brie; u: paquafiazfl Lia
zaafqnc qpva u: saptzfi can :Luguou— ILL 31319653 uLanqLL (1)
a;ue::7;;aca 333:: can: Luz 959 3335131; :33: a: 'L 'Lauztzqs
earn asaa 'epuafizzxaqur éuzttcaguoa 'aaetqnz gave ut BLLL35
9:9 ququ33 {coupe u: fiqttxqfi 30 afiacuoooztaa 37313353
uaLnQLq (£.th) nosultazzao :0 annexatgzeoa an;
c'azaafqna uutaunnag
paw oxbag Lu: qqoq Enema :uamaaaxqau 30 10% nsL axd 9 EB 51
qun :Lqfixq paaufixaw a: quauaauthL new: nanotput anqq 83L?
aqL ‘Luutfiuanaa qu Enema a—g 10; [99' pun 3r :0; 39:. 959
Wfifixfiafi flu: snow: 3-5 :0; Qty. Lu? 3: "a; ago :0 zgzqfiyLn
Laaq Lana ponzcdax euoxqatazxéa etdrqtnm aqL 'paqefignsanuL
suoxavtnfiod qqoq no; azqvtxaa 3L4: fiusze anoqqrm pLuLLTLLL
uoguexxaa 3o aunowe an: atqroL nan; Laum 919 LTLLLILA L-L qu
Eutrpu Aq (:uwwanoxqau) atqntxua auLLuLde an: at paurfitfixa
noxqetzfin go auncmu Luz a: Laewaxaut aeLqL “suqrmwanng 1c;
639 a: ray. was; Luv LaezfiLm JG; LIB” a: gig. Lea; LLLLLLL
an: LoxaLthzca sun mean :LLJILLO m: at '(atqrtxen :uLqu J:L
eq; 2333;: sotqwtxfia :uapuadapu: on; :0 quq Buzzaat) L:
qagn 3-3 LL! 5: azuatat; zLoo nongtexzc: Ltdtztnm $42 Lara
panfim fl (@1101:qu ans; 30 :DLJJL a 1.: mm) L: :3 {we I?!

uaannaq uotzthzzoo :0 Ezfiatatfiieaa Intazwd Lu: EQQN

6E

40

quite comparable to those prasentec above (Table 1) and 19nd
further substantiation to tha hypothesis that aelf-concapt
15 an 1ndegandent predictor cf claaaroom achigvament.

Ail of thw $tat19t1ca1 test results prsaanted have
thug éemonetrated suppcrt fat Eypotheaiu 1. that the nelfu
fiQnCEptfi of ability at flagro and Caucasian stufients ata gig-
nificantly relatad to that: achiavemant when intelllgance 13
centrallad. The tenability of thin hypothes1s suggests that
self-concept of ability £1 an infiapendent predictor of
clesfirbaa achievement Among the aubjacts investigateé. baa,
inz. .ed, among similar aubjactn situated in similar locial

conéitions.

   

_.Q Q . Cmeificlentu o! corralatton batwacn genfiral aalf-
Cfifififiyt of ability in snacific aubject: with total and aubjact
graéa point averages £0: aggro and Caucasian eighth-grafle

. atufiafits

WWW

   

 

 

 

variables Correlated c. N t an Coefft: 1+:t3
I; Controllc:3 I; JOt Conttclled
negro Caucaaian aggro naucafiian
5-114 finléfil 33114 Lcléfiz
general 3.: and Total 6&5 .ADG' .2?5* .426* .610.
aath, 3-3 anfi Math. Grada .403* .472. .433‘ .5370
ifliliflh 5¢€_and English Grafla .837 .336“ .137 .4:9'
53:. at. $~C and Soc. £t.flrada .449. .331* .443~ .43E'
£ana S‘s ‘nd 5C133C§ Gt‘d. .434. .335: .‘55. .‘35.

 

0? 4;.05 for the test that r and :12 3 u o.

41

 

The aeliaconcepta oz ability in upecific
school aubjacta of negro anfi Caucasian
atuflcnta vary from Qua subject ta thm nthat
and Elana their gmaeral asliwoncapta 03
ability.

?ha purpoma of this hypothtala ant to dutermina
mnwthflr studenta' aalf-concepta of ability la claantaam
achievement can be flifterentiated into apaclfic subject aglto
ouncegta. at is imyortant to note that no airfarancaa were
pnalulataé for Lhm two groupu as wholeay the diffettnces
ware postulatad to exist 19: indiviéualm. fienetheleaa,
thare war» significant fiiffarencea between the mean genwral
so; fiesta anj all of tha mtau speclfiic 5.; acarma to: tne
xfigzofia. For the Caucasians, only 038 oi tha maan Spacifilc
x»: scares (mathematica} éitfared signifiaantly from tha mean
ginaxal an; acute. ihosa differencaa. along with tho maan
$§A far tha four school aubjficta and for all aubjacta. aza
praaentafl in Table 3. the obaervabla fiiffiatancaa that exist
httmwma ths two pepulationa are filacueuefi further elaawhera

in this analysis.4

The crucial test of tha hypatheaia that etufisnts
saltwconcEpta of ability in specific school subjects vary
{ram One subject to the other and {ram thair ganarnl self-

COnC@§t3 or ability is whether their saltocancepts at ability

7 M , _ , gm. ,W 4A .H—h— m
A. A

w W ,V W. fiw 7.7... w ——~. “

‘ This auction at the chapter is concerned apeciflc~
ally with the tests cf ththygothealay tha two samples art
€9m§atmfi in tha following gection.

42

TfifiLa (3) Mean selroconcept of ability acorea and maan graée
paint avatages in all tubjacts and for each or taut uchool
ambjacts to: magro anfl Cau¢a&ian aighth~gra£a atufienta (aha
highfir the malt-coacept score the morn positive tha self-
concfiptp range possible 3-40)

  .
Maan Eeltofioncegt Mean Grade Paint Avaxaga

 

 

 

negro ‘“€aucaaiafl" gagro w Céficaaiddw'
Eilld Ru1432 Build fial432
All anthem 55.85; “21.75%A w ibfw ' 2.23: WM
‘Et5€*%t123 24.86. 27.12“ 1.53* 2919
angliah. 28.57* 23.11 1.83 2.64
fiaéial Stufiias 25.08* 23.00 1.70 2.62
gaiance 26.99* 28.12 1.a3 2.21

 

Qfiaan gentral sel£Q§on駧t at ability nbt méafi tfatifit itiz.
cane??t of ability scores.
iiigfiificantly different from the mean score far all subject...
twowtailad 't' teat for corrolated aata (911.05) amplaying
'Etudentized Range.“
in the Epecifi: subjacta vary functionally'both tram thair
gantral salt-concepts of ability uni tram ona specitic anhject
ta the othnr. Thorefiara. tha hypothaait is twcialfi: it
hypatheflizes a inactional ditfaranca bgtwaen qanarnl sac,
sag fifiCh npecific subject Sue and it hypothaaizem functional
fiiffazancea among tha specific oubjact atliuconcegta. In
urge: to test the hypotnasin that nmdenta' Efilf-COHC$pt3 oi
afiility in ayncific auhjnmtn art fanaticnally fiittinct from
their gfineral selfuconcepta (the first postulate at uygcthesin
2), thg caefficienta of corralatian between specific enli-
concmpta and achievement in tho specizia subjects wera com-
pared with the coefficients at correlation betwaen general

welfnconcept and achLEVEment in the epecific subjects. If

43
tn» hypothasil is tenable, the toafticiante of correlatian
batween apatitic fine and apacltic aubjact achievement ahauld
be greater in magnitude than thoge betwaan general 5-: an&
agécitzc subject achievement. Ma le 4 repczta t? :9 tel ¢t1wo
coaiiicientn of correlatian. It in indicatea that, in ion:
out or the eight cases, the obtaiuea coefiicients at cur¢
rclatlon between specific aelf-concapt and achievement in
the apcciflc aubjecte are greater in magnituflu. a cwtver,
tons at the four coetflcients is significantly qrtataz, an
a». rminad by the method iniicated. The rmmaining four €3-
fifficlenta of . rrtlation Obtainad hatwven epficific 9&1;
cauccpt and epecific tuhject GChi@V%mfiht ara aflallar in
magnitufia than those between q&nera1 s-c ana ngtciilc flab-
jcct achievement, two of the latter cnfififlcientn being 3i?“
niiicantly greater in magnituaa, uuiuq the twoutailad ”t"

as: for tha co: related data and P .05.

a

:ne third row’of u;;;L 4 it a pramentation cfi flag
any. no-I multiple coefficienta of corralation for bath

grncral SnC and apcclfzc S-C with xyecific aubject aflhtt"fi-

want. tia owner‘efi that all of the mv’t‘hla coeflicinntt
a? carr&-ation (‘ctt ng bath inflnpanctnt Vd;1dbl£a“fi’Qflxal

;-J and Spacific 5-6 uffent the £nytnfient vazL JJQ-ary.cific
fi'ti'i’j-QCt. 363316wa turddccmufit 1:: ngat-Amlutlj gm. Qatar V4122;-
ation in the finpenfieat variahla th¢a 00 1h: 29:0 orflar 93‘
xiiicienta Ln tOH'Oflfi. batwaen general 3-: and spaclzic

axbjsct achiavmmfint.

44

   

'1'“ I ‘2' ‘53?
J: I; 4

  

- 4 . coafticients of correlation ammnq ganeral sali-
concapt of ability, saltwconcept of ability in anCific sub.
jeata anda eighthuqrade gradea in four fian$Cfi5 (at hegro and
Caucasian students

aggro: willé Caucaaians H-léfii

..”i2*m:zzz=======3======z=====zzzzmzammazzzzwzaz=zzzzzzzza
(ati*5199

 

 

iazzalitei Ccaificitnts c: Catralfltian
_._ A 4- ‘ .4.— ..A .‘*A
aath ungiifih inc. t. “Ci%fifia
a fl 3 C fl C H C
~-..;-z--;-n-ax 52.-.: 235:1: .33. “73.123 .213: .3.:;‘§3*".<§335“:assfr $272-

ané‘aradg

fiyfifliftt SOC .430*# .337'? .137 .469“ .443'fi .438‘ .4>n ” .435.
ant 3(333

“”rgral £.: .534* .963' .543* .531* .611“ .557“ 733* 0577'
fifiwciflifi inc.
énfi grais

 

.‘at signi ficantiy; t4.u. than Jcazfiicie.t or correiatioa
ivLfiflufi aneral 3-8 and grit $-tu0~tflilfld “t“ taet for cord
ielatfid fiata (?L .05).

fhaugh the evifienca preaantad thus in: is not cano
elusiva. it has demnnnttated significant ttenda to indicate
that tha praposed hygcthnaia is tanabla, that atnfiants salt-
C0fl€$gt3 a: ability in apacific aubjtcts are tunctionally
éistinct from t}.ait ganaxal self-cancepta. This in particular‘
1f tram for the magro éata. wheta three out of rout of the
catiiiciante of carrelation hetwman sgaciiic ‘~» and a tuitic
eubjact achisvement were gratter in magnitufla than thage ban
twaan general 3-6 and specific subject achievament. though .....
n3t tiguificantly so (?‘é..35).

.hm taat vi tha hypathesig that stuasnta' self-

etncepta in specific subjects vary functicnally tram ona

45

subject to the other (the aecnnd postulate o: fiypotheats 2)
wag exacutad through the nae at an adaptaticn of tha cor-
xalated 't' teat, watch waxes use of tha “atuaantimfid range.'5
All possible combinationa of tha coefficients of correlation
bwtwaan ep&c1£1c aal£«ooncept$ and gtaflea in tha fan:
ngectiic subjects watt campatad. I: tha hypothasia that
@tufienta' saltoconcqpts 1n spacific subjects vary function-
ally from on. cabjact to the other in tenable. the coeffi-
cianta of correlation batwoan specific soc and specific 33%»
jflct achievament shoulé vary aiqniftcantly from one nubjact
to the ather. These teat tasnltn arc praauntcd in Table 5.

Tho ttendn repartad in Table 5 offer tentative
supper: to: the hypothesis. The tabla reports that ditfer~
ences existad betuean the ralatlv. magnitudao of the 00¢
afflcients at cotrnlation in each at the twelve possible
combinations. In five of those caaaa tha ditterencam were
a1gn1£1cant, no determined by the correlated 't' test,
emplay1ng tha 'studeatizod range.‘

while the results at tho abavc tests arm by no means
canclustvo. they d9 unggoae tbs tenablllty o! the second
spacific hypathesia at this invoottgatxon. that studanta'
self-concwpta of ability in apecitxc school subjects vary
from Ono aubjact to the other and from tha1r general ael£*

concapta oz ability.

A.— _4_ AM. 4-.

,v W W“.— m w w

5 9.# A, Chap. 1?. p. 29.

46

”I. ‘1 fl'.‘
3 -' ';

     

* . filttereuces between all posgible camblnatiens cf
the caefaiclents of correlation between spaclflc 9-2 and
spaciftc aubjact achlovemmnt to: floqro anfl Caucasian eighth-
qrada studanta

“II I , ,,, f
fiegroea H a 114

c121: S-C *

 

 

“tit1fic S—C flpc::lfc Sac Specific flufl

 

and Jrada 1n: :nd Graae in: d andr £363 in: and Grafie in: d
;ath.<_:430' English .107 .323a fiath. .587. 3nqllah.4$30 .127
Math. .430. aoc.fit. .443' .013 Math. .5Q70 sac.3t..453* .lfil$
fiath. .430' Selene. .456. .026 Math. .537' Science.436' .151;
fingliah.lo7 soc.5t. .443' .336§ English.460° soc.st..4fififi .954
Engllah.lo7 science .456* .349? fingllah.460* aclance.436° .024
80c.8t..443* Science .456. .013 Eoc.$t..406' Science.436* .030

    

      

, .O' tor est t'at r a
mfiiffermnca clgnitlcunz (P AL.05)-correlated 't' taut. employing

'rtudenttaad rangu.

Furthar support for the hypothesia was obtained by
caflparinq the apeclfic aeltoconcept variable with tha general
aelf~cancept variable as a predictor of gmneral achievament
(fatal era). Again, 11 the two 61:53am at sue arg £unctlmn~
ally distinct. general sue sbculd prove to be a batter
preélctor at ganeral achievament than specific s-c. Table 5
reports the coaftlclants of currelatlon between general
a¢h1¢vement (Total GPA) anfi general E~C as comgated to those
hgtween specific 53...: and total (:1:

T bla 6 indicates several significant alffer¢ncea
1n t}:3 talatlve preClctlve powatz of tho two nelf-conc63t3.
hmnng the fieqroen cnly the coefflclant a: carrelatlon between

Eaglleh 5-6 and total CPA waa nlgniflcantly lean than that

47

  
 

,A ..~ . i 4-" ‘f‘

. Coefficiants a! carrelation betwean general a-c
aafi qmnaxal achievament (G?A) and specific suhjact $~C and
gafiaral achievement for Bagro and Caucafiian eighth-grade
etudants

 

   

Variablea Corralated caafttciants of Corrwlatien

. ___ M A m ___ ‘ 4—. A

v—— w w W Wm— W—

 

fiagro Causasian
Hflll‘ filléfiz
.igneral Sa1£~Concept X Total G?AV/ .426. .610.
fiathematics EalfaConcapt x Total 82% .412“ .532'
‘§~£ng113h Saltumonccpt x Tota1 era // .1153 .431*%
aocial fitudies $a1£~Concept x Tatal
$?3 .413* .373’fi
$c1¢nco 501£~Concapt x Total GPA .364’ .399*&

    

5? £_.05 for the test that t'. .

fifiignificantly less than the coefficlant of carralation
between gameral fine and GPAuutwoutctled ’t‘ tea: to: cnro
related data.

hatmten general fiac and tatal 99a. Among the Cauca51&ns all
-3 tha spacxtic s~c with tctal CPA Coafticients of car-

telation, except that {or mathematica, uera significantly
less than the gangral Soc with total GFfi coefficiant. I:
should be abaerved that. :0: bath Raqroam and Caucafiiana.

all of the coetficiantc of correlaticn between apaclftc $21!-
cancept and total Grn'uaro 02 less magnitude, though not
aign1£1cant1y so. than tha coefficients a: carrelation batwamm

ganeral 50c find tetal GPA. That dbaarvad trend, which is
tantamount to tha several tranda observeé 1n abcvn tables,

ta furthfir indicative of the tenabllity of Hypathesim 2. it

is thus concluded that the second spacifiic hypothesis a: this

43
inventigatlon (that atuaantc' self-concapta o: ability in
specific achool subjects vary from one aubject to the Othfit

nnfi from their ganaral self-concwpta of ability) in tennhle.

Thu expectationa at eigniflcant others aa
perceived by aggro and Caucaaian eighth-
grafio Etufients aro positively cnrrelated
with the stufienta' malt-concepts as
learners and with their classroam achieveo
manta.

 

this itnal hypothesis tapu the central care of the

6 whl ch

symbolic intgtacticnlet theory of human b9hfiVlOt.
proviflen tho theoratical basis to: this investigatien. This
{rang at z¢fer$ncn poaita an explanation of human behavtat
that la baaed upon how things seem to the indivlfiunl actor;
1t focuaas upon the more conscioua aspects of human behaviar
an! attempts to relate them to the infilvidual's participa-
tion in group 11in. what gaverna human behavicr tram this
p$t5pect1ve. than. in tho infiividual'a unique parceptlana

of hlmealf. as he torma such selt~parceptiona on the baala
Of what he pexcaivea othern t9 perccivm in him. fypcthenle
3 thus astords a tea: at one or tha crucial poetulatea of
this theory. In mora praciaa terms. it hypothesizeu that
the student‘s own concapt of his ability in significantly
mad positively correlated with the imagea that he perceives

atqnlficant other paxaano ta bola at him}, and, turthar.

WA .—

w —v- W ———.—- v— v—wv—v— — V—w-v v—w'

6 m, (3109.. 1‘. pp. 20*219

1 S‘lf‘rfl. {00:110‘. 7. p. 27.

49
the hypothoato postulates that what the atufient perceives
as his significant others. parcentions of him 13 aignifiicant-
1y ané positively carrelatefl with his {the 5tu£ent‘s) 61355‘
Imam achievament (bmhavior).

The hypothssiu was toated through the use of cogu
rfilatlonal analyaia. ?ho Fearaonxgn r between the ginghat':
gamma]. aelE-«conceptz c: ability and the 1mm}er they pet-
caivad significant other persons to hold at that: nh111t1es
was obtaineé to teat the fitat postulate of fiypothesis 3.
Tha test of tha second postulate of tha hypothesis was exe-
cut$d 1n n atmilar manner: coefficients of corralatlon be»
twaan the atuaants' aighth-grafia gtaao point averagen «no
the iflfifififi th;t tho? perceivgd tha fiigntflcant other petaena
ta fiald at their abilities wmxe obtained. Tabla 7 regatta
the relevant coatticiantu at correlation to: the test of
tha {Stat poatulatc ot’fiyrothesla 3, that the expectaticns
at aigniticant others as perceived by megro and Caucasian
eighth-grafie ntufients are poaittvaly correlated with tha

fituflantfl' calf~c¢ncepta an learnerg.

   

fiiru? 7 . Coefficients of carralatiou batveen the stufieata‘
yfiflfira self-concepta of ability and the imagaa tha stucents
parcelva signizicant peraono to bola at their ab111t1ea to:
Eegro and Caucasian eighthmgrade atufientn

pun-u...

:ffiffints' Pafieapttogp at. M

     

 

 

coegififiients of Corte

 

“Jarfto fl caucaa 1-6231.
fig}14 , fiali23
Farentfi' Images .696* .2120
‘Zvafihmra' {wages .443' .533.
feers' Images .439' .235.

 

 

W W

;:25:’3“£3£4;:afliest that z I 0.

AA -_

‘9

50

It is observed in the table that all 02 tha obtainad
anafificianta of correlatian warn both paaitiva anfi aignifin
can: far tbs fiegro and the Caucaaian atudmnta. 0n tha baaia
of thmsa fiata, than, the first pofitulate at Hymotheais a.
93 etatad afieve, in aCC?pt@d as tenable. Table 8 fitfifififitS
thfi caefficients o: corraiation betwean the stufientn' grmfi%
geinh avaragea anfl the images they parceivw aignificant par-
gana to hold of their abilitiaa. Thgra. tco. it isdhgervefl
that all of the abtained coatficianta a: corrfiiation wars
hath significant and pceitive for bath the fiegro and tam
Caueasian stuécnta. The teats for both pogtulatea amt
{firth in'fiypothasio 3 have thufi éamonatratmd that the eutira
hypotheaia is tenabia. Tho tenability of this hypothaaia
fiuggefita thaa tha napactations of significant othera ag per«
ceived by the Negro and the Caucasian students iniiuance
tha atuéenta' aeifaconcepta an learners and thus influance

thfl actual ciagarocm learning ei thasa atuflantao

     
 
 

   
 

.7, - ~ 'r ~90
o . ‘

  

m a Coafficiantfi of correlation bfitwean the stufiants'
fia p0 nt avaraqes and tha images tha atudenta percfiiva
.mignificant paracna to hold of their abilitifis for fiagra anfi
Caucasian eighthugradera.

 
 

.v 9‘ v”:
“.2 - '1

  

 

«n.3- u

  

my.“ . ‘3 vb

   

 

 

gtuaanta Parcantiang_ofs CflfiffiCtfintfiwpf qureigtion
"r , *" “' “‘ ”"' angfc: Caucaaiam
H.114 ¢§a14az
$atcnta' Imagefi :339* Y .145.w_ww
fracheza' Inagan .199. .323'
‘f‘flfirfii. .Effififgfifl .231. .198.

W
R? 4..os for the teat that r I 0.

51
C. Summary of Tests of Hypothafies

The sole purpoae of tha preceding part of this chapter
wan to present tho atatiatical tests of the thrao apecific
hypothenaa advanced to test the major theoretical propoaition
fifit forth in this inveatlgation. Thoaa tastn, as prementad
agave. hava inalcated empirical aupport for that prepoaitian.
It was found that all three at the hypotheaes prepoaad were
tenahle. The natuta of the statisticm employed to test eke
hypothases has been indicated elsewhere in this thcais.8
fiyyothesiu l was proposed to determine whether there is a
relationship between calf-concapt and achievamant when
measured intelligence is controllafl. Hygothaniu 2 was Fran
pmfiafi to determine whether self-concept o: ability may be
fiiffierentiated into specific subject aalf-ooncepta. Anfi
‘Hyrothesia 3 was prepoaed to test the prcposltion that t9-
lationahips exist between the eXpectationn of aigniticant
others as perceived by students and tha studenta' a¢lf~pfitfi
captiona. aha between the otudanta' claaaroom achievement
anfi the expectationa that thsy perceive significant others
to hold far them. The evidence prasanted in augport of
Hypotheses l and 3. anfi for both the Eegro and Caucasian
etuficnta, gave strong support for the hygotheees. The evi~
fianca presented in support of yypothasia 2, while not quita

«a cancluaive, infllcatad that the hypotheais is tenable.

g. a“

B :‘Y‘tllfzfl. Chap. 111. PP. 27‘”.

52
It is tharefora concludad that the major prepoaltlan
a§vancefl 1n thxa invasttgntion, that seltutmaqe is a func-
tionally limiting factor in school achievamant. 1a tenable.
Tha mubatantiva concluaions to ba drawn tram the foregoing

analyses are preaantefi 1n the final Chaptflt of thig thefiia.

a. Comparative Analysis

this praaantation is twofold: (1) the negro and
fiancaataa mean scores for all of tha relevant variablas inn
veatigatad in this stuéy are compared systematically thxmuga
the age of the student’s "e“ test: and (2) tho negro and
fiaacaatan zero ordaz coefficients of cartelation enployaé
in tha teats at tha hypothaaaa ara compared through the nag
of Fisher's “a“ transformation test. fihe latte: tent to
waployad to compare thg relativa dagrean oz :alationnhig
hetwaen tha relevant variablas within tha fiagra anfl Caucafiian
samples. Tha two cancarns or this prementatian than tacug

uyon tha test at the null hygothemii that the two papulatxona

5&fo argual.

 

0% the obtained means, ntnnéatd deviations, and tateatz be-
th?n tha negro and Caucasian mtan scores for the majat
variablaa of thia study. The table uhowa that except £5:
thrae variables, the Caucasian mean Qantas wera all nignifia
cantly greata: than the fiegro mean mcoraa. Tha three scales

cu which tha Kegro stuflentu 5corad higher, as inflicatad in

53

fa%19 9. are (1) the Epactfic Self-Congept 1n Fmgliah scale:
(2 The Total Importance 0: Grades ficale: and (3) ?ha ?ata1
image a: Favorite Teacher ficala.9

Farhagn tha moat notewarthy finéing raportaa 1n
Tabla 9 is the fact that the 393:9 students obtained a fi1§¢
nificantly highfit mean score on thm Total InyOttanca of
Gradas Seals than the Caucasian stufianta. That finding is
1m£icativa of a significantly highar leval 0f mativatien
to aehieve 1n achoal work among the aggro atu&antn. ?ha
'infiinq at a aighiticantly higher mean scorn on the Total
impartanca of Gradaa scale 19 turthar significant bacaufia

1t carroboratan one reportad fiy Graen.
invegtigation. found that aggro atudenta achievaa a signi»
ficantly higha: mean achievement motivational «core than
Caucasian ntufients.

Further Observatioa of Table 9. howaver, raveals that
tha fiaqto utufianta' mean ucores for all of tha actual achieve-
ment variablaa (Total GPA.end grafies in mathematics, Englizh.

aocial studiea and aslence) were signit1¢ant1y Iowa: than

tha Caucasian ucoras. The apparent paraflox inherent in tha

W A L 4 A V A L
W.— w w v.— w

9 Tha three acales arc fauna in Appenéicaa A. a,
anfi C, taspecttvely.

lcfiabert L. Grfien' ~got1vat1ona1 Prgéiction of
Amhiwvemant for xagro High School Stuifintac' (Pnpfi‘ V‘eaentEd
fit the 1963 American Educational Eaaeareh Aaaociation meeting.

'/

Caucasian
Mean Mean
“ “.m'll4 S.D.__Nal482 #_S.D. d.f. t
gocial Class 22.08 1.634 37.98 2.175 1594 760.76*
Total IQ 95.23 .134 107.02 .142 1594 295.49*
Total 8-0 26.86 .416 27.73 .476 1594 60.00*
Total Importance
of Grades 22.57% .371 22.45 .333 1594 3.66.
Math. s-c 24.86 .614 27.12 .654 1594 10.76.
English s-C 28.57# .575 28.11 .583 1594 8.11*
Soc.St. sac 26.09 .562 28.00 .767 1594 25.07*
1 Science s—c 26.99 .678 29.12 .745 1594 31.44*
Total Perceived
‘ Image of Parents 17.87 .364 19.67 .975 1123 42.45*
Total Perceived
Image of Best
Friend 17.63 .378 18.47 .841 1388 20.19*
‘1 Total Perceived
Image of Favorite
Teacher 18.81# .448 18.119 .512 1594 14.1?*
Math. Grade 1.53 .906 2.10 1.120 1594 51.26*
English Grade 1.82 .899 2.26 1.027 1594 $01.00*
Soc. 8t. Grade 1.70 .979 2.20 1.085 1594 447.70%
.8cience Grade 1.93 ..991 2.27 1.119 1594 399.10*
Total GPA 1.72 .793 2.23 .974! 1594 $49.60*

54

TQELE ‘9}. Means, standard deviations, and t-tests between
scores for all variables for the Negro and Caucasian eighth-
grade students.

 

Negro

Variables

 

  

4' ,

/‘ y. . Lffil')

‘Difference is significant
ééIhe Negro Mean is greater.

9%

<fi 16m."‘

   

above data is very definitely a problem that requires further

investigation.

problem might well be)

achievement motivation and actual achievement?

A fruitful researdh question to approach that

What is the relationship between

55

:31 ffgtggpig garatsrmgng‘g thfi; V791??? 5'5""."5 hfi'2:9f”ififl ‘09.?!“

-—‘v" www-

Yerhnps the more revealing comynrieon between

 

the two annplea investigated is to be found in the analyaia
oi the relative degrees of relationshig between the relevant
variahlea employed in the tents of the hypotheeea. Iatla
19 reports the comparative coefficients of correlation for
the crucial variables for the Segre and the Caucasian etu~
dente. Inspection of that tabla infiioatea that for most oi
tan varianlaa correlated the caucasian coefficients of cor-
relation were significantly greater than thoea for the
vegroen. Only four or the negro coefficients of correlation
were significantly greater than thoae for the Caucasianeu~
(1) General 5—; and Science e-c, (2) retenta‘ Images and
General 54:: (3) Feern' Images and General nus: and (4)
Iarenta' Imagea and Total GPA. Further inegection of the
table reveals that thorn were a total of twelve combinations
of correlated variables {or which there were no eignificant
diffierencen between the two eampleey and that there were
seventeen combinations of correlated variablen for which
the Caucasian etudentn obtained eignificantly greater can
efficients of correlation. The observed differences in the
relative siren of the coefficienta of correlation for tne
tan tangles indicate a greater degree of relationship between
the relevant variables within the population having the
nigniflcantly greater Coefficient.

Perhaps the most significant finding reported in

finale 10 is that regarding the comgarativa predictive powoze

56

(£“L661. Camnarativa coafflci6nts o: corr616tlon and an
66666 16: the 66:9 anfl Caucasian atu«6nt6*

 

 

165:0 Caucasian
39114 5&1432
666166166 ccrrclataa :1 ‘2 g
a-sth {312 - 3:3 ‘ .156 .567 «.9022
666-665 - S-fl ‘”4”?”' .626 .619 -2.$7*
61566666“ - 3:6" ” .303 .464 4-1.9)
jfiatr. 6-C ~ Math. firada .439 .52 ~2.1$f
't «gush a»: -- 6631162: 43:66:: .107 .463 «4.0-?!
666. st. 3-3 - £66. at. 8:666 .443 .465 .45
5ci6nce fine a Ecienca Gradn .456 .435 .25
@666ra1 fi-C a fiath. 5-6 .694 .663 .12
6666:61 6-: . Englieh Sac .666 .632 ~2.1?5
”666361 6a: - Sac. St. 3~C .502 .531 .73
6666:61 6~C - ficienca 6.: .720“ .363 2.666
6666:61 6~C “'nath. Grade .381 .549 o2.$l£
r6u6r61 5-: - English Grade .312 .513 «2.566
fifififitfil muC - 306. St. 6:666 .353 .563 ~2.56:
aenaral 6-c - flrience 5:636 .452 .562 al.63
£6 ~ math Grade .170 .$31 5-6.266
u Lngiixh 6:669 .151 .535 ~4.496
‘3‘; «- 75969. (it. Gracia .050 .435 “-363”
I6 - firiance 6:666 .175 .624 ~€.G3é
math Sac - Tatal $63 .412 .532 61.55
Infiliah 6-6 - Tfital $66 .115 .431 ~3.46;
\363. at, 66C ~ ?otal 566 .413 .373 .41
6616666 E-C a Total 663 .364 .369 ~ .41
Eat6nt6' Images a 6666:61 6~C ~66 .6960* .212 6.32
I6a6h6r6‘ Imflgafi araanernl sac .443 .533 al.26
F66r6' Imflfiflfi n G6ner61 Sufi .6366“ .236 2.33
Fut6ntfi' Imagea - Total 666 .3f9** .163 2.63:
r6aaher6' £66666 o'Tatal 666 .139 .325 ~l.47
366:6' 366666 a Total 3r- .231 .193 .34
37 6' u .C):: IitiLfiI’valua - S‘I.56:F -

*9 iré cottfi giant 0: carr616tion in significantly gr6at6r
.*¥i§£wx6nc6 i6 algnificant 641.05.

57
cf 13 as a predictor of achievement. A.very low and non-
significant coefficianc of .153 betwean G$$ and :3 18 inéid
cateé fat the aggro atuaenta, while a significant caafficiant
ei .5é7 betwean thoaa variablea 13 tfipfittEd for tha Caucaatan
xtuéanta. In other worda, IQ accounted far aggraximately 32
per can: of the variation in tna achievement variahla aflmmg
tha Caucaaian Etudantsy whereas, it Only acaoanted for
agwroximataly 2 per cant of the variation in that variable
gamma the ngro otufienta. It has baan observad alasfihfira 13
thia 3Eport that the comparative hata weighta (in tha multigle
ecrralatien among 6&3. a. and S-C) for :9 aa a prafiictur a:
gchoal achiavamqnt were .032 for fiagtoas and .Efiz for

gaucaaianaoll

Thua, tha data infiicata that 1% 15 wfiightefl
highfiz as a prefiictor of achievement among chm Caucaaian etu-
fififltfi than among tha megto atuflanta.

Th3 comparative coaiticignta tar eelfucgncapt anfi
C$a, as infilcated 1n Tabla 10, were .425 for the negro fitu¢
fianta and .613 for tha Caucasian atudanta. again it 13
cbflervad that tha coefticient 0%tainad among the Caucaazan
ntaflanta was Gignlticantly greater than that obtained amsng
tha Eegzo fituaents. Translating thc two obtaineé eoafficifiwts
6f corrélatiau into percentagea. :e is obaervad that tha par.
cantmgaa of variaticn explained in tho achiavemant variablea

A

by the anlf-cancapt variablan warn In anfi 37 par cant far

the twgra ani tha Caucaaian stuéants, respectively. The

M. -__ A ._.-.

v— r— W ,_ ‘__..~r— w v .v V“- wfi " ,— wv—w w

u 9%.}? £3 , p. 35.

53
633 31336 b3ta weights (in the multipla correlation Among
3:”.:, 1.2. and 3-3) to: 361f~COflcept were .316 to: the negro
3t3€3ntn and .432 for the Caucahlan 3tujent3.

The maparatlvm 3033313133 3 03 carr3lation betwean
th3 3tud3nts' gangral self-canzapta 33 3311133 333 the
333333 th3 atuécnta pezcalva algnlfiicant p3ruano to hmlfi of
£331: abilities lnfilcatea 3333 further 3133131333: diffcw
313:": A8 bat 33:311 the two fiannplca. It abould 33$ recalled tf'mt
L33 33:33 3153131333: petscns employ33 in this r3333rch were
$333333, teach3r3. and peera. Inspection of 33313 10 2333313
3133131333: 31333233333 3333333 the two 333p133 31 th :33 3::
t0 333 relative 1331333333 :33 a: th33 3 categcrlcs of slg~
31313333 9323033 hava upon the 33333333‘ 33lfw133333. :33
33313 shows that the 03331330 coafilcl3nta of correlation
3333333 the 3tuflants‘ self-133333 333 the lm3g33 they 93:.
caived th3lt parenta to hold of thalr ability 33:9 .696 333
.212 for tha Dagro and C3u333133 atuaenta. :33p3ctlvely.
:33 xéported coefficients cf carralatioa 31:53:33 3133131«
33331? 3333 each other.

Che 333331613333 of ccrrelatlon between 93333333'
;****31 -C's 338 the 133333 the fituflnnts percelvad their
iavvrita t33cher3 to held of their abilities were .448 for
tha Negroea aad .533 for the Caucaalans. Th3 diff3rancea
3333 33m tb 933 303$; lclants 333 333~z lgnlficant (P .05).
233 comparativa eo3fficlenta bmtw33n th3 33333333' gnncr3l
£2 l‘acnnr p33 and tha 1m3 333 thny parcalved their p33r3 to

3313 cf thaix abllltles also fllffet3d aignificantly betwrcn

59
tha two flamglafif tha rapartad coafificiantn were .439 for
the Vagroaa and .2.9 far tha Caucaaiawe.

A finfil comparative finéing af cansiflexahle ifigmrtanca
hag to 69 with the correlatimn h¢twman tha ntuficnta' gxaéa
yfiint av¢rag23 afifl the imagea that thvy pvrC%1va mignifirfifit
rhtaanm to held of their abilitiaa. 3¢hle 13 omly infirataa
a :igmificnnt difference batwean the obtained cawfficiemta
bntwamn tha Etudflnta grada point averagaa an& the image? that
t?wy percaivc thair parents to held 0: their abilitieaa .231

f9: Tegrmea and .193 fox Caucasiana.

5. Eummflry of Chaptfifi

The yuryogm at this Chflptfit was to raport tha expiri-
ta! tenta cf tha hypotheaes tévanced 1n thia :tudy, fififi tn
yréavnt a éawctiptiVE compariaon of thg fifiylrical fiat:
attainna from the twn aamplee invefitlgmtad. T?¢ Etutistical
tart” ct thc hypothaaga hava inéicatad tha tfinability at all
th: a a! tha hyyotheaes praposfiflg and, thua, indicatfld mmyirib
cal nupport :or the majcr thasia nfivanced at the catfish at
tfiis invaatifiation.

$he campermtive analysis wag twufold. It invelved
fhg ayatamatic cnmpariaon of tha hwgro wnfi Cnucasiaa mean
swmraa tor all of the relevant variableg invehtigatad 1n
rfiifi fitufiy. Th9 Rtufient'n “t' tfiflt waa ,fiylmyefl 1n the
GmfifflrifiCfl of tha means. Tha weannfi {Gang of the camparativa

fizzlysia waa tha comparifion 02 the sagra and Caucaaian zeta

60

Qtfifi! coefficients of carrelatton employed in the teats as
tha hyyothenea. fishet‘a “z“ txanaformatinn taat was
arfilmyrfl in tha lattat campartaan. ?hfi twg cancérna of fihc
caMgmtativa analyfiia. than, ware hmth focuaed upan {53 heat
a? th@ null hypotbefiia of no fiiffierence hetwaen tha two
gafiglfia stadiefi. The congatativo analymia ravaalnd n&%%ra1
8*fit13ttcally significant and notuworthy atffarencaa between
tar-:3 tum gowflatimsg.

$ha subatant1ve conclusions arawn tram tha fozégniuq
amaiygen ara presented in the next and final chaptar at this

thfi$ifig

cm T3322 v

WEEVWRY 5813 C031} C‘LEES If??? 3

A. summary a: Major Raaearch Pinéinqa

if

   
 

The genatal purpaan
of the foregoing analysis was to anvestigate tha ralatxon~
fibi? hmtwaen classroam lgaxning and selfwimage among fiegro
anfl CJQCQE1Bn eighthngxade atufienta, in tha urbanized ana
infiustrializea Hiawest. A particular cantata a: the 1nvefit-
1gaticn was tha differential interaction batwaen aalf—conafiyt
ané classroom achievemant among the fiesta and Caucasian
mtufiemtm. it was anticipatea that ethnic fiiffarences woulfi
hava a pronouncea effect upon tha relationahip betwnan the
twa variablea. Tha apecific purpoaa of thin investigattan.
than, was t5 iavestigatc nyetamattcally the ralationahig
betwaen ae1£¥concept and classroom adhtaveman: among both
yegrc and Caurarian stufiants in the acclal conditions memtioneé
aaove, anfl to compara ayatamatically tha two sets at finéinga
thus obtained.

The total sample for this invcattgatlon canslatefl
of practically all eighth.graée atudants in one midfile-eizeé,
urbanoinfiuflttialized aoclal setting in the fiidweat. ?ha

I"

henzm anfi Caucasian aamplen ccnmtstea o: 114 and 14%4 etu-
éantm, teapectively. Tha two aamplea inclufied atufimnts from
cash of {our Junior high schoole 1n the cammunity thus deg-

C‘ r 3, E5143 $23..

61

?he majer thasta

 

or greposxtion advanced in this tnvegtigatian, which wag
tagged in tha form a! thraa spacific hypothewea, wum éraun
from thm symbolic interactiontst theory of hwman‘hahnvior.
?t atatad that sglf-concept 13 a functionally limiting fact-
ar 1n achcol achlavement. ?ha atatistica employed in the
tfimts of the hypotheses have been deacribaa in Chapter III
bf this praaentatlon. All three of the hygotheaaa were
fcqnfi to be tanable; among both tha flagto and Caucasian
etufianta investigatad.

Hypothaaia 1 waa prepcsefi to determine whether.thera
£3 a ralationahip butwaan aslfuconcept and achievgment wfian
mfiacutaa intalltganca is controlled. Eypothasis 2 wag gran
pocefl to detarmina uhathex oal£¢concept of ability in achaol
mark may b9 diffierantiated inta npaciftc subject aalfu
concepta. And flypothesia 3 wan propoaed to test the prapogiu
tion that ralatlonshipa e313: batwean the images at studénta
hela by significant other: as perceived.hy the mtudants anfi
tha students’ welfaperceptione. and betwaan the stuflents'
clasaroam achievement and.tha images that the ntufienta’
perceive aigniflcant other persons to hold of thair nbilitiea.

The eviaance pragented in support at Kypothnsea 1
anfl 3. and to: both the flagro and Caucasian atuéentu. gave
strmng gupport £or'tha fiypotheaea. Th3 avidance preaentwé
1a supyort at fiypothawls 2,*wh119 not quita an canclunive.
infiicatafi that tha hypothaaiu 18 tenable. It wag therefiore
canclufiad that the major thesis afivanced in this inveatigahian

13 tenable.

 

majar findings of tha camparative awpfict of thie inVflBtigau

tian may be Iammartzed aa follows:

1.

2.

#-

Except for three at the variables invefitigated,
the mean scores obtained by the Caucasian stu-
dantu were all significantly greater than tha
mean acmres obtained by the aggro etufients. The
thraa scales on which the Negro etudenta scared
higher were: (1) the fialfaConcept 1n Engllfih
scale: (2) tht ?ctal Importance 0: Grades Scale:
and (3) the Total Image of Farents Scale. ($29
Tabla 9).

Th@ data indicated a alqnxticantly higher level
0: motivation ta achieva tn school wark ammnq
the wegro stuéentn than amang the Caucasian
atuflents.

Thn negro studenta‘ mean scora to: all of tam
actual achiavemant variables (Total G?A and
graaaa 1n mathamatica, Englxnh, noctal atuaies,
anfl melance) warm siqntf1cnntly town: than the
Caucasian studenta‘ scores.

Self-COQCEgt of ability 13 positivaly relatea
ta school achievemmnt among both tha negro and
Caucasian mtuéents. The relevant coefficienta
wara .426 for the flagroea and .610 for tha

Saucnaianfi.

5o

6.

7.

64
Saltueoncupt of ability in poaltivaly relatea to
school clasarooa aahlevamant when intelliqanca
in controlled among both tha fiagto and Caucaglan
mtuaentg. ?ha ralovant coaflficienta of corralac
tion were .406 among the fiegxoaa aha .415 &mang
the Caucasians.
Salt-cancapt of ability 15 a bettmr predictet a?
classroom achievament than 3Q for bath the EECID
and saucaaian students. $ha cbtalnefl beta
waighta (in the multiple carr¢latlon among Q99,
IQ, and s-c) were .416 {Qt aelf-coneagt and .032
far 10 among the fimgroea, and .442 tax aalfo
cancept and .362 for IQ among the Caucafiianfl.
1Q 13 welghtad significantly higher as a pzac
dictcr of achievemant among thn Saucaaian atua
fiants than it in among the fiegro atuflgnts. Th3
comparative beta welghto (as hated above) were
.032 for fiegraea and .362 for Caucasiang.
Tha hypothaala that seltaconcepta a: ability in
spaciflc achocl subjects vary {tam one nubject
to tha other and from the gangral self-concwgt
at ability was aubutantlatefi among both tha
nagzc and Caucasian studenta,
The hypothasll that a etufianta' smlf~concept of
ability in pOE1t1vely and algnitlcantly relatgd
to tha imagea he parceivea e1gnit1c&nt others

to held of htm 13 tenable tar both the aggro and

13.

11.

12.

13.

65
Caucasian student. when parents. teachers. aha
peers are idantifiad as the significant Othfiffi.
Iha hypbthawi: that a atuéents' classroom
achiavement is poaitively ana signifiaantly
xalated to the images he perceivas significant
othar persona to hold or him is tenable {or
both tho negro and Caucaaian stufiantn when
parents. tmachera. and p&@18 arc iflantifiea
as tha significant athera.
The talationahip batwwan studnnts’ génatal self.
concapta of ability and the images they parcaive
their favorite teachara to hold or their abil-
itiea is significantly 9:33:32 among tha Canaan
stun otufienta than among the wogro Etudentw.
The obtained coefficients a: corrglation ware
.538 to: the Caucaaians and .443 for the negrsea.
Thm ralationship batwaan atufienta' general s¢l£~
concepts of ability and the imagaa they pQIC£ive
thait parflnta to hold of thwir abilities is
significantly greatar among the amgra atufienca
than among the Caucagian students. The obtainad
carrelation coefficients were .696 to: the
xeqroes and .212 for the Caucasians.
The relationshiga between stufiantw' general self-
concepts at ability and the imaqeu they parceiva
their paers tthold of thfilt nbilitiea is signi-

ficantly greatar among the fiwgro atuaqnts than

14.

66
amnng tha Caucaaian atufients. Th3 talavamt
cuafficicnta of corralation ware .439 for tha
negroas and .235 £0: tha Caucasians.
Eng relationahip between mtufients‘ grtée point
averagaa aafl'tha imagfia thay pfirC31Vfi their
parfintn to held of their abilitiem in signifi-
cantly graater amang tha Fegro atufiant thxn
among tha Caucasian atuflenta. aha obtainea cc-
tfficienta ct warrelation wtra .359 for the

Kearnea and .145 for the Caucasians.

9. Thaoretical Implicaticna cf the

Reaaarch Finding:

The foregaing investigation has proviéea futthar

carrsboration to: tha {allowing notions inherent in the lit-

ermtuta on tha “sal£~aoacept“ and/pr tha symbolic intetw

actionist thasry of human behavior:

1.

3.

3.

Th5 aelt~cchEpt (1.0.. that orgafiizatian of
qualitiea that the inéiVLfiual attributes to
himsalt) emergas from aacial intataction and
guides and fiirecta the behavior of interacting
infiividuals.

?he caliaconcapt is pretty much an arganization
of 'dimcrwto aelf~imagas,' which tha infiivldual
usen‘hy tha principle-o: fitlyulufl generalization.
Variations in selfcconcepts are aubject to

maasurfiment by empiricgl techniques.

67
4. Gxaups and individualn eigniflcant or important
to another individual can influancw that infiivi-
flunl'a self-concept and, hfinca iniluenca his

pezflermance and behavior.

C. substantive Implicatfiafia a: the
Comparativa Findings

Tha abovn comparative findings lanve no doubt thflt H
theta are certain differences betuaen tha two Gentlea in-
ventiqatafi and posit gaveral far-reaching implications for
American educators. particularly at the Junior high achacl
lfivel. Perhaps tha most noteworthy flinging a: the abcve
antlytis in that regarding the difftrantial preéictiva powgr
of I; as a predictor at school achievemtnt amonq the State
mug Caucasian atuéenta. it has been ahcwn that IQ is a
ralatively poor predictor of school achievement among nagrc
ttuflants. The ccmpnxntiva percantaqes cf variatiun in tha
achieveflent variabla exrlainad by 1% were 32 per cent amcng
the fiaucasian students anfi 2 per cant among the aggro etu-
fientm. Tha implicaticno which this finding held: for afiug
catort. particularly achool counselors, in of grava aignifi-
cause, gimme intelligence test scores are cammanly employwé
at the majmr critaria in ucraaning atufiahta for cartain
tyyes of learning. It intelligenca test scores ara utiliasfi
ineiscriminattly in céucational countelling progrtma, par-
ticularly where gagra students are invalu¢fi, grtat harm

cawla result bath the etudants involvmd anfi to tht sociaty

63

a3 a whola. The mead to: Each inaiviéual to achieve 33 high
a level 0: educational attainmant a3 ha can hag been atreawefi
a3 a major mead in contQMporary American anciaty, Tharafora,
a major coacern or American aociety'must necaaaarily‘ba tha
gagger ifientification and direction of exyloitable talent
whéraver it exista. filnca the above resulta hava clearly
inflicatafi the fallacy inherent in tha curr&fit usas of in.
talllgfinca teats among a gartlcular nagmant or fimfirican
fia$iety, {hare seems to be a very deiinita neefl for ran
evaluatisn in this gran.

Th5 inconsiatent findinqa a: :alatively high lfivalz
cf achievemant motivation for achool work and relatively
low laveln or actual achievemmnt in achool work among the
flwgro atufiantn presents anather prleem which marita can-
aifi%ration. Thnae findings are certainly cantrary ta whxt
ena might have expected ta find. I: as his been asnumed,
achiavament motivatien in tha essential prarequiaita to
&Ctu&1 achievement. implicit in tha rinfiing of relatively
high levels at achiavamant mativatian is the possibility GE
taiain§ tha relative lavala of actual school achiavament
afiong Segre atufimnts. it aeama therafota that tha relativaly
fiigfi achiavemflnt mativ&tion of fiegro mtufients migfit be a
,msaiblo avenua thuough which their actual levela of acfii&v&~
mgat can be ralgad, it it were exyloitofi and prcpfirly
chafineled.

A final aignificant finding a: tug cmmpatative analyaim

hag to do with the diffarential ralaa of paraata an zafaranca

69
parsaam in tha livas of the two stuflant pepulationa. fha
ahave data (mew iahle lo) indicate that parants play a sign
nificantly granter r019 in eaterminiag both how a stufiant
parcaivaa hia ability to ac schocl weak and.how well tha
gtuéant actually doas among tha fiwgro atufients. Thia {influ
ing baa particular importsnca for any affart at altfirin;
sali-ccncepta at ability among Hegra etufienta. If as the
abava fiinfiinga hava indicatad, aelfmaoncegt of ability ia a
fianctienally limiting factor in achocl achievement, it sagas
that a iruitful approach to the problem of taiaing the
relativgly low levala of fiChDDI achifivement among fiayro
atufianta wculd be to altar the manifwst image” that fiegra
parantm anhibit at thwir chilflrens' afiilitiaa. fiuch an
aggrn¢ch. it seama, would be magt likely to profiuza a change
in the; EEa-zsgro rstufientzs' :wlfup.:arceptiona, and thus a change
in their levals at claaaraam achiavwmant. ;”
D. Prablems at gurther Research
fha foregoing inveatigatimn baa ravealed sufficiant

auypmrt fer tha mafia: ptOpOfilthfi which it wan daaignafi ta

tafit: Sel£~concwpt is a functicnally limiting factor in

icfimal achisvement. Given that that propoaition i3 tenable,
xevatal quaations may ha navanced tat futura related resenrehc
1. ?0 what extent is tha self-cancvpt (fit sali-
caacwyt or awility) a rigid persanality triit?
2. To what thant in the Balfwccncept (a: salt»

concapt of fibility) anhjact to chaagw?

7o
3. are changea in tha aalt-concagt (or self-cancEpt
cf ahility) reflacted 1n Chaflgfifl 1n behaviat
(at learning)?

A: inflicated elaewhare in thin preaantatlon, ra3earch
which focugea upon the abova queattona is Currently in proo
Cfififl by the bureau of Efiucatianal Rasaarcfi, fitchigan grate
fnlverEXty.1 Furthar r¢s$arch pertinent to the abova quas~
ticns should be initiatad.

gaveral other queaticna which promises a Eignif£cant
increaaa in tha accumulated knowladga regarélng the “391:“
ales hava to do with thc nature of tha aelt~eoncept par egg
:0 whnz extent 1: the aelfuouncept a eituational phenbflflfien?
3: what axtant in the zelfuconcePt flintxtbuted among the many
rolws that man pl&y? BO-auCh specific self-concepts cor-
relate highly among on» anothar? no thay cartelatn highly
with tha 'genaxal“ gait-Goncspt? ihough related quaatlons
hava been tappeé 1n the entrant inveattgation, there 13 an
urgent nead for further inveatigation In that araa. There
ara undoubtedly endless question: that could be paeed ragarfin
ing the natura or the salt-concept. Reaaarch in that arsa
vaulfi an daubt clarify and augment the findings raported 1n
t%e faraqcinq presentation and, 1nd£ed, tha existing Rnawu

lefige with regarfia to the functioning at tha aelfrconcept.

a. summary at Chapter

This chapta: has concludad tha prasent preoentatien.

w Y t 51w”. pp. 513:.

W

A _‘.‘ A.“ “M

MW.— _.,_.._T_ fiw —.., .,_ w .1. _ wv— vv—

71
& mammary'of the research finétnga was precefiad by a
summary of the major thesis a&vancafi 1n the invegtiqation.
$arta of the chaptar ware devoted to statemfintn and 613a
cuaaiona of both the theoretical anfl practical 1m§11C£tlons
at tha findings. Tha chapter waa cloaed with the statament

ané filacuflgion oi sevaral queationa far furthar research.

~‘ ’I‘ 91 '5" fix" a a Orv 6
.V , . a v
a 1;. JL ‘4 '21")! "\ . ‘4 1" f Y

$131.19“. Tflrrf'finCfl. .tflfiiV‘ffijal Comgnrigcng'l :39: L123 33153:]
Lwnartmant 0f PSYChQIOTV. Yiehigan Ltate L-niver313y.
19L1. (Htmeoqraphed.)

5131933. Cubert 3., Jr. C3313? 5thtt3t‘r: 33w work: ficfirawu
£111 flock Company, $HC.. 13:3.

     

’133mr. Verbert. “iaycholo31c31 I3port of th3 "33am ”:33: '

{3333 :~ 3 1333 at 3‘3 ”33ftr33‘1. 3. ‘543r1f 335

.. «1L:on.43&itor$ (M3§ rszxiwgarpet. 1953), pp.
145‘ 534-292.

I.
1
.

   
 
 

 

Aadain, Aaymond franklin. ‘rha Afilationshlp b3tween I3watuz3
fialzngoncept and Certain Lflucatianul uisabilltxem,“
anuhliahea.fioctor‘3 theata. “ichigan State 531335-
31ty,£ast L3331ng, Michigan, 1957.

Tr3mxcvvr. ullbu: n. "A 303131 frych0103lca1 Cones-3133 M
laesrocm Laarnincj ‘ 7.17: .14-17,
Feb rdary. 1953.

 

33. 3‘ ' elationship of fielfM 3 r333 to A 313vn33rt in
éuniot Iiiqh fichool Lubjectn.'fl1mewo rapknd a3311c3-
tion, tranamitted to the Gwenieatoner of :flncation,
~45; *0 use of iiit‘smatian, Empathy-33:12; of sfgalth‘

”*cation, aha welfara, fiovamber 13, 1?;

 

_. fiesearab 1n pracess. inst Lanaing, Antwan 3f
waucational F3mearch, Htchigan 333:3 university.

 

. A 3- “fin Valinaky, and Chailar Thom33. ”The Relation-
buip of $3;21£01m6to Achievemmnt in Junior high

35:59013tucfiants.‘3,ast Lansing. Michigan state
23n1ver31ty. 3 reau of A ucational Research, 1332.
(”incogragnonj.

_3 . Ann Iatataon. and Ahailer Th03na. ;;;f- “333333

. "’Y H51IHTV‘tLP‘r" -h{=4nvsm.nnt. fit-4,91 r;- :Engt C31.
va”L‘I-&tiv5fiw 3 cugalud #:5th't'Lt -U. 63. Wit La‘fif‘in'jg
Cffice of $z3earch rublicationa, michigan Stata
:niv3ratty, 1932.

 

    

 

:3‘33t 31. Jamac i. T. and 53133 L. Leymour. “Inveatigati
into tha 3. -1£~£oncept,' - ‘5
13¢433~93. 1950.

 

3135“! K. 5. 535 ”o H. Clark. *Tha gavclapmsnt of Con-
fiCiOUfinefifl Of $91: and the Hfifirvnncg of F4C1fl1
‘35“t1f1555103 1n “@310 firenchaol 33:16:33.“ 333:3“?
57 :aa $33313333£L,13:531~93, 1932. '”"“””‘“

 

72

73
Clarke. Eilllam anard. “Tho Relatianahtp betwean College
academic Performan e and fixpectancles.‘ Unpublished
Doctor's thesis, Michigan Etatm Untvarsity, Ema:
Lansing. E1ch1gan.1960.
Calamnn. Jamaa. Eantaty. Glencoe: Thu Free
Prflfifl. 19 I

 

Effloflba, Arthur E. 'Intel11gence from the Farceptua1 Point
Of Vléwo' ‘EWE 92¢ifi; FEYELTLEWYD

 

 
 

and monald Snygg. Indivlflwa rehaviar. Emvisefi
Eyition. flew York. ~xa~—-i gawk company. 1959.

 
 
  

Cfinant, James E.
Mcsrav~fii1

Caeléy,
~£oopat2m1th, Etanley. “A Method for Determining Typas of
Eeliwaateem.‘ . ~ w ~
1anz, 59.37.94, 1933.

fiattre11, L. 5., Jr. “some “aqlectad Ptablamo in Soc1a1$

 

  
  

psychology,“
1959
~“Eewey, John. Vnman “at re . -' ..:' an York: Emfifitn

Library. v" .

““1": $511335. Allan L. Mfitl‘fis‘fifi :53: £115: ”Eh-72v eta
Enienéas. EEw York: to t, Einahart afifi'ninston, 1961.

 

ray, Killian F. “Lfoztalatas at Carta1n Eubjective Attttufl
towards EJel and chera.“ 7
- . 13I‘M9' 1957‘

 
 

i Eaatinger. L. Elan. fixpactation and vaoup Etanéazda as
{actora Influancinq Iavo1 of Asyliration,' F¢2rafi

 

Emota. 4elncn H. “concEpt aha Metboa 1n the Etufiy of Inman
evalfinmant, wern121.r'oh a2, 1 f . r~ w;. :
Eherif. Lt. L1,. e;itora .or~an, CE a.u institum
of Group Lalationa. 1957), 23~53.

   
 

ford, Thomas R. “£;ocial Factors Aztecting Erna 3min Ferfnrm-
ance, ' “ha f::“‘& E 651415-22, tinter, 1957.

 

74
Geode. William J. and Paul K. flatt. ¥§t§2gg ‘3 §gc§a1
‘§g§%g;§g. Haw York. HcGrcw 8 Book Company. Inc.
9'.

Grcan. Hobart L. ‘Motlvctlonll Prcdlctlon ct Achlcvomcnt
for Hogro:filqh school Students.“ thcographod papor,
presented at thc l963 American Educational Recearch
Mocclntlcn ncctlnq. $013ch 14. 1963. ducago.

Illinois.
Haygocd. Hargarot J. and Dcnlcl o. Prlco. Etgt;§t;§r go;
5 c at HQW'YOrtI flolt. Rina art and inston.
5 c

anllcr. A. o. and c. B. fluttcruorth. 'Pccr Influcnco on
Laval! of Occupational and Educational Acpltctlun.‘

gocga; [crcgn. 39¢ 289d95. may, 1960.

. and William H. Squall. 'Fnrn Rauldcncc and Laval

of Occupational Aspiration.“ WW
£9552;931.*623407-ll. Hay. 1960.

Hatt, Paul. Wterootypor and Hlnorlty Group amulet."

222W 31-1104“: 19“-

Helpar. Halcolm %. 'Lenrnlng Theory and the SaltoConccpt,‘

 
   

septcmlar. ?T.

._.___. 'Parcntal Eucluctlcn ct Chlldron and Children'-

Salt-Evaluation.” 563190-94. l958.
fiolloucy. Rdbort Gordon. “The Educatloncl cud occupatlcnal
Aspirations ct aggro and White Sixth. Seventh. and
filqhth-firadc Mal. Stuaentc.' unpubllohcd.antcr'u
Thenlc, vnlvcrclty ct Orcgon. 1959.

fiyman. florbcrt H. "The value flyotcnn ct Dlttorcnt Clauses:
A social Psychological Ccntrlbutlon to the Analysla

   

ct Stratification.“ . Egnézz
and‘Llpnct. editors Glancoa: Tho fire. Pro... 1953),
pp. 426-42.

C’Jamcc. Willlam. cl 0 ’8 A o ”5" York: Henry

uolt and Company. 6 .

Kahl. Joseph A. “Educational and Occupational ASplrctlonc
at 'cOmmon Man. Anya,“ flatward aflucatlonal Rcvlew.
(Summer. 1953). 135-203.

75

chinch. John E. “A Formalizcd Thoory or the salt-Concept.'
(Recenrdh Jot.) 1h J4 : ‘
(January. l963) 481-86.

 
 

Kuhn. Maniford H. and Thoma: a. Jctartlnnd. “An Empirical
Investigation of self Attitudes.“ pmJ can 3

logical Review. 19:68-76. FJbruary. l

LinJeamith, Alfred J. and Aranlm L. Strauss. Sogzag
flzchggogz. Revised JJition. Jaw Varkc hanry 3&1:
ana iompany. Inc.. 1956.

Janis. a. “social Inturnction and the Bal£~Concap t. ' J :tn

2; Jpnorpg; 53g socggl zaxcholggg. 511362-76. 9. .

   

 

Miyamoto. Frank S. and Janford M. Dornbusdh. ‘A.Tost of
Interactionint Hypothaaiu o2 Jolt-Conception.“
w J i (may. 1956). 3§9.483.

 

Jewcomb. Thaodoro H. , a Jew York: The
Dryden P8015. 50.

PeeJar. £5, 3_, “Conception! of salt and.cthorr. .m a
W“ “Optimum 1960). 1532.5§555.:2L

Jieaman. Laonurd. 'Levela of Aspirntionr and social Giana.“
Ame ca 3 :1 J a v v . 183233.42. June. 1953.

 
 

“wagers. C. and a. Dymond. - f
Change. Chicago: Jniveraity o ChicaJa -resa. 954.

Foaen. Bernard C. ”Race. Ethnicity. and Achiavament.’
. ' Rev cw 24:26‘-%l. FJbruary.

  

I”Jath. E. h. “Tho Rolc ot fial£~Concept in Achievement.”

 

5&3‘30 Paulina 3. ”Level- of \inrationn in Acadamically
successful and Uncuccesnful Chilaren.' J.- ~

   
  

Jeltiz. Clairo.‘§§.ng;‘ * .‘; ’ J A J t n .
Jew York: fienry Jolt on Company. gnc.. 960.

Jauell. William J. and A. O. Jaller. “Social status and
Educational and occupational Aspiratiann,'
Amgrgcao Jociolqgica; Jevgeu. 22¢67~73. February. 1957.

 
 

Jhihucant. Tamotnu. £0: at . , .JJ ,- Englewood
Clizfis, J.J.. Erenttca-na . inc.. 961.

smith. 3enjamin F. 'thhes of Jeqro H.igh Jehool Seniors and

Jocinl C1139 Jtatuu.“ Joux'al a: ignJJtJQnmL
'. ' 258466-75. flOIil. 11J2.

 

stainoa. J. H. “Tho Ecveloyment of Children's ‘alues,’
v ‘ ' ’ - 13"”. 23197“111.

    

Jtrauso. Anselm. Tha J
Kgag. Chicago:

    

Univexeity at Lnicago 23923. J.

C7V1Jeback. Richard. “salt-concept and the Reaction of

Others.' gggfiometgz, 233351-59. December. 1960.

Jaisanan. F. a. 'Salt-Attituaoa and Performances Expectn
ationu.‘ a J J us :1 33208-19. July.
1952.

fiylia, Futh C. The 31 utoncn t
JJbzaaka Prefix, 19% .

. Lincoln: University of

   
 

appaaszx A
Ei‘F-COfiCEPT or 531LITY SCELE-aGZfiEEP-

filiLf-COZiCEF‘T OF AIEILI'IY SCfiLEn-SPECIFIC SUBJECT?

77

78

SELF-CONCEPT 0F ABILITY-GEN3RAL
(FORM A)
Michigan State University
Bureau of Educational Research

_§ircle the letter in front of thafistatement_ghich be§t_answers each

 

$13.53 tion .

1.

2.

3.

5.

 

How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with your
close friends? .

a. I am the best

b. I am above average
c. I an average

d. I am.below average
a. I am.the poorest

How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with those in
your class at school?

a. I am among the best

b. I am above average

c. I am average

d. I am below average

a. I am among the poorest

Where do you think you would rank in your class in high school?

a. among the best

b. above average

c. average

d. below average

e. among the poorest

Do you think you have the ability to complete college?

a. yes, definitely

b. yes, probably

c. not sure either way
d. probably not

a. no '

Where do you think you would rank in your class in college?

a. among the best

b. above average

c. average

d. below average

e. among the poorest

Copyright, Bureau of Ed. Research
Huchigan State University, 1962

8.

79
2.

In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university professor,
work beyond four years of college is necessary. How likely do
you think it is that you could complete such advanced work?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Forget for

a.
b.
Co
d.
80

very likely
somewhat likely
not sure either way

unlikely

most unlikely

a moment how others grade your work. In your own
opinion how good do you think your work is?

my work is
my work is
my work is
my work is
my work is

What kind of grades do

as
b.
Co
d.
e.

mostly A's
mostly B's
mostly C's
mostly D's
mostly E's

excellent

good

average

below average
much below average

you think you are capable of getting?

80

SELF-CONCEPT 0F ABILITY--SPECIFIC SUBJECTS

(FORM.B)
Michigan State University

Bureau of Educational Research
Put an "X" in the box under the heading which best answers the question.
Answer for all four subjects. (You will haVe one T'X" on each linejl

1. HOW'dO you rate your ability in the following school subjects compared
with your close friends?

 

 

I am the I am below I am I am above I am

poorest average average average the best
Mathematics r”“} gr*]_ I‘m] 1‘"! glaul
English FL r“‘1 T1 F“ I. (”L
Social Studies T*] [Mflj I"f A¥fwwl [“5]

 

Science {‘1 Fl 1*“ F”? [:1

2. How do you rate your ability in the following school subjects compared
with those in your class at school?

 

 

I am I am. I am. I am I am

among the below average above among

poorest average average the best
Mathematics f‘”I i‘"j_ f‘“: {h“i fm‘j
English 1‘"! 3“"; I '4 1‘ ' '2 a“:
Social Studies _A[-7 T-7 gm”? I.-} {*fli

 

bfi—h—‘i M p. --.- ..
l

Science { E Tm'} 4’ .’ i l

3. Where do you think you would rank in your high school graduating class
in the following subjects?

among the below average above among
poorest average average the best
Mathematics J I V"? f' ‘2 A {”2 f“?

 

EngliSh n {‘7 :‘fi '; ‘1‘: T—rq‘l
Social Studies I I f”‘1 ‘ - . .

Science I l {HF} [::l_ §m*l (“.1

Copyright, Bureau of Ed. Research
Michigan State University, 1962

81

 

 

 

2.
4. Do you think you have the ability to do college work in the following
subjects?
no probably not sure yes, yes,
not either probably definitely
way
Mathematics [ "l f”! {‘"1 {"1 TIL
llngllsh I”! F"! 9‘”! {'1 E "'1
Social Studies _f"? (”I {fin} lflfll [‘*L_
Science fddl {,.] (”WE Ajfw] [-t]

 

5. Where do you think you would rank in your college class in the following

 

 

 

subjects?
among below average above among
the average average the
poorest best
Mathematics [Hm] [m'l fflml f 7 l‘.i_
Englleh f ’1 Vi 5"1 1’] f: L
Social Studies .1WW] fflwl ffi‘l 1"”1 {Mal
Science {-1 Ema] fmwi ruml {mil

 

6. How likely do you think it is that you could complete advanced work beyond
college in the following subjects?

 

 

 

most unlikely not sure somewhat very
unlikely either likely likely
way
Mathematics J“~] (”'l IW*]_ [‘Ll [“‘1
English {*1 1""! l """ "L L ' "‘1‘ {“1
Social Studies IN“? ffifl] {*‘1 (.1 [~“1
Science I“! F". 1“”! ["7 l !

 

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.
7. Forget for a moment how others grads your work. In your own OpiniOn
how good do you think your work is in the following school subjects?
my work my work my work my work my work
is much is below is is good is
below average average excellent
svsrsgs
Mathematics 1'“! Fl g 3""! TL [‘1
mush (“"1 F1 1""1 fl [‘1
Social Studies [—1 [w] [”3 F”! 1“”!
Science {'7 [’1 m m m
8. What kind of grades do you think you are capable of getting in the following
subjects?
mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly
E's D's C's B's A's
Mathematics n 1 | I 1’ in] [‘1
llngll-h I1 1" ‘\ 1"”: (""1 fl
Social Studies 4'1 :1 £7 [‘1 f";

 

Science 1.] T“! I'M—i {.1 Fl

.sI‘

... s

I ‘ I
._ I ' s
r.
.
onto-- ‘
s-as. «--O
u“...- O

'4' ~0‘M--.‘

..., s...“ Q '- ' '

i-OI‘. ""

..-.

APfifififlIE s

1%?OHT33C3'0? QRADES £3ALE~¢GESERAL

83‘

8h

IMPORTANCE OF GRADES--GENERAL

Michigan State University //
Bureau of Educational Research

Circle the letter in front of the statement which best answers each

SEGStiono

1. How important to you are the grades you get in school?

a. very important

b. important

c. not particularly important

d. grades don't matter to me at all

2. How important is it to you to be high in your class in grades?

a. very important

b. important
c. not particularly important

d. doesn't matter to me at all

3. How do you feel if you don't do as well in school as you know
you can?

a. feel very badly

b. feel badly ~

c. don't feel particularly badly
d. doesn't bother me at all

4. How important is it to you to do better than others in school?

a. very important

b. important

c. not particularly important
d. doesn't matter to me at all

5. Which statement best describes you?

a. I like to get better grades than everyone else.

b. I like to get better grades than.almost everyone else.
c. I like to get about the same grades as everyone else.
d. I don't care about any particular grades.

6. In your schoolwork do you try to do better than others?

a. all of the time
b. most of the time
c. occasionally

d. never

85

2.

7. How important to you are good grades compared with other aspects
of school?

a. good grades are the most important thing in school
b. good grades are among the important things in school
c. some other things in school are more important

d. good grades don't matter to me at all

vl
3..“
r...
3
o.

a?

0?

AT I NE 3

.i

153%.? 33”"

1.‘
g .-

cars

as;

3.1.} III.
‘ “.s ‘fi‘

_ V
4.

a, an: CLoagsr an:

g.-
H

.‘1;~ -» ..

W ,5”!
u I

are , save at r;

‘ '5."
til.

(9

86

87

Please answer the following ouestions as you think your BARENTS would answer
them. If you are not living with your parents answer for the family with
whom you are living.

Circle the letter in front of the statement that best answeru each ouestion.

1. How do you think your PAIENTS would rate your school ability compared
with other stuwents your age?

a. among the best

b. Above average

6. Average

5. Below average

a. Among the poorest

2. Where do you think your PARENTS would say you would rank in your class
in highfschool?

3.. Among the best

b. Above average

c. Average

d. Below average

9. Among the poorest

3. Do you think that vour PABENTS would say you have the ability to complete
college?

a. Yes, definitely

b. 'Yes,. probably

c. Not sure either way
d. Probably not

a. Definitely not

n. In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university professor, work
beyond four years of college is necessary. now likely do you think
Vour PARENTS would say it is that you could complete such advanced work?

a. Very likely

b. Somewhat likely

c. not sure either way
d. Somewhat unlikely
e. Very unlikely

5. Must kind of grades do you think yorr PARENTS would say you are capable
of getting in general?

a. mostly A's
5. Mostly B's
c. Mostly C's
(1. Mostly D's
e. Mostly E's

Go on the the next page

 

88

6. How far do you think your PnRBNTS expect you to go in school?

a. They expect me to quit as soon as I can
0!

b. " " " go to high school for a while

c. ” " " " graduate from high school

d. " " " " go to business or technical school
e. " " " " graduate from college

g. " " " " do graduate work beyond college

7. In general, would your PARENTS say you are doing as well in school as «,I’
you are capable of doing?

a. Yes, definitely

D. Yes, probably

c. Not sure either way
d. Probably not

e. Definitely not

8. What grade do you think your PARENTS would say you are capable of
getting in Mathematics?

a. A
b. B
c. C
d. D
e. E

9. What grade do you think your PARENTS would say you are capable of
getting in English (Readingl?

a. A
b. B
c. C
d. D
e. E

10. What grade do you think your PARENTS would say you are capable of
getting in Social Studies?

a. A
b. B
c. C
d. D
e. E

11. What grade do you think your PARENTS would say you are capable of
getting in Science?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

WUOUS>

Go On To The Next Page

89

Think about your favorite teacher-~the one you like best; the one you
feel is most concerned about your schoolwork.

What is this teacher's name?

What SUbjECtis) do you have this teacher for?

 

 

 

Now answer the following questions as you think this TEACHER would

answer them.

Circle the letter in front of the statement which best answers each Question.

 

1. How do you think this TEACHER would rate your school ability
compared with other students your age?

a.
b.
C.
d.
as

2. Where do you

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

think this TEACHER would say you would rank in your class

in high school?

a.
b.
C.
d.
e.

3. DO you think

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

that this TEACHER would say you have the ability to 0"

complete college?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

yes, definitely
yes, probably

not sure either way
probablyanot
definitely not

a. In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university professor, work
beyond four years of college is necessary. How likely do you think
,this'EEACHER.would say it is that you could complete such advanced

work?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Very likely
somewhat likely

not sure either way
somewhat unlikely
very unlikely

Go on to the next page

9O

5. What kind of grades do you think this TEACHER would say you are
capable of getting in general?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Mostly A's
Mostly B's
Mostly C's
Mostly D's
Mostly E's

6. How far do you think this TEACHER expects you to go in school?

a.
D.
co
do
30
f.
g.

7.

He (she) expects me to quit as soon as I can

" " " " " go to high school for a while
graduate from high school
go to business or technical school
go to College for a while
graduate from college

do graduate work beyond college

'

H 'I I. I. I!

H H 99 H H
0' II II II 3.
fl .’ 0' fl 0'

n n it 'n n

In general, would this TEACHER say you are doing as well as you are

capable of doing?

a.
b.
C.
do
30

yes, definitely
yes, probably

not sure either way
probably not
definitely not

Go on to the next pagg

91

Think about your closest friend at school.

What is this friend's name?

 

What grade is this friend in?

 

Now answer the following questions as you think this FRIEND would answer
them.

Circle the letter in front of the statement that best answers each qgestion.

i.

3.

How do you think this FRIEND would rate your school ability compared
with other students your age?

a. among the best

b. above average

c. average

d. below average

e. among the poorest

Where do you think this FRIEND would say you would rank in your class
in high school?

a. among the best

b. above average

c; average

d. below average

a. among the poorest

Do you think that this FRIEND would say you have the ability to
complete college?

a. yes, definitely

b. yes, probably

c. not sure either way
d. probabably not

e. definitely not

In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university professor, work
beyond four years of college is necessary. How likely do you think
this FRIEND would say it is that you could complete such advanced
work?

a. very likely

b. somewhat likely

c. not sure either way
d. somewhat unlikely
e. very unlikely

Go on to the next page

92

5. What kind of grades do you think this FRIEND would say you are capable
of getting in general?

a.
b.
C.
d.
8.

mostly A's
mostly B's
mostly C's
mostly D's
mostly E's

6. How far do you think this FRIEND expects you to go in school?

a.
b.
Co
do
e.
f.
g,

He (she) expects me to quit as soon as I can

" " " " " go to high school for a while
graduate from high school

go to business or technical school
" " " " " go to college'for a while

" " " " 1* graduate from college "

do graduate work beyond college

0! H N 'I II

o 2
H H H H 91

Co on to the next page

A? I" I5??? 31.4. 33
C021??? 53. a”: If??? h-i'fisTRl-‘L' X
EWOEI V A?! 135313 3325

(so: name has C‘fiIJCASIE'Z

‘.

93

O?

-gr.crh at.
Job at. U )

”HI = N SEIOHDZEIN

moanmmamxr .392 Ho x7332 coflmfionaou

63:80 EmECmE

 

 

I mmm mmw wow mmm onm woo ooh Nmo won woo ”on moo woo woo mmm woo mwo oom mom omw mmm moo o~o pom mmm
wmw I own “no man now mow woo ooo ooo mmo owo owo omo oom mww owo om” omw mwm ohm wow HNH Nom wmm ham
mow moo I who who ooo woo mow mmo omo wNo omo moo ooo oom oom oofi wm~ wmm oow oom _ww omo mmm mow pom
com mmm ooo I owo own mmo woo mow omo mwo owo wwo moo oom ohm owq omo oom wfim oow fimw wmfl mom mmm oom
wmw mom moo ooo I oow goo ooo mwo wNm moo oNo w~o ofio omo wmm mpg mmd mom mom mmm owm who owm Amm omm
Nmm ooo mmo who Hoo I Now who oww mmm oww omn woo omn moo wmw mod no~ omw now oow ohm moo mmo moo mmm
wmo omo mmm wmw mmw ooo I no» wmo owo Nmo qwo Hmo omo oom mow woo om~ Now wmm oom oow moo mmm mmm wmm
omo ohm mm» omm omo www mmm I wwo mmo om» ooo wwo omo moo own oofi _mH mmm mmw ohm www mmo wmm mom mom
mom mow mmw oHo omw ooo mwm owm I mmo owo omo moo ooh oom own moH owfi oom mom wmm mow oo~ NNm omm mom
omo mom mom mmm oww oww ohm mow now I ooo moo oom moo omo won oo_ Amo mwm mom wmm omo ooo wwm wmm oom
omo wmm wom ooo mow woo mom oom oww oom I Now now mow me omw om_ omo oom oom oww mam ooo woo mom mmm
mmm mom now mow wmw omm hmm mww owm mwm owm I own oOo ooo oom owa oao Now omm flow mmw owo mom Nmm oom
mom oww mmw owm owm mmm mow mfiw oom Now wmm who I mmo omo oom om~ me ban mom mow oow ooo wwm pom mom
wnw mom mom oom mom wmw mom mom mow wmm moo wmm omo I dmo own qofi om~ mom Ham How how om“ mom wfim oom
ohw won omm wow mow mom mow omw oom mwm omo mom wom mom I ooN wmd owH omm oom mom omm mma mom oow wom
owq mmm owo nwo owo Nwm owm ooo who moa ooo owfi ooo wooI one I owN moo mom omm wmw www mom mmm owm omN
mmm mmm oHN omq woo wo~ omm omo woo om~ oom oom ~N~ fioo NmN oNo I omm oom omm wmm owo. Ngfi mmw wmfi mwo
oom oow mom woo oom wnm Now mom Nod Nwm pom pom How owo mom moo woo I wa wmw mmo poo ooo mom omo ooo
mom omw oom oom omm oow oom mmm oofi omm wom flow mwm moo owm wow wow won I omo omw mow Now Nwm w_m don
mow mmm mww ohm mom mow oow Nam wwm don own mom me ooo omm "mm omw ooo owo I mmw on omN omm oom oofi
mod wag ooH woo one who owH moo wmfi ooo woo goo mod mmo wmm omw www mmm omm pom I now mom Nmo oom mNN
mow own omm om~ omw mow omw qwm wow omm wmm wwm oom Moo mom mom oow moo oNo omo How I wwm mwo omw owm
mmd oom ONH mmo mmo moo mwm ooo wwo Hwa woo woo omo mmo mooI me mmm mmw mow omm dog own I ohm mmo owo
omw mmw mmm mfim mom wow omm own mwm on flow wmm oom cow omm oww omw ooo amp moo how woo oow I wow Ham
om~ moo omo qmd ooo who nmm woo mwo mod oo~ wow mwfi mmo wNN “mo moo mm“ owm Nwd mwd mom omo wom I omm
ooo woo woo Moo omo mom oom owN ooo oHN mom om~ oNN wmo owH ova mfim pom oom Nam MNH moo mmo mom ooH I

om mm wN mm Nm ow om oH ma oH oH ma wH no No HH oH o w p o m w m N H

m m m m m a o s m m. m u. u u. u u a a o a a s s s s i s v s

H u. H H H H "H w H u. WHH H H "H H "H mm” m.m m W W m mm m. m m w

r o o o o r o m. o o u. o o o o o o o a w a a . . . _ m _ I m.

n 1 1 J J a J .l J I a 1 1 1 J x 1 u. m. s m. m. o a 3 3 3 e _

u e e e e u a cos a m a a e e e e .IA 1 A A o o o o T. o 8 a

a P P P P n o. luv 0. e P p. D. P o. D. a a a a u u u u w u a o

a a a a m a n a a .4 a a a a a 9 P J D. D. m m m w d m L o

D f r. r. r. A r. w.l r. m.f D c. S on W “uII u.r. I. d d d d m d o w

d n n n n a a e e s e .d o. o u w a m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 m m

V U U U u D u S u U u M 3 no W w“ E u E E . . . _ E . T.

a a a a d w w m n V u m. "H u. "18 PS 8 . . . . w . I m.
S S 3 W V x 1 .4 m o I s 9 aka a a Na % 3 W .a no no
m. w u e A ,A A ,A a S u. m I.o o o I. o u e a E
9 I. am. 3 S 3 m B r: T: r! 9 1. GM. m. m. Wu 8
u D» 1.. Us 3 p u u Du l. a I 1..
3 .l S 8 I. U I. 3 d 3 .l S D E W
a S u. w a an. a s m a S u. w J .l

11 E U l. S 9 m E E

n .4 3 S 1o. p

P m. a H w W m a

m. S S a s S

S S

o~o a'm m w m«o o q>o~o ~ N m w m-o
I—a—a—II—IH—II—I—o—a—INNNNNNN

MNMV‘mxof‘w

N SNVBVODVD

ZSbI

RCA USE ONLY

 

 

 

In

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

 

VIII I'llllHHIIIIIIlllfllllllllilllilll ||N|||||1IIIIWIII
312931027

73482