SELF - CONCEPT 0? mm AND SCHOOL ’ ‘ ’ f .
ACHIEVEMENT 0F SEVENTH GRADESTUDEMS m ,
NEWFOUNDLAND: A smaous mrmAcnomsz' >

APPROACH -

ӎ'hesis for the Degreeof Ph. D. V _ ' - {y
mam 3mg swam" ~ * ' ‘ ‘ ' ’ '
mam 3mm f _

W2 _ ' ’és

ll“ 1H \ 11111111111111111

3 1293 01109 3808

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

SELF-CONCEPT OF ABILITY AND SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT
OF SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND:
A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST APPROACH

presented by
Amarjit Singh

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D . degree in Education

Major professor‘bw

 

 

Date July 25, 1972

 

0-7639

ABSTRACT

SELF-CONCEPT OF ABILITY AND SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT
OF SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND:
A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST APPROACH

BY

Amarjit Singh

Background and Purpose of the Study

 

In 1962, Brookover and his associates at Michigan
State University began to apply a theoretical approach, sym-
bolic interactionism, based on the social psychological
theory of George Herbert Meadpto clarify variations in learn-
ing among children in schools. The present study was
designed to test cross-culturally several hypotheses and
explore questions developed by W. B. Brookover and his associ-
ates. An additional purpose was to compare the results of
the present study with the results of similar types of studies
carried out in Germany and Lebanon by J. E. Votruba and
Ahmad Sidawi.

Among various factors which are believed to be affect-
ing learning among children in schools, Brookover and his
associates identified one factor (the student's self-concept
of ability as a school learner) that may functionally limit
learning. Student's self—concept of academic ability is
asymbolic behavior in as much as it involves the evaluative
definitions which a student uses in comparing his own academic

abilities with the academic abilities of other individuals.

Amarjit Singh

A student's self-concept of academic ability results
from his perception of the expectations and evaluations held
by significant others as to how he will perform as a learner.
The expectations and evaluations of others do not directly
shape the behavior of a student in school. The crucial factor
effecting a student's behavior in school is his own definition
of himself as a learner which is based upon his perceptions of
how significant others view him as a student. The relationship
of perceived evaluation and academic achievement is conceptual-
ized as a necessary and sufficient condition, but a positive
self-concept is seen as a necessary but not a sufficient con-
dition for academic achievement. In other words, self-concept
of academic ability is an intervening variable.

The social-psychological theory of learning as devel-
Oped by Brookover focuses on the interaction between an
individual and others in a socio-cultural environment. Unlike
the belief that variations in learning among children in
schools are due to inborn differences in ability level, Brook-
over's interaction theory postulates that much of the variation
in learning among students can be explained by studying
patterns of interaction between the students and others in a
particular socio-cultural environment.

A need for a social-psychological theory of learning,
such as Brookover's, which provides alternatives to the theory
of learning based upon the belief that human ability is inborn,
limited, and differentially distributed along race and class

lines, meets the need of contemporary societies for highly

Amarjit Singh

trained manpower and the rising demand for social equality

and social justice.

Methodology and Data Analysis Procedures

 

Data were collected in St. John's, Newfoundland by
using instruments developed by Brookover and his associates.
The population of the present study consisted of seventh
grade students enrolled in sixteen different schools (five
of the schools belonged to the Avalon School Board, eleven
belonged to the Roman Catholic School Board) during the
academic year of 1970-1971. Two sets of analyses were carried
out. For one set of analyses, the relationship between selfe
concept of academic ability and academic achievement, data
were available only for 161 students. For the second set of
analyses, the relationship between perceived evaluations by
others and self-concept of academic ability, and the analysis
of significant others, data were available for approximately
1219 students.

Data were collected by means of questionnaires, coded
and punched on IBM cards at Michigan State University Computer
Laboratory; subsequent analyses were performed by the CDC 3600
at Michigan State University and by IBM 370/155 at Memorial
University operated by Newfoundland and Labrador Computer

Services Limited in St. John's.

Major Findings

 

The major results of this study may be summarized

as follows:

Amarjit Singh

Self-concept of academic ability is significantly related
to school achievement of seventh grade male and female
students in six schools in St. John's. The correlation
between self-concept of ability and grade point average
was .49 for the boys (N=69) and .51 for the girls (N=92).
Specific subject self-concept of ability in six subjects
(Mathematics, English, History-Geography, Science, Litera-
ture and French), except in the case of French for girls,
is related to seventh-grade achievement in the corres-
ponding subjects. For boys the correlations between
SSSCA and grades in each of the corresponding subjects
ranged from .30 to .66 and for the girls from .20 to .61.
Specific subject self-concept of ability in six subjects
is related to seventh grade achievement in the corres-
ponding subjects approximately to the same degree that
self-concept of ability is related to achievement in six
subjects. Correlations between SSSCA and grades in
corresponding subjects ranged from .30 to .66 for the
boys, and for the girls from .20 to .61. Correlations
between SCA and grades in corresponding subjects ranged
from .23 to .55 for the boys and for the girls from

.31 to .53.

Self-concept of ability is related to overall grade point
average for seventh grade male and female students

in six schools approximately to the same degree as

specific subject self-concept of ability. Correlations

Amarjit Singh

between SCA and GPA was .49 for the boys and .51 for the
girls. Correlations between SSSCA and GPA for boys ranged
from .32 to .48, and for the girls from .40 to .64.
Perceived evaluations by significant others: parents,
friends, teachers, principals, counselors, and ministers
or priests were significantly related to self-concept of
academic ability of seventh grade male and female students
in sixteen schools in St. John's. The correlations ranged
from .22 to .46 for the combined population (N=1219).
Intercorrelations among perceived Parents Evaluations,
Perceived Friends Evaluations, and Perceived Teachers
Evaluations for the combined sample ranged from .68 to .79.
Associations between perceived evaluations and self-
concept of ability is slightly higher than the association
between SCA and overall achievement in school (GPA) for
females. In the case of males the magnitude of the
association between perceived evaluation of friends,
parents, teachers and counselors is slightly higher than
the association between SCA and GPA. The association
between perceived evaluation of priest and SCA is lower

in magnitude than the correlation between SCA and GPA.

For the females, the correlations between the first pair
of these variables ranged from .62 to .72. The correlation
between the second pair of variables was .51. For males,
the correlation between the first pair of variables

ranged from .37 to .62. The correlation for the second

10.

ll.

Amarjit Singh

pair of variables was .49. These correlations, however,
were not significantly different from each other.
Association between perceived evaluation by others and
academic achievement (GPA) was lower in magnitude than
the association between SCA and GPA, although there was
no significant difference.

The correlation between the first pair of variables

ranged from .20 to .42 and between the second pair from
.49 to .51.

For males and females the first order partial correlations
between self-concept of academic ability and academic
achievement was less reduced from the zero order correla-
tion when perceived evaluations by others were controlled.
For males and females the first order partial correlations
between perceived evaluations by others and academic
achievement were greatly reduced from the zero order
correlations when self-concept of ability was controlled.
Parents were more often named than any other persons by
seventh grade students in St. John's as being concerned
about how well they do in school. Mothers seemed to be
significant academically for 94 per cent of the girls

and 92 per cent of the boys in the Roman Catholic Schools
and for 91 per cent of the girls and 89 per cent of the
boys in the Avalon Schools. Fathers were named by 90 per
cent of the girls and 85 per cent of the boys in the

Roman Catholic Schools, and by 86 per cent of the girls

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

Amarjit Singh

and 86 per cent of the boys in the Avalon Schools as
being concerned with how well they do in school.
Teachers (83%), principals (61%), and friends (24%) were
named more often by the girls in the Roman Catholic
Schools than other students as being concerned about

how well they do in school.

Mother (89% to 94%), father (85% to 90%), teachers (46%
to 83%), and principals (18% to 61%) were more often
named by most students than friends (13% to 24%) as
being concerned about how well they do in school. On
the average, parents were named by 85 per cent of the
students as significant academically.

Parents were more often named than any other persons as
important in their lives. Mother was named most often
in this respect.

Mothers (95%), fathers (91%), teachers (58%), principals
(32%), counselors (10%), and friends (38%) were more
often named by girls in the Roman Catholic Schools than
other students as important in their lives.

Friends were more often (22% to 38%) named than principals
(5% to 32%) as being important in their lives.

Perceived friends' evaluations and perceived parents'
evaluations (both independent variables) contribute

most to the variation in self—concept of ability (depen-

dent variable) of seventh grade students.

Amarjit Singh

Conclusion

 

The results of this study based upon data from St.
John's, Newfoundland, provided further support to the various
hypothesized relationships among self-concept of academic
ability, perceived evaluations by others, and academic
achievement in schools. The results of this study were com-
plementary to the results obtained by Votruba and Sidawi in
their studies. The focus on the student's self-concept of
academic ability as a factor that may functionally limit
learning among children in school, therefore, is warranted.

The practical implications of self-concept theory
lie in developing a positive self-concept among those students
who have been labeled slow learners or uneducable. There is
evidence that academic achievement can be enhanced by self-
concept enhancement. Parents, teachers, adult relatives, and
counselors as significant others may play important roles in
the enhancement of students' self-concepts of ability, which
in turn may effect students' educational aspirations and
academic achievements. Further research is needed to deter-
mine adequate forms of connections between significant others
and schools, and forms of association between students and
significant others in the community, neighborhood, and at

home.

SELF-CONCEPT OF ABILITY AND SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT
OF SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND:

A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST APPROACH

BY

Amarjit Singh

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education
Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1972

@Xlopyright by
AMARJIT SINGH

1972

DEDICATION

To my parents, Susan, and friends
who always provided me with a touch

of love and belongingness.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been completed
without the encouragement and help of many peOple.

Sincere thanks are dueto Dr. David K. Heenan,
Associate Director of the International Institute for
Studies in Education, who in the capacity of academic
advisor and Chairman of my dissertation committee, has
been a continuous source of inspiration and ideas.

During my stay at Michigan State University his help has
been invaluable.

I am also thankful to Dr. W. B. Brookover who
directed my dissertation. His writings and teachings in the
field of Sociology of Education provided me with insight
into the relationship between formal education, socializa-
tion, and social organization. His personal involvement
and commitment to the reorganization of the educational
system in the United States serves as an example to his
students of how to translate research findings into mean-
ingful social action.

I also wish to thank Dr. Allen J. Beegle, Depart-
ment of Sociology, and Dr. Walker H. Hill, Evaluation
Services, who served on my dissertation committee and pro-
, vided me with the opportunity to discuss my ideas with them

at length on several occasions. Their sensitivity to

iii

cross-cultural problems allowed me to read, write, and talk
about various issues freely and critically. Also Dr. Cole
S. Brembeck and Dr. John W. Hanson as teachers provided me
with a perspective on the role of education in social change.

At Memorial University of Newfoundland, I am grateful
to Dr. W. J. Gushue, Head of the Department of Educational
Foundations, and to Dr. H. W. Kitchen, former Minister of
Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Asso-
ciate Professor in the Department of Educational Administra-
tion, who along with Dr. W. P. McCann and Dr. Robert Stebbins
stood beside me in a time of difficulty. It would have been
impossible to collect the data for this study without the
encouragement, support, and help of Dr. Gushue and Dr. Kitchen.

I also wish to convey my thanks to Dr. G. A. Hickman,
Dean of the College of Education, Professor J. Y. Parsons,
former Acting Head of the Department of Educational Founda-
tions, Dr. G. Murphy, Head of the Department of Curriculum
and Instructions, and Dr. R. K. Crocker for their help on
various occasions. The principals, teachers, and superin-
tendents of the Avalon School Board and the Roman Catholic
School Board helped me as much as possible in the collection
of data.

My colleagues at Memorial University, Dennis Hewish,
Jeff Bulcock, and A1 COOper asked me pointed questions on
what I was doing and in this way helped me to clarify my

. thoughts.

iv

This list of acknowledgments would not be complete
if I did not convey my appreciation to Virginia Wiseman,
Wilma Hahn, Ruth Hefflebower, and Betty White for main-
taining humanized inter-personal relationships with their

graduate students amidst a huge educational bureaucracy.

DEDICATION .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABL

ES. 0 O O O C O O O I O O O 0

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVE . . . . . . .

Background (Variation in Learning) . . .
The Purpose. . . . . . . . . . .
The Need. . . . . . . . . . . .
Fixed Ability Model: A Traditional
Explanation for Variation in School
Learning Among Children . . . . . .
Further Implications of the Fixed Ability
Model . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Need for a Different xplanation for
the Variation in School Learning . . .
A Social-Psychological Approach as an
Alternative to a Fixed Ability Model. .
Major Hypotheses . . . . . . . . .

II. THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE . . . . .

Background (Symbolic Interactionism) . .
Society . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mind . . . . . . . . . . .
Self . . . . . . . . . . .
Brookover's Definition of Self-Concept
vs. Definition of Self-Concept by Others
Self-Concept: An Intervening and a
Threshold Variable. . . . . . . .
Student Role Relationships. . . . . .

vi

Page
ii
iii
viii

xi

\Oflb

10
17
23

30
32

36
36
38
41
45
56

60
65

Chapter

III. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE. .

Introduction . . . . . .

Self-Concept as a Theoretical Construct

Self—Concept: Is it a Process or a

Fixed Trait. . . . . .

Self-ConCept: Global or General vs.

Specific. . .

Self—Concept: Is it Real or Ideal
Self-Concept as it Relates to Achievement

in Schools . . . . . .

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. . . . .

Population and Site of Research .
Types of Analyses and Population.

Data Collection Procedures. .
Instruments Used . . . . .
Major and Related Variables .
Operationalization of Variables
Data Analysis Procedures . .

V. RESEARCH FINDINGS. . . . . .

Relationship of Self— —Concept of Academic

Ability to Achievement . .

Specific Subject Self— -Concept of Ability
(SSSCA) and its Relationship to Grades

in Six Specific Subjects .

Self— -Concept as an Intervening Variable

Comparison with Other Studies.
Second Set of Analyses . .

General Significant Others: The R.C.
Schools and the Avalon Schools

Significant Others: A Comparison of
Brookover' s, Sidawi's, and the

Present Study . . .

Relationship of Perceived Evaluations

Self— -Concept of Ability. .
Summary of Results . . . .

VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

vii

Page
73

73
76

79

80
82

86
96
96
96
97
97
98
99
105

106

106

108
114
119
121

126

127

133
142

146
152

171

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Correlation Between Specific Subject Self-
Concept of Ability and Grades in Each of
the Six Subjects for Males and Females. . .

Correlation Between Specific Subject Self-
Concept of Ability and Grades in Each of the
Six Subjects and Correlation Between General
Self~Concept of Ability and Grade in Each of
the Six Subjects for Males and Females. . .

Correlation Between General Self-Concept of
Ability and Grade Point Average and Cor-
relation Between Specific Subject Self-
Concept of Ability and Grade Point Average
for Male and Female . . . . . . . . .

Correlations Between Perceived Evaluations by
Friends, Parents, Teachers, Principals,
Counselors, Ministers, and Self-Concept
of Academic Ability, and Between Self-Concept
of Academic Ability and Academic Achievement,
by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation Between Self-Concept of Ability
(SCA) and Achievement(GPA), and Correlation
Between Perceived Evaluations and GPA, by
sex 0 I O O O O O I O O O O O I

The First Order Partial Correlations Between
Grade Point Average (GPA) and Self-Concept of
Ability (SCA) Compared with Correlations
Between GPA and Perceived Evaluation of
Friends (PFEV), Parents (PPEV), Teachers
(PTEV), Principals (PXEV), Counselors (PCEV)
and Ministers (PMEV) for Males . . . . .

The First Order Partial Correlations Between
Grade Point Average (GPA) and General Self-
Concept of Ability (GSCA) Compared with
Correlations Between GPA and Perceived Evalu-
ations of Friends (PFEV), Parents (PPEV),
Teachers (PTEV), Principals (PXEV),Counselors
(PCEV) and Ministers (PMEV) for Females . .

viii

Page

110

112

112

115

116

117

118

Table Page

8. Percentage of the Male and Female Seventh
Grade Students in the R.C. Schools and in
the Avalon Schools Who Named at Least One
Person from Each of the Following Categor-
ies of Significant Others as being Concerned
about how Well They do in School. . . . . 124

9. Percentage of the Male and Female Seventh
Grade Students in the R.C. Schools and in
the Avalon Schools Who Named at Least One
Person from Each of the Following Categor-
ies of Significant Others as Being Important
in Their Lives (GSO). . . . . . . . . 125

10. Percentage of Total Seventh Grade Students in
St. John's Who Named at Least One Person
from Each of the Following Categories of
Significant Others as Being Concerned About
How Well They do in Schools, Compared with
Brookover's and Sidawi's Studies. . . . . 128

11. Percentage of Total Seventh Grade Students in
St. John's Who Named at Least One Person
from Each of the Following Categories of
Significant Others as Being Important in
Their Lives, Compared with Brookover's and
Sidawi's Studies . . . . . . . . . . 131

12. Correlation Between Self—Concept of Ability
(SCA) and Perceived Evaluations by Parents
(PPEV), by Friends (PFEV), by Teachers (PTEV),
by Principals (PXEV), by Counselors (PCEV)
and by Ministers (PMEV), Male and Female
Combined. . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

13. Intercorrelation Between Perceived Evaluation
of Parents' (PPEV), Friends' (PFEV), Teachers'
(PTEV), Principals' (PXEV), Counselors'
(PCEV), and Ministers' (PMEV) of Seventh
Grade Students, Male and Female Combined . . 137

14. Correlation Between Perceived Parental Evalua-
tion and Self-Concept of Ability with
Perceived Friends', Teachers', Principals',
Counselors', and Ministers' Evaluations
Partialled Out, and Zero Order Correlation
Between Perceived Parental Evaluations and
Self-Concept of Academic Ability for Seventh
Grade Students, Male and Female Combined . . 138

ix

Table Page

15. Correlations Between Perceived Teachers'
Evaluation and Self-Concept of Ability With
Perceived Friends', Parents', Principals',
Counselors', and Ministers' Evaluations
Partialled Out, and Zero Order Correlation
Between Perceived Teachers' Evaluation and
Self-Concept of Academic Ability for Seventh
Grade Students, Male and Female Combined . . 139

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Self-Concept of Academic Ability Scale . . 172
B. Perceived Evaluations of Student's

Academic Ability by Others Scales . . . 175

C. Significant Others Questionnaires . . . . 182
D. Specific Subject Self-Concept of Ability

Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
E. Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . 189

xi

INTRODUCTION

An analysis of the educational process in schools
where formal learning takes place becomes necessary if
we wish to have a dialogue about knowledge and conscience
in a society.1 Such a dialogue is essentially a discourse
on the nature of the relationship between man and society.

’Schools are deliberately designed, formal social
systems whose traditional function has been to transmit
the dominant values of the older generation to the younger
generation through the process of learning and teaching.
Schools are also one of the important places where an
individual learns to define who he himself is and how he
relates to the larger society. In this process of self-
other definition he learns to relate himself to others,

his self—image emerges, he is in the process of becoming.

 

1The definition of the social conscience of a society
is borrowed from Abraham Edel. That is, "The social conscience
of a society can be described as a pattern of assumed and
felt responsibility for others, a concern for the well-being
of people and for the solution of dominant social problems.
Every society has some such pattern. Individuals may
differ in the extent and intensity in which they exhibit
responsibility. But the sc0pe of social conscience, its
mode of expression, the kinds of tOpics on which it is
directed, are historically variable and can be seen as
sociocultural formations. The only way to understand the
present character of our social conscience is to set it
has the outcome of a historical development of the last few
centuries." See Abraham Edel, "Scientists, Partisan and
Social Conscience," Transaction, IX, 3(1972)35-36.

 

l

The purpose of this study is to understand the
process of learning, i.e., how children learn in a class-
room situation, and to develop a theory of learning and
teaching in cross-cultural contexts through systematically
testing some of the hypotheses derived from the social
psychological theory of learning as developed by W. B.
Brookover. Brookover's theory of learning is rooted in
the social psychology of George Herbert Mead; which takes
into account the interaction between the individual and
others in a socio-cultural environment.

The relevance, uniqueness, and need for a theory
which focuses on the interaction process in order to account
for variations in learning among children in schools is
discussed in Chapter I. The major hypotheses drawn from the

social interaction theory of Brookover and which are tested

 

in this study are stated in the last part of the chapter.

In Chapter II the social interaction theory of
Brookover, which is built around the self-concept of academic
ability, is discussed.

Chapter III contains a review of literature in the
areas of self-concept and how it relates to the learning
process in a school situation. The review of literature
is selective and directly bears upon the basic hypotheses

stated in Chapter I.

In Chapter IV the methodology employed in the
study is presented. Included is a discussion of the site,
the pOpulation, the instruments, the Operationalization
of variables, and a description of how the data for this
study were collected and analyzed.

Results of the analyses of data collected are
presented in Chapter V. In Chapter VI.the results obtained
from the analyses of data are discussed and conclusions
are drawn.

It should be pointed out that an understanding of
the learning process in school is greatly enhanced if one
focuses on the analysis of the functions of formal schools
in a particular sociopolitical and economic context. The
ideas presented in Chapter I will be more meaningful if one
relates the specific problem of learning and teaching to
the larger problems of social organization and social

equality.

CHAPTER I

PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVE

Background

 

In 1962, a team of educators and social scientists
at Michigan State University, under the leadership of
Wilbur B. Brookover, began to apply a theoretical approach
("symbolic interactionism") in research design to clarify
variation in learning among children in schools. Among
various factors which are believed to be affecting learning
among children at school, these researchers identified
"one factor that may functionally limit learning of many
students and thereby prevent them from working at their
maximum level." This factor they called "the student's
self—concept of academic ability as a school learner."l
Theoretically, the identification of this factor, the
self-concept of academic ability, was a unique contribution

to the understanding of the process whereby children learn

 

lWilbur B. Brookover, et a1., Self—Concept of Ability
and School Achievement, COOperative Research Project, Number
845 entitled “The Relationship of Self—Image to Achieve—
ment in Junior High School Subjects," (East Lansing: Michigan
State University, December 1962, pp. 2u3.

 

 

in a school environment. It was unique in the sense that
it recognized that the most important ideas which affect
peOple's behavior are those ideas they have about them—
selves. This line of thinking is basic to the symbolic
interactionist approach, which emphasizes the importance
of the actor's self and his definition of the situation
in explaining his behavior. The concept of self is drawn
from the social psychology of George Herbert Mead, and it
implies that human behavior is qualitatively different
from nonhuman (infrahuman) behavior in the sense that it
is always meaningful from the point of View of the behaving
individual. The second concept of the definition of the
situation is drawn from W. I. Thomas' theory, and it
implies that the behavior of an individual is governed
by the way he defines the situation around him, and not
entirely by the objective condition of the situation.

The social-psychological theory of learning which
W. B. Brookover and his associates developed was system-
atically tested by them in order to clarify the social-
psychological context in which learning occurs. The results
of their longitudinal studies were published in three
volumes in 1962, 1965 and 1967. The theoretical objective
of these studies was "to determine the antecedents and

consequences of self-concept of academic ability among

adolescents, and to determine the theoretical and empirical
utility of a set of basic propositions nia social psychology
of learning."

The self-concept of ability approach, as developed

by Brookover, is based upon the following assumptions:

1. "That the social norms and expectations of
others define the appropriate behavior for
persons in various social situations,

2. Each person learns the definitions of appro-

priate behavior through interaction with
others who are important or significant to
him,

3. The individual learns to behave in the ways

that he perceives are appropriate or proper
for him,

 

4. The individual also acquires conceptions of
his ability to learn various types of behavior
through interactions with others whose evalua-
tions are important to him."
Since the publications of Brookover's studies,
some of his students have extended the scope of his studies

either by testing the major propositions cross-culturally

 

2Wilbur B. Brookover, Edsel L. Erickson, and Lee
M. Joiner, Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement
.32}, Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 2831,
U.S. Office of Education, entitled "Relationship of Self-
Concept to Achievement in High School" (East Lansing:
Educational Publication Services, Michigan State University,
1967). p. 4.

:3Wilbur B. Brookover, "A Social Psychological Con-
ception of Learning," School and Society, 87:84-87, 1959;
and Wilbur B. Brookover and David GottlIeb, A Sociologyfiof
Education (New York: American Book Company, 1964), Chapter I.

 

 

 

or by adding new variables to them.4 Considering the
difficulties involved in translating the social-psychological
assumptions into testable propositions so that they can be
used in educational research, testing or replication of these
studies in various sociocultural contexts is a methodologi-
cally sound step toward theory building. The need for
replications is even greater if social—psychological pro-
positionsanxato be used to espouse a primarily social-

" psychological View of the phenomena called learning in cross-
national and cross-cultural contexts. It is to this need

and the others described earlier that the present study is

addressed.

The Purpose

 

On the basis of the aforementioned need, the purpose
of the study is to test, cross-culturally, some of the
major hypotheses and to explore related questions of the

basic research described in W. B. Brookover's Self-Concept

 

of Ability and School Achievement, I and Self-Concept of

 

 

 

4For example, see James Charles Votruba, "A
Comparative Analysis of a Social-Psychological Theory of
School Achievement" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1970). Data for this study was collected
in Germany. See also, Ahmad Sidawi, "Self—Concept of Academic
Ability and School Achievement in Lebanon" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). Also see,
Howard Joseph Michael Auer, Jr., "Self-Concept of Academic
Ability of West German Eighth-Grad Students" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971). German
data was collected with the help of Haro Kahler.

Ability and School Achievement, III. Specifically, the
purposes of this study are threefold. The first purpose

is to test some of the basic hypotheses of the self-concept
of ability and achievement project undertaken by Brookover
and his associates in order to provide cross-cultural
validity to their research by anaylzing data gathered from
students in the seventh grade in sixteen schools in

St. John's, Newfoundland.

In Newfoundland, the educational system at the
primary (grades I to VI), junior high (grades VII to IX),
and senior high levels is organized along religious denomina-
tional lines. Roman Catholics have their own schools, while
the other denominations such as the Anglican, United Church,
and the Salvation Army recently (1968-69) decided to
consolidate schools. This structural setting provided the
opportunity to explore the differences between responses
of seventh grade students studying under the two school
systems.

A second purpose of the study is to compare and
contrast the responses of students studying under the two
school SystemS'U380me questions related to the self-
concept of academic ability project. Brookover's data did
not include such information; therefore, this study may be

regarded as an enlargement of the scope of his work.

Finally, the results of the present study (the
Newfoundland Study) are compared with the Brookover, the
German, and the Lebanese Studies.5

The theoretical and the methodological frames of
reference of the present study are basically similar to the
Brookover study, and are described in Chapter II and
Chapter IV, respectively. The need and the theoretical

significance to which this study is addressed are discussed

below.

The Need

In every society, individuals must acquire the
prescribed skills and knowledge which are functional both
to the society and the individuals.6 The understanding of
the learning/teaching process and dissemination of knowledge
are key responsibilities of the schools. Therefore, an
analysis of the educational process in schools, where
formal learning takes place, is an important task of
educators and behavioral scientists.

One of the crucial tasks for educators and social
scientists has been to explain differences in learning among

children in schools. The challenge of educating a large

 

5'See James Charles Votruba for the German study,

for the Lebanese study, see Ahmad Sidawi.

6
p. 465.

Brookover and Gottlieb, A Sociology of . . . ,

 

10

number of individuals to meet the intellectual, scientific,
and technical demands of an increasingly complex society
has made it even more imperative for educators and social
scientists to understand causes of variations in school
learning among youngsters.

Besides the above concern for human resource
development, i.e., the need for trained, skilled, educated,
and imaginative individuals, most contemporary societies
are experiencing rising aspirations and expectations among
individuals who want to better their lives educationally,
economically, and socially. Thus it is no wonder that
today various racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic
groups and castes have become interested in the successful
education of their children. Both lay and professional
people are now seriously evaluating the reasons given by
educators and social scientists about why some children
have not achieved in learning, while other children are
very successful.

Fixed Abilitnyodel: A Traditional

Explanation for Variation in School
Learning Among Children

 

 

 

In the past, educators and social scientists have
carried out various studies to explain the variations in
school learning among individuals. A review of these studies
indicates that educators and social scientists traditionally
thave focused on the individual learner and have used such

concepts as intelligence, aspirational level, aptitude

11

tests, and sensory impairments to explain the difference in
learning among children in school; some of them have also
studied the stimulus properties of various teaching methods
in a classroom atmosphere. But studies in the past have
not focused on the interaction between social—psychological
variables in a sociocultural environment; the focus in the
past has been to study the mental make-up of the individual
learner.7
The concept which has been widely used to explain
variations in learning in school is the concept of ability
or mental intelligence. Brookover explained it this way:
The prevailing conceptions of intelligence in our
society are (1) that ability to learn is relatively
fixed or unchangeable, and (2) that it is predeter-
mined by heredity. These beliefs assume that each
individual has a limited ability to learn and that
this ability is unaffected by external social forces.
Another common assumption is that the fixed ability
of individuals can be measured with reasonable accuracy
by intelligence tests.
Based upon these beliefs, some psychologists argue "that
the differences in academic achievement are best explained
by differences in capacity to learn, which are relatively
fixed" and this belief "is still carefully nurtured in

many schools and universities."8

 

7Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 1.

 

8Wilbur B. Brookover and Edsell L. Erickson,
Society, Schools and Learning (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
lg69) I p. 30

 

12

The fixed ability model has been identified by some
educators and social scientists as the "bucket" theory of
intelligence.

The metaphor makes it possible to perceive of
individuals as having varying capacities, potentials,
or quantities which might be measured in terms of
some scale. Associated with quantity and dimension
is the conception of limit: the individual who has
a small quantity or small dimension for learning can-
not expand the size of his bucket. In most discussion
of goals of education, educational leaders tend to
emphasize the importance of educating the individual
to the limits of his capacity.*
In this sense, the fixed ability model is said to be based
upon a closed-ended conception of human potentialities and
seems to put unnecessary limits on the possibilities of
educating those children who are labeled slow learners or
uneducable.

Based upon their conception of fixed human abilities,
these psychologists developed various tests to measure the
ability level of children in school. A marked breakthrough
in the use of tests in school was accomplished during the
period between 1905 and 1908, when the French psychologists
Alfred Binet and Theodore Simmons developed an intelligence
scale; other types of tests were developed by psychologists

as early as 1869, when Golton first published his book.10

 

9Ibid. , p. 8.

l‘Q‘..awrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the
School: Progressivism in American Education 1876-1957
(New York: A Vintage Book, 1964), p. 186.

 

 

13

Once the tests were introduced to measure achieve-
ment of students in schools, there was a steady growth of
the testing industry in the United States and the testmakers
developed instruments for measuring virtually every aspect
of educational activity.ll For example, scales were developed
in arithmetic (1908), spelling (1913), reading (1914), and
language ability (1916). The main purpose of such tests
was to sort out the stupid children from the smart ones.12
Based upon the results of intelligence and aptitude
tests, several prominent educators in the United States,
such as George B. Cutten of Colgate University (1922),
Henry S. Prichett of the Carnegie Foundation, Dean Christian
Gauss of Princeton, and Dean Max McConn at Lehigh University,
argued that only a small proportion of the population could

benefit from higher education.13 Similar views were put

forward by educators and others in England.14 Brookover pointed

 

lJoseph Peterson, Early Conceptions and Tests of
Intelligence (Yongers: World Book Company,1925), Chapter V-X,
cited in Cremin, The Transformation of . . . , p. 186.

Cremin, The Transformation of . . . , p. 187.
l3Ibid., pp. 189-190.

l4Brian Simon, Intelligence, Psychology and Education
(London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971). PP. 9-27.

14

out that "One basic assumption of the twentieth century
educational practices in the United States is that only a
limited proportion of American youths is capable of a

high level of educational effort."15

As late as 1959,

James B. Conant assumed that only 15 to 25 per cent of high
school students in the United States could be benefited

by education in such subjects as mathematics, science,

16 The views of Conant and several

and foreign languages.
others are contrary to the views of those scholars in the
United States and in other countries who assume that in a
conducive learning environment most students can learn the
prescribed school subjects and can be benefited by them.
Carroll, Bloom, and Sanders argued that almost 95 per cent
of students can master a subject if given sufficient time

and help.17

Henry Chauncey, after observing the educational
process in the Soviet Union wrote that all Russian students
are required to take such subjects as mathematics, physics,

chemistry, biology, literature, and foreigh languages in

the last three years of their high school and that Russian

 

l5.Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability». . . ,
1962, p. 7.

 

16James B. Conant, The American High School Today_
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 20.

 

17John B. Carroll, "A Model of School Learning,"
Teachers College Record, 64 (May l963),p. 729; Benjamin S.
Bloom, "Learning for Mastery," Evaluation Comment, 1 (May
1968), and Donald P. Sanders, "Toward A Theory of Educational
Development," Comparative Education Review, 13:3 (October
'1969), p. 283.

 

15

educators and social scientists . . . expect all their

students to take it [the above curriculum], profit from

it, and complete it . . . . Chauncey estimated that
"somewhere between 50 to 80 per cent of Russian students
actually get through the ten year school program."18 In
a similar vein, Brookover and Erickson wrote that

Although we recognize that there may be limits to

the range of human learning that are fixed in the
organism, we see no evidence that these are functional
or that they have been identified except in a small
number of individuals with specific organic defects.
Too few people ever achieve up to their limits; they
can always learn more. Functional limitations on
learning, however, are imposed on each of us by our
perceptions of what we.are capable of and what we
ought to be doing. With rare exceptions, the ability
of human beings is limited only by the socio-cultural
environments in which they live. They learn what
ever the society degines appropriate and provides

for them to learn.

The belief in the concept of fixed ability or mental
intelligence has a long history, which found expression in
Social Darwinism.20 As mentioned earlier, this belief is
based upon two assumptions and has been used by educators,
politicians, and social scientists for various purposes.

The two dominant assumptions are " (1) that ability to

 

l8Henry Chauncey, "Some Observations on Soviet
Education," Proceedings of the 1958 Invitational Conference
of Testing Problems (Princeton, New Jersey: Educational
Testing Service, 1959), pp. 71-79; cited by Brookover,
et al., Self-Concept of Ability_. . . , 1962, p. 2.

 

 

 

19Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools, and . . .

 

p. 17.

20Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American
' Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955T}

 

16

learn is relatively fixed or unchangeable, and, (2)

that it is.predetermined by heredity."21

The implication of these two assumptions spilled over
in various directions. Intelligence came to be defined
as inherited capacity, and it was looked upon as a
basic dimension of an individual person. The hope of
improving a man's lot shifted from the euthenic
strategy of improving his upbringing and education to
the eugenic strategy of finding some way to select
only the more intelligent for the propagation of the
race. Differential fertility came to be viewed with
alarm. Investigative effort concerning child nature
and child development was directed toward the norma-
tive mode of measuring the individual characteristics
and relating the measures of age. Individual character-
istics were quantified and discussed in the language
of dimensions and scales without ascertaining their
development and neuropsychological characteristics.
Investigations of the effects of various kinds of
experience at various ages on the development of
intellectual capacity were discouraged. Practical
educational efforts to cultivate intellectual
capacity, particularly in the very young, were dis-
couraged. With behavioral development conceived to

be a process in which anatomic maturation automatically
brought withix;the response repertoire, experts warned
parents not to overstimulate their infants but rather
to leave them alone to grow. Finally the assumptions
of fixed intelligence and predetermined development
may well have had something to do with What has been
an over-emphasis upon personal selection and an under-
emphasis upon problems of both training and arranging
the social climate ogzinstitutions to foster personal
interest and growth.

21Brookover and Erickson, Society Schools and
Learning . . . , p. 3.

22See J. McVicker Hunt, Intelligence and Experience
(New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961), pp. 347-348.

 

 

 

 

17

Further Implications of the Fixed
Ability Model

 

 

The belief in the fixed ability model has further
implications for several groups of people in society. For
example, in the United States and elsewhere the argument
of fixed ability has been used by elitist theorists of
society, who justified the status-quo in social structure.23
In the context of colonial education, arguments used by
several colonial educators and administrators centered on
the fixed ability model, which justified the vocational,
agricultural, or practical type of education for the
masses of people in the colonies. This provided the justi-
fication for the colonial educaitonal policy for a long time.
At that time it was argued that non-Europeans were racially
inferior in intelligence to the Europeans, and therefore

needed a different kind of education.24

 

23Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in . . . , see

especially chapters six and seven, pp. 135-142; also see
William Chandler Bagley, Determinism in Education (Baltimore:
Warwick and York, Inc.,1925); cited in Cremin, The Transforma-
tion of . . . , p. 191. This book deals with the classic
argument over Social Darwinism.
24For example see Norman Leys, Last Chance in Kenya

(London: Hogarth Press, 1931), esp., pp. 101467; J. W. C.
Dougall, "Characteristics of African Thought," Africa,(July
1932), pp. 249-65; H. L. Gordon, "Mental Capacity of the
African," Journal of the African Society, XXX (July, 1934),
226—42; W. B. Mumford and C. E. Smith, "Racial Comparisons
and Intelligence Tests," Journal of the Royal African
Society, XXXVII (Jan., 1938), 46-57; R. A. C. Oliver,
"Mental Tests for Primitive Races," The Year Book of Education
(London: Evans Bros., 1935), pp. 560-70; A. G. J. Cryns,
‘ "African Intelligence: A Critical Survey of Cross-Cultural

Intelligence Research in Africa South ofthe Sahara," Journal
ngSocial Psychology, IVII (Aug., 1962) 283-301; L. E. Andor,
Aptitudes and Abilities of the Black Man in Sub-Saharan Africa
1784—1963: An Annotated Bibliography (Johannesburg: National
Institute for Personnel Research, 1966).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

In the contemporary industrial and stratified
societies, educational systems are generally organized
around the concept of fixed ability. Thus Brookover and
Erickson wrote that

The assumption of fixed ability continues to dominate
the practice and organization of American education.
The emphasis on the identification of people with
various learning 'abilities' or 'talents' and through
this the selection of people for various types of
education and training, have overshadowed any efforts
in American schools to cultivate the appropriate
social climates or environments which would develop
the academic abilities of children in appropriate
fields. The emphasis therefore, is on identifying
and selecting, so that the round pegs are appropriately
placed in the round holes, rather than on creating
the appropriate environment and providing the experi-
ence that would produce the kind of citizens needed
in a highly technical and literate society. We must
investigate the reasons for this continued assumption
of fixed ability in order to understand and improve
our educational system.25

Herriott pointed out that the practice of sorting and
selecting children by using tests characterizes elitist
educational systems, which do not show much regard for
the potentialities of the majority of learners.26
Several other observers of American society have

commented on the remarkable continuity of the belief in

fixed ability. Hunt pointed out that although there

 

‘5 Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools and . . . I

 

p. 5.

26 R. E. Herriott, "Some Determinants of Educational
Aspiration," Harvard Educational Review, XXX,2 (1963), 157.

19

is a serious question about the validity of the concept of
fixed ability, any explanations which do not fit this model
and the current testing and classifying practices are
rejected.27 Milton Schwebel notes that educators and others
continue to hold the belief in fixed ability because of
another belief, which dictates that success by a large
proportion of youngsters in schools may not be functional
for stratified societies.28
Observations like the above have been made about
other industrialized societies. For example, Brian Simon,
in his well-documented book, pointed out that psychometric
tests (mental intelligence tests) which are built upon the
fixed ability model provide the rationale for the grouping
and streaming of students in order to channel them into
various types of schools and curriculum.29 D. F. Swift,
another British sociologist expressed similar views.30

The common point which is being made by the scholars

mentioned above is that the fixed ability model ends up

 

2'zHunt, Intelligence and Experience . . . , see
Introduction.

28See Milton Schwebel, Who Can Be Educated? (New
York: Grove Press, 1969). Schwebel reviews the comparative
educability of mankind and discusses the functioning of the
American educational and social system.

29Simon, Intelligence, Psyghology and . . . , PP. 200-

 

 

 

236.

30D. F. Swift, "Educational Psychology and the
‘Environment: A Controversy at Cross-Purposes," British
Journal of Sociology, XVI (1965), 334-350.

 

20

providing the rationale and ideology for stratification on
race, caste, ethnic, and class lines via various testing

and other selection procedures. That this is the case becomes
evident when the way the concept of fixed ability has been

used in the past or is being used in the present is analyzed.
For example, during the Nazi period in Germany, an attempt

was made to associate innate intelligence with race, and

thus one controversy came to be centered on race differences.31
The post—World War II period saw a discussion of the race-
intelligence controversy in the United States at the national
level, centered on the school segregation issue.32 The

debate between Lewis Terman and George Stoddard in 1939

before the National Education Association over the issue

of whether I.Q. remains constant or varies with education

 

31Arguments in favor of "racial explanation" for
differences in intelligence were systematically put forward
by Carl C. Brigham, A Study of American Intelligence
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1923)}‘ This controversy
is still continued-—see for example Otto Klineberg, Race
Differences (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1935),
Part II; Otto Klineberg, ed., Characteristics of the American
Negro (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1944),
Part II; cited in Cremin, The Transformation of . . . ,
pp. 191-92.

32See Frank McGurk, "A Scientist's Report on Race
Differences," U.S. News and World Raport, (September 21,
1956), pp. 92-96; William M. McCord and Nicholas J. Demeralt III,
"Negro Versus White Intelligence: A Continuing Controversy,"
Harvard Educational Review, XXVIII (1958), 120-135; Frank C.
J. McGufk, "Negro vs. White Intelligence'--An Answer,"
Harvard Education Review, XXIX (1959), 54-62.

 

 

 

 

 

21

and environment, concluded without any resolution of the
problem.33

Controversy of this nature is still with us in the
1970's, and has been revived by A. R. Jensen and others.
Jensen argued that blacks in the United States are innately
less intelligent than whites. His argument further implies
that poor whites are also innately less intelligent than
the middle—class whites. Thus, he ties the concept of race
and class together in his attempt to explain variations in
school learning among children of various ethnic, racial,
and social class groups. Using tests which are assumed to
be measuring the individual's "intelligence," he claimed
that 80 per cent of "intelligence" variance is explained by
genes and only 20 per cent by environment, and that school
achievement is the function of intelligence. Therefore,
Jensen claimed that no social or educational policy can
change the status of social,economic or racial groups.

Any attempt to do so would waste the scare resources of

. .4 . . .
soc1ety.3 Needless to say, the 1mp11cat1ons of such an

 

33National Education Association. Address and
Proceedings, 1939, pp. 89-90; Time (July 17, 1939), P. 65.
The Twentnyeventh and Thirty—Ninth Yearbooks of the National
Society for the Study of Education, contain an extended
discussion of the question; see also George D. Stoddard:

The Meaning of Intelligence (New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1943), cited in Cremin, The Transformation of . . . , p. 192.
3%A. R. Jensen, "How Much Can We Boast 1.0. and
Scholastic Achievement?" Harvard Educational Review, XXXIX,1
.(Winter 1969), 1-123. This article was polemical in nature
and the discussion it produced was published in the Spring,

1969, Harvard Educational Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

explanation of differential learning in schools among the
children of various groups in a pluralistic society are
grave; such explanations are at the root of hostilities and
polarizations among various groups in society.

The discussion up to this point has not been
provided to undermine the efforts of various psychologists,
educators, and social scientists who have been trying for
years to understand the variations in learning in schools
among various individuals. This feeling was perhaps best
expressed by Brookover and Erickson, and therefore is
quoted here: "Perhaps the polemics which characterize
discussions about fixed intelligence are a reflection, for
some, of an emotional attachment for a set of beliefs."

The somewhat critical discussion of the concept of a fixed
ability model should not be regarded as a negative criticism;
rather "it should emphasize the integration of a social
system which served the needs of American society extremely
well for several decades." Brookover and Erickson further
pointed out that

probably no other society has developed a more

efficient system of education than has America during

the past quarter century. Considering the circum-

stances of the times, the effectiveness of the past

educational practices in our society was not reduced

by the fact that the belief in fixed intelligence

could not be verified by careful research. As long

as it was believed that intelligence was of this sort

and individuals acted on this belief, it made no
difference whether it was verifiable or not.

23

Brookover and Erickson further wrote that

The needs of our society have changed considerably,
however, and society and science have brought us to
the stage where the concept of fixed intelligence is
no longer functional. In fact, it may be harmful.35

The Need for a Different Explanation
For the Variation in School’Learniag

 

 

The need to explore other factors which influence
the learning-teaching process, factors other than intelligence,
aspirational levels, aptitude tests, and sensory impair-
ments, has also been felt by other societies, especially
after World War II, when many nations freed themselves
from colonial rule and decided to enter the world stage
economically, politically, and socially. Political leaders,
educators, and social scientists all over the world,
especially in the newly independent nations, came to regard
formal education as "the master determinant of all aspects
of change."‘36 Technological changes were needed to mobilize
the resources of societies which, in turn, demanded a
supply of highly educated and skilled laborers. In this
situation, governments of modernizing nations put great
responsibilities on the shoulders of educators and social

scientists to come up with concepts of learning and teaching

 

35Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools and . . . ,
p. 13.
36James S. Coleman, ed., Education and Political
Develapment (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965),
p. 3; also see, John W. Hanson and Cole 8. Brembeck,
' Education and the Development of Nations (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1966).

 

 

 

24

which would meet the demand of society for a large number
of skilled people.

If it was to be assumed that the learning ability
or mental intelligence of individuals is fixed, the task
of educating a large number of individuals to meet the need
of these societies could not have been imagined. The
problem which is addressed in the present study is not
how to develop the learning capacity of 15 to 25 per cent
of the talented students, as has been suggested by Conant
and others, but the more pressing need of raising the
ability level of 75 to 85 per cent of the individuals who
have been identified as less talented.

Until 1950, only a few sociologists and social
psychologists were interested in studying the educational
process. Before that period, studies in education had
mostly been carried out by psychologists who focused on psycho-
logical and physiological variables and their effects on

learning behavior in a nonschool context.37

During the
second half of the twentieth century educators and social
scientists have come not only to focus their attention on
sociological variables and their influence on the learning-

teaching process, but also have become aware of the

interaction between these variables.1 Many educators

 

37

Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools and . . . ,
pp. 13-14.

 

25

now argue that the source of low academic achievement
among various disadvantaged groups may be better explained
on the basis of "cultural differences" than on the

basis of difference in intelligence or teaching methods.
The appropriateness of those psychological theories

which concentrate on the individual's mental make—up in
analyzing the learning—teaching process in schools has
also been questioned by prominent psychologists.38 On

the other hand, those psychological theories which put
emphasis on the interaction between the individual and

his social environment, such as the development theories
of Jean Piaget and the social reinforcement theories
developed by Albert Bandura and Richard Walters, have

been given more attention.39

Consequently, under the above circumstances, there

has been a signifiCant growth in Cross-cultural research in

 

38Ernest R. Hilgard, "A Perspective on the Relation-
ship Between Learning Theory and Educational Practices,"
in Theories of Learning and Instruction, ed. by Ernest
R. Hilgard (Chicago: The National Society for the Study
of Education, 1964).

39For a bibliography of Piaget's work, see Hunt,
Intelligence and Experience; see also Albert Bandura and
Richard Walter, Social Learning and Personality Develgp-
ment (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967).

 

 

 

26

40

the area of the learning-teaching process. C. A. Anderson

pointed out some reasons for this trend:

. . . Education has become an active area of investiga-
tion for all the social sciences. An integration
between education and the social sciences is emerging

as systematic comparison makes use of today's more
mature social science methods to add greater rigor to
these inquiries. On the level of policy, the end of
colonialism and a worldwide passion for economic
development are stimulating a fresh appraisal of what
education does or might do towards enhancing the contri-
bution of the human factor.41

This interest in cross-cultural education created the need
to develop research designs and theoretical frames of
reference which would focus on the process of learning in
cross-cultural settings and be able to account for differ-
ences in learning due to cultural and subcultural variations,

not due to some innate or fixed ability.42

 

40See for example: W. Wiersima, "A Cross-National
Comparison of the Academic Achievement of Prospective
Secondary School Teachers," Comparative Educatign Review,
XIII,2 (June, 1969) 209-212; W. I. Grams, Jr., "A Multi-
variate Analysis of the Correlates of Educational Efforts
by Nations," Comparative Education Review, XIII,3 (1968)
281-99; N. Trowbridge, ”Cross-Cultural Study of Creative
Ideas in Children," Comparative Education Review, XII,l
(February, 1968) 80-83; and T. Husen, ed., International
Study of Achievement in Mathematics--A Comparison of Two
Countries (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967) 2 Vols.;
Roger Homes, "The Transient and the Subsumed: Some
Epistemological Implications of Cross-Cultural Research,"
Comparative Education Review, XIV (February, 1970) 60.

4’lC. A. Anderson, "Methodology of Comparative
Education," in Education in Comparative and International
Perspective, ed. by Kalil I. Gezi (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971), p. 35.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swift, "Educational Psychology, Sociology . . .,
pp. 334-350.

 

27

The experiences of those educators and social
scientists who have had the opportunity to pursue research
in the area of comparative education have made them
realize the effect of different subcultural and cultural
environments, such as social class, a village, or small
town atmosphere vs. a city atmosphere on the learning
behavior of individuals in various societies. These
researchers now increasingly recognize that children in
different countries learn different social behavior because
they grow up in different sociocultural environments. This
type of research approach has focused on identifying
and describing the differences among the children of various
social, ethnic, or national groups; for example, the behavior
of lower class children has been frequently described as
different than that of middle-class children. Similarly,
differences have been found in the behavior of individuals
growing up in a joint family in a small village and the
behavior of children growing up in a nuclear family located
in the city. Although the differences between children of
various social classes and ethnic, racial and religious
groups in different societies are well-documented, it has
also been demonstrated that many children from the lower
strata and various ethnic groups achieve as well in school

as the children from the higher and dominant social strata.

28

It is apparent that the process whereby the children growing
up in different sociocultural environments come to learn
similar types of behavior has not been extensively studied
by researchers interested in understanding the learning
process in subcultural and cross-cultural contexts.43
It was pointed out earlier that research on the
learning process using psychological variables is over-
whelming, but these studies do not throw much light on the
process of learning in a real sociocultural milieu. Most
of the studies are narrowly defined, are conducted under
laboratory conditions, and are based upon assumptions most
appropriate for animalscn:nonhumans. The methods and
theoretical assumptions of these studies are inadequate
to explain variations in human learning in a sociocultural

44 Unfortunately, these studies pay little

environment.
attention to studying the interaction process between the
individual and his sociocultural environment, through
which the individual learns to behave in the socially
expected ways. Moreover, the trend in research literature

to designate various behavioral phenomena as psychosocial

or sociopsychological and the evidence supported by research

 

4BBrookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability_. . . ,
1967, p. 2.

 

44Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools and . . . ,
see Chapter I.

 

29

that even the measured intelligence scores vary with
social and other environmental factors cast doubt on the
use of the psychological approach to explain variations in
learning among children in school.45
At a time when governments and various ethnic,
racial, caste, and social groups are demanding better
treatment for their members, the questions which educators
and social scientists must come to grips with are: Is it
true that only a few people can be benefited by higher
education? Can an educational system designed to stratify
people meet the needs of contemporary societies? Are there
any alternatives to psychometry which would make 99 per cent
of the secondary school students successful in higher
education?46 How long will the social consciousness and
knowledge of contemporary societies allow a self-justificatory
educational system, based upon an alleged limitation of

47

human potential, to perpetuate itself? Is there any

 

45Gale E. Jensen, Educational Sociology: An Approach
to its Development as a PracticaICField ofStudy_ (New York:
The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1965), pp. 27-
41; Also see Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools and
. . , p. 12.

 

 

46The Russian psychologists suggest that theoretically
it is possible that 99 per cent of the secondary school
children can do well in higher education. See, H. Chauncey,

 

"Some Observations on . . . ," p. 71-79. See also, Brookover,
et al., Self-Concapt of Ability . . . , 1962, p. 2.
47

Some critics already have suggested that society
should be de-schooled. See, Bruce Rusk, Alternatives in
Education (Toronto: General Publishing Company Limited,
' 1971), especially see article by Ivan Illich, pp. 103-126.

30

hope of overcoming this self—fulfilling prOphecy in

. 4
education?

A Social-Psychological Approach as an
AlternatiVe to a Fixed Ability Model

 

In the above context, if we want to provide true
equality of opportunity to learn, there is a need for a
new concept of learning. Such a new concept needs to take
into consideration differences in learning among children
in schools due to various sociological and psychological
variables and interaction between them in a sociocultural
environment. A sociopsychological approach which attempts
to explain the variations in learning would be more useful
than the research using psychological variables only.

A socio-psychological approach developed by
W. B. Brookover and his associates at Michigan State
University is such an approach. Their "research postulates
that much of the variation in learning among students results

from differences in the interaction with others in the

 

48“Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalion
in the Classroom, Teacher Expectation and Pupil's
Intellectual Development (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., I968Y. Their study indicates that it is the
expectation of teachers which facilitates the intellectual
growth of children. For a critical review of their book,
see Peter Gumpert and Carol Gumpert, "On the Psychology
of Expectation in the Classroom," The Urban Review, XXX
(September, 1968), 21-26; Robert L. Thorndike, "Pygmalion inthe
Classroom," The Record, LXX,8 (May, 1969), 805-807.

 

 

 

31
socio-cultural environment." However, they point out that

This model for learning should not be interpreted to
mean that organic differences, be they the result of
genetic, or physical impairment, play no role in
academic performance. A basic thesis . . .'is that
within the limits set by the physiological and neuro-
logical structures of the organism, variations in
behavior are influenced by variations in socialization.
To the extent that we develop principles of socialifig-
tion, we may better understand individual learning.

Such an approach enhances the theoretical knowledge about
the learning process and complements other approaches to the
learning process which assume

. . . great plasticity within the organism. The
characteristics of this plasticity are illustrated
clearly in experimental programs designed to contrast
behavioral, neurochemical, and neuroanatomical
characteristics of subjects exposed to enriched and
impoverished environments (e.g., Bennett, Diamond,
Krech, and Rosenzweig and Leiman, 1968). The major
thrust of all these data is that environmental
conditions can be manipulated to alter significantly
those characteristics of behavior that are essential
in an organism's adjustment to change in its environ-
ment.

In a recent review ofliterature, Mitchel noted that educa-
tional research is increasingly focusing on the environ-
mental factors as a determinant of behavior. He states that:
. . . contemporary events seem to suggest most
forcefully . . . that the determinants ofbehavior
need to be sought more often in the characteristics

of the environment context and the interaction of
these characteristics with individual traits and

 

49Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . r
1967, p. 3.

50'Roger W. Russell, "Psychology: Noun or Adjective,"
The American Psychologist, XXV,3 (March, 1970» 215.

 

32

abilities, and that a search for individual
characteristics in vacuo can lead only to partial
understanding or no understanding at all. The process
used by the individual to come to terms which the
environment, as Goldstein (1939) wrote, are processes
that have much to say about that individual's values,
traits, and characteristic modes of functioning. Faced
with the almost cataclysmic impact of contemporary
social and political events, it should not be difficult
to accept the importance of this interaction for an
understanding of human behavior. At least part of the
lesson to be learned from these events, it would seem,
is that social forces and environmental contexts may
in certain instances be prepotent over individual
traits or may in any event have such immense implica-
tions and impact that they cannot be ignored without
penalty in any analysis of individual behavior.
We are not without warning in this respect.
Sullivan (1953, 1956), Lewin (1935, 1936), Fromm (1941,
. 1955), Murray and Kluckholm (1953), and Getzels and
Thelen (1960) have all presented theoretical points
of view that emphasized the importance of environ-
mental and social determinants and their interactions
with individual needs and characteristics.51

Major Hypotheses

 

The objective of this study, as it has been pointed
out earlier, is to test some of the specific hypotheses
drawn from Brookover's interaction theory in a cross-
cultural setting. These hypotheses are stated as follows:
Relationship ofEblf-Concept of

Academic Abilityto Academic
Achievement

 

 

 

Hypothesis 1: Self-concept of academic ability is
positively associated with academic
achievement.

 

51James V. Mitchell, Jr., "Education's Challenge to

Psychology: The Prediction of Behavior from Person-
Environment Interactions," Review of Educational Research,
XXXIX,5 (1969), 696.

33

Specific Subject Self-Concept of
Ability (SSSCA) and its Relation-
ship to Grades in Six Subjects
(Mathematics, Eagiish, Sciencay
Literature, Historijeography

and French) and overall achieve-
ment (Grade point Average)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theoretically it is possible that a student may have
a self-concept of ability for each subject he studies in
school which is functionally different from his self-concept
of academic ability. In order to test this theoretical
proposition the following hypotheses were stated:

Hypothesis 2: The student's specific subject self-
concept of ability (SSSCA) is associ-
ated with his achievement in the
corresponding subjects in school.

Hypothesis 3: Associations between student's
specific subject self-concept of
ability and achievement in each
of the corresponding subjects is
greater than the associations between
student's self-concept of academic
ability and achievement in each of
the subjects.

Hypothesis 4: Association between student's self-
concept of ability and overall achieve-
ment (GPA) is greater than the associ-
ation between student's specific subject
self-concept of ability and overall
achievement.

Self-Concept of Academic Ability
as an InterveningtVariable

 

 

Within the theoretical frame of reference of Brookover's
interaction theory self-concept of ability intervenes between
the perceived evaluation of others and its relationship to
academic achievement. In order to test this theoretical

'proposition the following hypotheses were formulated:

34

Hypothesis 5: The magnitude of the association
between the perceived evaluations
of academic ability by others and
self-concept of academic ability is
greater than the associations between
self-concept of ability and academic
achievement.

Hypothesis 6: The magnitude of the correlation
between self—concept of academic
ability and academic achievement
is greater than the correlation
between perceived evaluations of
academic ability and academic
achievement.

Relationship of Perceived
Evaluations py others to
Self-Concept of Academic

Ability

 

 

 

Basic to the interaction theory of Brookover is the
proposition that student's self-concept of ability is formed
in the interaction with "significant others" who evaluate
him as a learner in school. Evaluations of significant
others, however, do not directly effect the student's self-
concept of ability. It is the student's perception of the
evaluations of others about him which actually influences
his self-concept of ability or behavior in school. In order
to test this theoretical proposition the following hypothesis
was formulated:

Hypothesis 7: Student's perception of evaluations

of their academic ability by others
(parents, friends, teachers,
principals, counselors, ministers

or priests) are associated with
self-concept of academic ability.

35

A related question to Hypothesis 7 and, thus,
related to the self-concept of ability and academic
achievement is: Who are the "significant others" of
the seventh grade students in St. John's. Therefore,
besides testing the seventh hypothesis stated above an
attempt is made in this study to identify the "significant
others" of seventh grade students.

In the next chapter, a brief description of the
symbolic interactionist viewpoint is given, and Brookover's
self-concept theory of learning is differentiated from

other symbolic interactionist theories.

CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE

Background (Symbolic Interactionism)

This study is conceived within the frame of
reference of the symbolic interactionist approach as
developed by Brookover and his associates.1 Within
the general perspective of this frame of reference,
Brookover and his associates drew heavily upon the work

of C. H. Cooley,2 John Dewey,3 G. H. Mead4 and

 

1For a detailed statement on a behavioral symbolic
interactionist approach as developed by them see, Brookover,
et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . , 1967, pp. 1-17,
Brookover, 1TA Sociai Psychological. . . ."

 

 

2Charles H. Cooley, Social Organization (New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1909).

 

3From the social psychological viewpoint, John
Dewey's philosophy, at least in the view of C. W. Mills, is
best represented in his educational writings--see, C. W. Mills,
"Social Psychology: 'Model for Liberals," in Sociology and
Pragmation, ed. by Irving Louis Horowitz (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1966), pp. 447-463. According to Manford H.
Kuhn, "while Dewey published voluminously, his chief formula-
tion of symbolic interaction theory is, in my view, his
Egperience and Nature . . ."; see Manford H. Kuhn, "Major
Trendsiin Symbolic Interaction Theory in the Past Twenty-Five
Years," Sociological Quarterty, V (Winter, 1964), 61-84;
reprinted in Gregory P. Stone and Harvey A. Farbernaw, Social
Psyghplogy_Through Symbolic Interaction (Waltham: Ginn-
Blaisdell and Co., 1970), pp. 70-87; also see, John Dewey,
Qemocracy and Education (New York: The Free Press, 1916)
and John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier
Books, 1938).

 

 

 

 

4George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1934).
- 36

 

37

5

W. I. Thomas, who wrote in the general tradition of

symbolic interactionism. Brookover and his associates
have also incorporated into their theoretical frame of

reference other complementary theoretical perspectives

6

such as role analysis, reference group theory.7 the

8

perceptual theory of Combs and Snygg, a formalized theory

of the self-concept as developed by Knich,9 and the symbolic

 

5Thomas' concept of the definition of the situation
is most relevant to the theoretical frame of reference being
discussed here. "Preliminary to any self-determined act of
behavior there is always a stage of examination and delibera-
tion which we may call the definition of the situation. And
actually not only concrete acts are dependent on the defini-
tion of the situation, but gradually a whole life-policy and
the personality of the individual himself follow from a
series of such definitions," see W. I. Thomas, The Unadjusted
Girl (Boston: Brown and Company, 1931). Quotation cited in
J. G. Mani's and B. N. Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction: A
Reader in Social Psychology (6th ed.; Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 19707) p. 315.

6R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
(Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957); Mason W. Gross
and A. W. McEachern, Eaploration in Role Analysis: Studies
in the School Superintendency Role (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1958).

7Herbert Hyman, "The Psychology of Status," Archives
of Paychology, No. 269 (1942).

8A. W. Combs and D. Syngg, Individual Behavior: A
Perceptual Approach to Behavior (New York: Harper and Row,
Publishers, 1959i}

9J. W. Kinch, "A formalized Theory of the Self-

Concept," The American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII (1963),
481-486.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

interactionist theory as refined by Rose.10 Others, including

11and Piaget,12have also contributed insights.

Linton
Symbolic interactionism is a particular viewpoint

within social psychology and is formulated around Mead's

key concepts: society, self, and mind. These concepts

are interwoven and interlocked; one concept, logically,
implies another. Because Brookover's symbolic interactionist
theory is basically based upon the social psychology of

G. H. Mead, a brief and selective description of Mead's

three concepts is provided below.13

Society
Owing to the importance of symbols in human inter-
action, society is seen as symbolic interaction. And because
symbols stand for common and shared meanings for the actors
in the interaction process, symbolic interactionists focus

their attention on the following: (1) the meaning of personal

 

10A. M. Rose, "A Systematic Summary of Symbolic Inter-

action Theory," in A. M. Rose ed., Human Behavior and Social
Process (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962), pp. 3-19.

llRalph Linton, The Study of Man (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc., 1936).

12J. Piaget. "The Development of Time Concepts in the
Child. in psychopathology of Childhood, ed. by P. H. Hoek
and J. Zubin (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1955).

 

 

 

For a concise and informative discussion of Mead's
concepts see B. N. Meltzer, "Mead's Social Psychology," in
Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology,’ J. G.
Manis'End B. N. Meltzer, pp. 5-24. The discussion of Mead's
concepts presented here is mostly drawn from Meltzer's
article.

39

life, (2) the observation of reflective behavior, as opposed
to reflex behavior, (3) interpretative behavior as opposed
to conditioned behavior, and (4) on persons, not on animals.
In short, symbolic interaction adheres to the minded human
being, the human being with a mind of self.14

The symbolic interactionists hold that symbols are
the key to human interaction. They argue that symbols
are of crucial significance in distinguishing human and
infrahuman interaction. Symbols, it is argued, distinguish
man from other animals not only in degree but in kind. Thus
it is emphasized that human behavior must be explained at
its own level of complexity. This implies that in an on-
going society man is consistently involved in interpreting
and reconstructing his environment, and in this process new
and complex elements emerge. Any explanation of human
behavior must take into consideration this process.

The symbolic interactionists see society as emerg-
ing out of an historical process and suggest a develop-
mental viewpoint of the study of human behavior. Society
is seen in terms of what is, what was, what might be, and
what ought to be. Society is thus seen existing in a

dynamic process; it is constantly changing.

 

14It has been suggested that the symbolic inter-
actionist approach is best understood when contrasted with
radical behaviorism. For a concise discussion of this
sort see Peter A. Remender, "Symbolic Interaction and
Education: Some Marginal Notes" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971).

40

Moreover, it is contended, society exists in and
through communication. This conception of society is very
close to Dewey's observation that "Society not only continues
to exist by transmission, by communication, but it may
fairly be said to exist ta transmission, in communication."15
This implies that society does not exist without actors who
are sharing a universe of discourse.

Human beings, as actors, are seen as living in
association with others in a community. Society is seen
as a community in which actors have formed differential
associations. Through this process, it is believed, a
human being, as an actor, comes to have a shared definition
or identification of the situation. Definition or
identification of the situation is learned in association
with others. There are various patterns of human associa-
tion; therefore, society is understood in terms of these
aSSOCiations. Human behavior must be understood in terms
of these differential associations. Human beings learn
to define the situation in the process of interaction with
those with whom they associate and identify.

Finally, the symbolic interactionist sees society
as composed of selves. This implies that society does
not directly shape human behavior; rather, behavior is
mitigated or intervened by the actors' interpretation of

social forces.

15‘Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 4.

 

41

11122

Another important concept in Meadian social
psychology is that of ptpg. The basic notions about mind
are: (1) that it emerges in a social process in association
with others; (2) that this social process is essentially
a process of communication; (3) that the process of
communication is possible only when the individual, in
association with others, learns to use significant
symbols, i.e., language, (4) that linguistic behavior or
symbolic behavior aids the individual in internalizing
the definition of others; (5) that by taking into account
the definition of others the individual comes to take
the perspectives of others and direct his own behavior
from this perspective; and (6) that the process of social
interaction enables him to learn to think; i.e., he develops
the ability for reflective thinking or the ability to act
intelligently. "Intelligence" emerges out of the social
process. Once the mind has emerged it continuously helps
the individual in maintaining and adjusting himself in
his society. The continued existence of the society depends
upon the minded behavior of individuals, based upon con-
sensus.

Mental activity, or reflective thinking, is seen
as a process by which a person comes to attach meaning

to his own self and to others. To the extent that the

42

individual uses symbols in the process of indicating
meaning to himself, his behavior is symbolic behavior;

and minded behavior is symbolic behavior. Thus "Mind

is the presence in behavior of significant symbols. It

is the internalization within the individual of the social
processes of communication in which meaning emerges."‘16

Minded behavior is fundamently different from
nonsymbolic or nonlinguistic behavior. The latter is
simply a consequence of stimulus--response mechanics,
typically found at the infrahuman level, but also occasion-
ally found at the human level. Minded behavior, being
reflective behavior, is never immediate and direct; there
is always an interruption and delaying of the act.

In Mead's viewpoint, mind abides in the experience
of the person. Mental activity is a typical activity in
which a person is continuously involved in indicating
objects to himself and responding to himself as he goes
on experiencing his environment by acting on it. The
individual's activities determine hisexperienced environ-
ment; the objects occur when the activities of the

individual change toward them, when the individual's

activities change his environment.

 

16George Herbert Mead, Mind Self and Society: From
the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, ed. by Charles W.
Morris (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press, seventh impression, 1970), p, xxii.

 

 

43

The objects which the individual experiences
through his activities in the environment are mostly
shared objects; they render order and pattern to his
activities. The sharing of objects by the individual
is possible only when he takes into account the definition
of others; these definitions, in Mead's View, involve
language or significant symbols. Needless to say, the
individual learns common significant symbols in inter-
action with others which stand for certain meanings in
reference to the objects around him. These meanings
give the individual a perspective through which he looks
at the world as others do.

In brief, Mead, in conceptualizing mind, rejects
an interpretation of mind based upon the individual's
psychology which sees mind as a box-type container or
as an entity with fixed measurable dimensions in the
head of the individual. To Mead, mind is not a thing which
exists in the individual's brain, independent
of self and society. On the contrary, he takes the
processual approach, i.e. the develOpmental approach, to
the emergence of mind as he does to the develOpment of

self.17

For him mind presupposes the existence of society
and social interaction. Mind and self develop side by
side in the social process. Mind develops out of the

language behavior of the human organism.

 

lZMead's notions about the self are discussed else-
where in this chapter.

44

In Meadian social psychology the relationship of
the organism to the environment is central to the discus-
sion of mind. Basically, the organism is seen as contin-
uously trying to adapt or adjust to his environment. The
environment is not seen as consisting of fixed stimuli
which infringe on the biological mental apparatus of all
organisms in some prefixed pattern. Among all the stimuli
present in the environment, only those stimuli which are
given selective attention and are consciously perceived
by the organism affect the behavior of an organism.
Selective attention and perception on the part of the
organism intervene between the stimuli present in the
environment and the organism's behavior. Perception is
an activity which is involved in selecting certain aspects
of the situation and is not seen as affecting the nervous
system of an organism like a rubber stamp.

The organism involves itself in the process of
selecting activities in the context of problem—solving
situations. This is to say, the selection of stimuli
by the organism corresponds to its needs, or is relevant
to the act in which it is engaged. The organism's behavior,
in Mead's View, is not directly determined by the stimuli.
Instead, the organism has a hand in determining its
behavior by selecting the stimuli through its activities.
These activities are not simply initiated by stimuli, but

are seen as elements selected by the individual for the

45

purpose of aiding on-going activities in which he is
already involved.

In Mead's View, human behavior is reflective
behavior. It is conscious and meaningful to the actor.
It involves the evaluation of various alternatives before
the individual takes final action. It does not lack the
ability of abstract analysis of the situation, which is
necessary in considering the possibilities of the
reconstruction of the environment through future actions.
And the mind is seen as social, both in origin and function.
It is social in origin in the sense that it arises out of
the process of symbolic communication. And it is social
in function in the sense that the individual consciously
controls his activities by taking the roles of others
and by looking at the world through the perspectives of

other peOple's definitions.

.5311:

The third key conceptin Meadian psychology is the
concept of gait.

In the Meadian view, self is a social process.
This leads to Mead's concept of "I" and "Me." These are
two analytically distinguishable phases of the social self.

The "I" is something personal and peculiar to each
individual. It is something which only he feels, under-

stands, and experiences. It has not incorporated the

46

definitions and eXpectations of others. It is so to speak,
an indeterminate aspect of the self. The "I" is devoid
of group meaning. It is that part of human experience
which is initial, undirected, spontaneous, and unorganized.

The "Me" represents different tendencies than the
"I." It has incorporated the norms, expectations,
definitions, understanding, and common group meaning of
significant others. In other words, it is the socialized
self. The "Me"it;constitutedoforganized sets of attitudes
and generalized habits.

The "I" and "Me" are two aspects of an act. Because
"I" is prior to the expectations and control of others,
it is the initiator of an act. All acts usually culminate
in the form of "Me." Meltzer pointed out that "The 'I'
thus gives prOpulsion while the 'Me' gives a series of
initiations of acts by the 'I' and of acting-back-upon the
act (that is, guidance of the act) by the 'Me.‘ The act
is a resultant of this interplay."-18

The "I" and "Me" are not mutually exclusive; they
are integral parts of the same self. A person with self
is engaged with the creative as well as conforming activities
in the society. This means that self is engaged in

internalized social communication. The self reorganizes

 

l8Meltzer, "The Social Psychology . . . , in Manis
and Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction: A . . . , pp. 11-12.

 

 

47

or reconstructs the eXperiences continuously through
internalized social communication. The self is not
simply determined by social structure. This statement
about the self emphasizes the fact that the self is
continuously involved in the process of definition and
redefinition. This is so because the "I" and "Me" are
continuously interacting with each other in a dialectic
process. In Mead's words:

The self is essentially a social process going on

with these two distinguishable phases. If it did

not have these two phases there could not be

conscious responsibility, and there would be nothing

novel in experience. 9

The symbolic interactionist emphasizes the

importance of self in the analysis of individual behavior

in society. Thus Blumer stated that "The key feature in

Mead's analysis is that the human being has a self."20
Manis and Meltzer spoke of "the individual with a
self . . ."21 And Mead spoke of "the human individual who

22
possesses a self."

The symbolic interactionist maintains that the

individual with self is a thinking and imaginative man.

 

19Mead, Mind, Self, and . . . , p. 178.

 

2 . . . .
0Herbert Blumer, Symbol1c Interactionism: Perspect1ves

 

and Method (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1969), p. 79.

 

iManis and Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction: A . . . ,
p. 495.

22
”Mead, Mind, Self and . . . , p. 272.

 

 

48

He is conscious of his own behavior. He may engage in self-
conversation in the same way as he engages himself in
conversation with others. There is no self without others.
The self is seen as a fluid and active object. It is not
passive and inert. Self behavior is not explained in terms
of prediSposed attitudes. Rather, it is emergent in nature.
It is the process by which the individual comes to attach
meaning to the objects around him. Self behavior is meaning-
ful and evaluative behavior with intent.

The symbolic interactionist emphasizes the role of
others in the interaction process and in the emergence of
self. Different patterns of associations with others are
seen as crucial in the patterning of the self. A variety
of different others and heterogeneous social Situations are
seen as most conducive to the internalization of social
norms. It is in the association of heterogeneous others
that self becomes involved in seeking the possibility of
alternative behavior.

Thus, the self-other relation is seen as crucial
in the definition of the self--that is, of self-concept.

The self-concept refers to what the individual thinks
others think about him as an object. Thus, the crucial
factor is not simply what others think about the
individual, but what the individual thinks others think
about him. It is the definition of the individual's own

self by himself in relation to the definition which others

49

have of him that is the crucial factor in the formation of
his self-concept. Others do not directly affect the
self—concept of the individual; there is interaction between
the others and the individual. The individual's self
intervenes between the expectations, the definition of
others about him, and his behavior.

The implications of selfhood in human behavior were
put together by Meltzer. They are:

l. The possession of a self makes of the individual
a society in miniature, that is, he may engage in
interaction with himself just as two or more
different individuals might. In the course of
this interaction, he can come to view himself in
a new way, thereby bringing about changes in him-
self.

2. The ability to act towards oneself makes possible
an inner experience which need not reach overt
expression. That is, the individual, by virtue
of having a self, is thereby endowed with the
possibility of having a mental life: he can
make indications to himself--which constitutes
mind.

3. The individual with a self is thereby enabled to
direct and control his behavior. Instead of being
subject to all impulses and stimuli directly play-
ing upon him, the individual can check, guide,
and organize his behavior. He is, then, pgt_a
mere passive agent.23

The idea of self-concept and its relevance to under-
standing the behavior of the individual grounded in the

self-other relation was further develOped by Brookover

 

23Manis and Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction: A . . .,

 

p. 12.

50

and his associates. Their theory of self—concept was
particularly formulated to explain one kind of behavior,

the learning behavior of children in the classroom situation.
It incorporates Mead's notion about the "Me" instead of the
"I".24 This is in line with the tradition in symbolic
Vinteractionism, which seeks to "operationalize" the self

by reconceptualizing it in structural terms and making it

an empirical concept. In this tradition the attempt is

made to tap the "Me" aspect of the self by develOping

25 Emphasis on the notion of

paper-and-pencil measures.
"Me" by no means ignores or undermines the importance of
the "I" in the understanding of human behavior.

The vieWpoint of symbolic interactionists has been

succinctly stated by various scholars. Blumer and Meltzer

prepared an excellent summary of this position. Their

 

24Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, pp. 7-8.

25This tradition is generally associated with "The
Iowa School" as represented by Manford H. Kuhn in his "self
theory". For a brief discussion of the school, see Kuhn,
"Major Trends in . . . ," in Manis and Meltzer, Symbolic
Interaction: A . . . , pp. 55-57. Herbert G. Blumer
represents the other school in symbolic interactionism.
It is known as "The Chicago School." This school stresses
the processual character of human behavior and calls for
"sympathetic introspection“ in the study of human behavior.
This school focuses on the acting unit rather than on the
structural categories. See Manis and Meltzer, Ibid., vi.
Also see Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives . . .
for the major statement of this viewpoint. See also, B.
Metzer and J. Petras, "The Chicago and Iowa School of
Symbolic Interactionism," in Tamotsu Shibutani, ed., Human
Nature and Collective Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1970).

 

 

 

51

statements are presented below. According to Blumer,
symbolic interactionism rests on three basic premises:

The first premise is that human beings act towards

things on the basis of the meaning that the things

have for them. Such things include everything that

the human being may note in his world--physica1

objects, such as trees or chairs; other human beings,

such as mother or a store clerk; categories of human
beings, such as friends or enemies; institutions,

such as a school or a government; guiding ideals, such

as individual independence or honesty; activities of
others, such as their commands or requests; and such
situations as an individual encounters in his daily

life. The second premise is that the meaning of such
things is derived from, or arises out of, the social
interaction that one has with one's fellows. The third
premise is that these meanings are handled in, and
modified through, an interpretative process used by 26
the person in dealing with the things he encounters . . . .

Symbolic interactionism is grounded in a number of basic
ideas or, in the words of Blumer, “root images." "These
root images refer to and depict the nature of the following
matters: human groups or societies, social interaction,
objects, the human being as an actor, human action, and the

"27 These root images

interconnection of the lines of action.
constitute the frame of reference. Blumer explained them
as follows:

Human groups are seen as consisting of human beings who
are engaging in action . . .28

 

26 . . . .
'Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspect1ves . . . ,

27Blumer, Ibid., p. 6.

8
Ibid., p. 10.

52

Group life necessarily presupposes interaction between
the group members; or put otherwise, a society con-

sists of individuals interacting with one another . . . .
The position of symbolic interactionism is that the
'worlds' that exist for human beings and for their
groups are composed of 'objects' and that these objects
are the product of symbolic interaction . 29

Symbolic interactionism recognizes that human beings
must have a makeup that fits the nature of social
interaction. The human being is seen as an organism
that not only responds to others on the non-symbolic
level but as one that makes indications to others
and interprets their indications . . . 30

 

The capacity of the human-being to make indications

to himself gives a distinctive character to human
action. It means that the human individual confronts
a world that he must interpret in order to act instead
of an environment to which he responds because of his
organization . . 31

. . . human group life consists of, and exists in, the
fitting of lines of action to each other by the members
of the group. Such articulation of line of action gives
rise to and constitutes 'joint action'-—a societal
organization of conduct of different acts of diverse
participants.

Finally, Manis and Meltzer listed the basic theoretical
assumptions of symbolic interactionism in the following way:

1. Mind, self, and society are most usefully viewed
as processes of human and interhuman conduct.

2. Language is the mechanism for the rise of mind and
self.

3. Mind is an importation of the social process, that
is, of interaction, with the individual.

 

29Ibid., p. 10.

3OIbid., p. 13.

BlIbidO' p. 15.

32Ibid., pp. 16-17.

53

4. Human beings construct their behavior in the course
of its execution, rather than responding mechanically
to either external stimuli or such internal "forces"
as drives, needs, or motives.

5. Human conduct is carried on primarily by the defin—
ing of situations in which one acts.

6. The socialization of the human being both enmeshes
him in society and frees him from society. The
individual with a self is not passive but can
employ his self in an interaction which may result
in behavior divergent from group definition.

Mead's interpretation of human conduct as it has
been embodied in symbolic interactionism was applied by
Brookover and his associates to the school learning situation.

In carrying on the traditional View of Mead, Dewey,
and others, Brookover stated that "It is not the actual
behavior of others which directly determines an individual's
action. Rather, it is the individual's interpretation of
the expectations and acts of others which most influence
his behavior."34

What Brookover is stressing is the point that the
individual's behavior can best be understood from the
perspective of the behaver. This position is also in

accord with the perceptual theory of behavior as put

forward by Combs and Snygg.35 According to Combs and Snygg,

 

 

 

31Manis and Meltzer, Symbolic Interactions: A . . . ,
p. 495.

34Brookover, et al., Self—Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 5.

35

Combs and Snygg, Individual Behavior: A . . . ,

 

54

the individual behaves in the light of his own inter-
pretation of the world around him rather than others'
interpretation, and from the point of view of the behaver
himself, behavior is always meaningful; i.e., it has

36

reason and purpose. Moreover, the perceptual field

influences the behavior of the individual, as phenomenolo-
gists emphasize.

To the individual the causes of his behavior appear

to be in the world around him and in his relation

to it. As he eXperiences it, he eats, not because

of stomach contractions, or a lowering of the sugar

content of his blood . . . , but because he is

hungry, or because he does not wish to disappoint

his wife . . . .
The situation in which an individual might find himself is
important to him. This situation is not the physical

situation or the objective situation but the perceived

 

situation, "the situation as it appears to the behaver."37

According to Combs and Snygg, the perceptual field or
'phenomenal field of an individual is the

entire universe, including himself, as it is
experienced by the individual at the instant of

action. It is each individual's personal and unique
f1eld of awareness, the field of perception responsible
for his every behavior.

 

 

The perceptual field completely determines the behavior of

the individual.

 

36Ibid., p. 17.

37Ibid., p. 18.

55

All behavior, without exception, is completely
determined byy and pertinent toy the perceptual
field of the behaving organism.38

 

 

Although the phenomenal field is fluid, its other
characteristics are that it also has stability and direction.
The perceptual field of an individual is always organized
and an individual is
constantly searching his field for details and
meanings which will better enable him to satisfy
need. This process involves a continual change
in the perceptual field . . . . This process, from
the point of view of the behaver, is one of increased
awareness of details and is, therefore, called
differentiation: it is through differentiations
that change in the perceptual field and, hence, change
in behavior occurs. 9
Further, changes in an individual's own perceptual field
are usually accompanied by changes in the behavior of
others, which indicates to the individual that change
has taken place in their perceptual fields. This recogni-

tion of the change in their phenomenal field by the

individual makes the communication between them possible.

 

That is, "Communication is possible through that part of
the phenomenal field that is common to two persons." This
common experience in the perceptual fields of the
individuals is dependent upon the sociocultural milieu in
which they are growing because "there is considerable

agreement about the things they experience."40

 

3&Ibid., p. 20.

391bid., p. 29.

4OIbid., p. 31.

56

Brookover's Definition of Self-Concept and
Definition of Self-Concept by Others

 

 

Brookover's definition of self-concept of ability
should not be confused with others' definitions of self-
concept or self. Concepts such as "self-reflective,"
"self-attitude," "self-communication," and "self--as an
object" which have been used in a behavioristic tradition
are pertinent to Brookover's use of the concept of self-
concept of ability.‘41

Brookover defined the self-concept as "symbolic

behavior in which the individual articulates a aprogram

 

of action for himself as an object in relation to others."

 

This definition is in line with the symbolic interactionist
VieWpoint; it emphasizes the self-other relationship.

A person has many self-concepts of his behavior.
Brookover was interested in one such behavior, the learning
behavior in the classroom situation. The child thus holds
a self-concept of his learning ability in school, termed
the self-concept of ability. This

refers to behavior in which one indicates to himself
(publicly or privately) his ability to achieve in
academic tasks as compared with others engaged in the
same task. We conceive of self-concept of ability as
only one of many concepts of self. Other concepts of

self refer to other areas of behavior which vary from
that involving school performance.~

 

41Brookover, et al., Self—Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 7.

42Ibid., p. 8

43Ibido' p. 80

 

57

A child may have different self-concepts, depending
upon his pattern of association with others in different
situations. He may also have many self-concepts of
academic ability, depending upon the situation in which
he finds himself. For example, a boy may have a low
self-concept of ability when he is comparing himself with
his boy friend, but a high self—concept of ability when he
communicates with someone else. Similarly, a child who
goes to school in a poor neighborhood may have a higher
self-concept of ability when he refers himself to his
friends from the same school, and a low self-concept of
ability when he refers to a child who attends a better
school in a wealthier neighborhood.

The self-concept of ability of a child may vary
in different situations at different times. This does
not mean there is no consistent pattern to an individual's
self-concept responses. On the contrary, individuals tend
to have relatively stable self-concepts.44 This is so
because they are capable of adjusting themselves to
various situations, based upon their previous experiences
and habits of action.

It may be observed that a person may define the

situation in a similar way in different situations. This

 

44John J. Bronfair, "Stability of the Self-Concept
as a Diversion of Personality," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Paychology, XLV (1952), 606.

 

 

58

does not mean that self-concept of ability exists apart
from behavior in the form of trait or entity.

Self-concept of academic ability does not refer

to some underlying mental structure such as a
phenomenolo ical self, as defined by such theorists
as Jerslid4 or Maslow.46 Rather it refers to symbolic
behavior, and as such, to an empirical event. Thus
when individuals publicly define their academic
ability, we may observe what we refer to as self-
concept of academ1c ability behavior. . . . Since

the process of definition . . . is a language
process, defining oneself is also public in that

it employs a shared symbolic system. Self-concept
of academic ability is the individual's assessment
of his ability as eXpressed in the language of the
community. We do not refer to some unidentified

unit which may be presumed to be more 'real' than

the language used by the person in assessing his
ability. The definitions of self-concept of ability
are determined by the public stangard of the language
shared by the community involved.

In the symbolic interactionist tradition, the role
of the language in the formulation of self and its defini-
tion is held to be crucial. Thus, the language employed
by a person in defining his academic ability is
". . . classified as self-concept of academic ability
behavior. Conversely, statements which do not publicly
and literally refer to one's ability to carry out academic
tasks with reference to others, such as statements of one's

, , . , 48
worth1ness, des1re, and asp1rat1on are excluded."

 

4SArthur Jerslid, In Search of Self (New York: Bureau

of Publication, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1952).
4%A. H. Maslow, "Self-Actualizing People: A Study of
Psychological Health," Personality, Symposium No. 1 (1950),
11-34 0

 

 

47Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 9.

48Ibid., p. 9.

59

It should be pointed out here that personality
theorists have long been interested in such verbalization
as worthiness, desire etc., that peOple make about them-
selves.49 But in the symbolic interactionist frame of
reference, self—concept of academic ability strictly
refers to language behaviors which are strictly symbolic
behaviors. Such conceptualization of self-concept of
ability renders language behaviors as empirical events
which are being constructed and reconstructed.

This, in keeping with the tradition of the symbolic
interactionist, is to say that the self is not a thing
but a behavioral process. In this sense it is conceived
as a 3252 and not a noun or an adjective.50

The conceptualization of the self-concept of
ability as a verb has been criticized by Snygg and others

51 The accuracy or inaccuracy

as being only a self-report.
of the individual's reports about his self-concept of

ability is not so important. What is important, it is

 

49‘L. P. Lipsitt, "A Self-Concept Scale for Children
and Its Relationship to the Children's Form of the Manifest
Anxiety Scale," Child Development, XXIX,4 (December, 1958),
463.

 

50'Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 25.

 

'SlArthur W. Combs and Daniel W. SOper, The Relation-
ship of Child Perceptions to Achievement and Behavior in
the Early School Years, Cooperative Research Project No. 814
(Gainesville: University of Florida, 1963), p. 6; A. W.
Combs and D. W. SOper, "The Self, Its Derivate Terms and
Research," Journal of Individual Psychology, XIII (1957),
133-145; A. W. Combs, D. W. SOper and C. C. Courson, "The
Measurement of Self Concept and Self Report," Educational
and Psychological Measurements, XXIII (1963), 493-500.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.l‘ I!
[Ill .
It":
I! 5 yiKII

6O

maintained, is the tremendous effect of an individual's
self-concept on his decision—making process. Although
the Michigan State General Self-Concept of Ability Scale,
constructed by Brookover in 1962, is a self—report, it
has proven to be much more promising in its use than
many other instruments,52and is more effective and con-
sistent in predicting children's academic achievement
than are many other scholastic aptitude tests.53 There
is some evidence that in an interview situation the
self—concept report of children corresponds closely to
their ratings of themselves on some personality instru-
ments.

Self—Concept: An Intervening
and a Threshold Variable

 

 

Within the general frame of reference of symbolic
interactionism, self—concept is used as an intervening

variable; i.e., as "any intervening construct with

 

52 D. A. Biggs and D. J. Tinsly, "Student-Made Academic
Predictions," The Journal of Educational Research, LXIII,5
(January, 1970), 197.

 

53‘Laurabeth Grieneeks, "Measures of Self-Perception
as Predictors of Scholastic Achievement," The Journal of
Educational Research, LXIII,5 (January 1970), 203.

 

54 R. E. Bills, "Acceptance of Self as Measured by
Interviews and the Index of Adjustment and Values," Journal
of Consulting Psychology, XVIII,1 (1954), 22; W. B. Walsh,
1'Validity of Self-Report," Journal of Counseling Psychology,
XIV,1 (Jan., 1967), 22; and W. B. Walsh, "Validity of Self
Report: Another Look," Journal of Counseling Psychology,
~XV,2 (March 1968), 186.

 

61

a maximum amount of Operational validity, or direct
empirical reference."55 Brookover elaborated on Marx's
writing, and further stated that:

In this context, the self is the intervening

variable between the normative patterns of the

social group or the role expectations held by
significant others, on the one hand, and the

learning of the individual, on the other. We
hypothesize that, for the eXpectations of others

to be functional in a particular individual's
behavior, they must be internalized and become

part of the person's conception of himself. Although
we recognize the relevance of self in all aspects

of human behavior, our interest at this point is

in a particular aspect of self as it functions in

the school learning situation. We postulate that

the child acquires, by taking the role of others,

a perception of his own ability as a learner of the
various types of skills and subjects which constitute
the school curriculum. If the child perceives, that
he is unable to learn mathematics or some other

area of behavior, this self-concept of his ability
becomes the functionally limiting factor of his
school achievement. "Functional limit" is the term
used to emphasize that we are speaking not of genetic
organic limits on learning but rather of those per-
ceptions of what is apprOpriate, desirable, and
possible for the individual to learn. We postulate
the latter as the limits that actually Operate, within
broader organic limits, in determining the %ature or
extent of the particular behavior learned.5

 

55Melvin H. Marx, "Intervening Variable or Hypo-
thetical Construct," The Psyehological Review, LVIII
(1951), 236.

 

56 .
Brookover and Gott11eb, A Sociology of . . . , p. 469;
For different types of symbolic interaction theory and how
the antecedent variables are conceived, see Kuhn, "Major

Trend in . . . , p. 50.

 

62

Beneath the prOposition that the self-concept
of ability is an intervening variable lie several

57 It is believed that the student's

implicit assumptions.
own perception of his academic ability is influenced by

the definition of others about him. This does not mean
that others influence his academic behavior directly.

The definition by others of the student as learner, in
fact, is believed to affect the student's own definition

as a learner, i.e., his self-concept of ability, and this,
in turn, affects his behavior as a learner. This belief

is fundamentally in line with the theoretical assumptions
of the symbolic interactionist, who sees man as
continuously involved in self-definition and evaluation

in the process of interaction with others. An individual,
as a student, takes into consideration the expectations

of others, but in the final analysis acts according to

his Own definition of the situation. Thus, the relation-
ship between self-concept Of ability of the student and

his behavior in school, i.e., his achievement in school
subjects, is conceived as "a necessary but not a sufficient

condition."

 

57
‘Brookover, et al., Self-Concept Of Ability . . . ,
1967, pp. 12-13.

 

58 .
Ibld.’ p. 12.

63

Also, the concept of self-concept of ability is
a "threshold concept" insofar as it functions in such a
way as to govern the behavior Of a child as a learner.59
This means it is possible that a child's definition as a
learner may impose limits on his effort to learn. Within
the boundary of the limit set by a child as a learner,
such factors as language develOpment and specific role
identities "are assumed to determine the level of academic
accomplishment attempted. Self-concept of ability functions
to limit the learning attempted; it does not account for

"60 For

variations in achievement within those limits.
example, a child as a learner in a school situation may
think there are several types of behavior which are
apprOpriate and are expected Of him; let it be assumed that
he is eXpected to be good in sports, to do well on tests,
to get along well with others, and so forth. But in the
school situation he may think that getting along with
others is the most important behavior for him, and thus
make more effort in this area of his behavior than others.
The above observation brings into focus a

fundamental point related to the prevailing roles in a

sociocultural milieu. The linear level of association

 

59David E. Lavin, The Prediction of Academic
Performance (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965),
Chapter III.

 

 

. 6OBrookover, et al., Self-Concept Of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 12.

 

64

between self-concept of ability and achievement in school
will be high if in the prevailing sociocultural milieu
children lEEEE to do well in school, that will depend on
whether or not others in the environment not only teach
children that they should do well in schools but expect
them to do well.61 For example, in most societies, children
may find themselves in a dilemma when they learn from others
with whom they associate in the society that they must go
to school and, at the same time, are told that only a few
of them are capable Of achieving well in school.

' With a few exceptions, almost everyone in society
learns the expected roles such as language, sex roles,
and occupational roles. Informal socialization is Obviously
a much more effective form of teaching than formal education.
AmOng the factors that contribute to its success are the
fact that all members of society eXpect all other members
of society to learn certain types Of behavior, and the
failure to do so is met with consistent disapproval, not
just from a teacher but from everyone.’62

Is there any reason why learning a language and

apprOpriate dress should be almost universal accomplish-

ments while the successful learning of academic subjects

 

lBrOOkover noted that "To conceptualize self-
concept of ability as a threshold variable in its relation—
ship tO academic achievement while having a linear relation—
ship with perceived evaluations presents methodological
problems not commonly treated. The usual correlational
procedures are inadequate," Ibid., p. 13.

62Brookover and Erickson, Society, Schools and . . . ,
pp. 29-31.

 

65

is not? How does the process Of learning mathematics,
English, history, and other subjects differ from the process

of learning one's culture?

The effectiveness of the informal socialization
process in non-academic types Of behavior leads us
to hypothesize that academic behavior would be
learned in the same manner if similar patterns of
expectation and processes Of teaching were employed.
Perhaps algebra behavior would be as universally and
effectively learned as the colloquial language is

in every society if the same processes of socializa—
tion were applied to algebra as are to the local
language.

In a complex and highly stratified society, ideo-
logical and subcultural variations lead to differential
normative eXpectations, which in turn may affect the

learning behavior of children in that group.64

Student Role Relationships

 

It has been stated that a student's self—concept
of academic ability and his perception of other's evalua-
tion of him as a learner are associated with his achieve-
ment in school. This statement does not imply that
the two factors are prescriptive or normative in nature.
Rather, it is assumed that if the student is to attempt

to achieve well he must expect from himself high achievement.

 

631bid., pp. 32—33.

64For discussion Of the problem see Brookover and
Erickson, Ibid., "Subcultural Diversity and School Learning,"
pp. 56-59. For different images of society, expectations
and ideologies held by peOple and their influence on various
'social processes, see, A. L. Strauss, The Contexts of
Social Mobility (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1971).

 

 

66

That is to say, he must define the situation in relation
to others so that his plan of action culminates in attempt-
ing to achieve well in mathematics, for example. He must
also perceive that others expect him and want him to
achieve well in mathematics.

It is further assumed that a student "may maintain
a common set of role expectancies centering upon his being
defined as a 'student'" as he enters into the interaction
process with significant others.65

It is held that the student's relationship with
significant others is a "reciprocal role relationship"
which exists when the student ". . . enacts a social role
which is defined with reference to another (reciprocal)
role, as in relationship between patient and doctor . . .,

66 In the

or student and teacher, student and parents.
process of interaction with others, the student learns
that his role relationship with them requires reciprocity
Of action. He learns that as a student those others with
whom he wants to maintain a relationship expect him to
achieve well in mathematics, for example. This he must

do--it is an Obligation on his part, unless he wants to

take the risk and jeopardize his relationship with others.

 

65Brookover, et al., Self-Concept Of Ability, . .,l967,
p. 15. Also see, Merton, SOcial Theory apg_. . . , p. 369;
Linton, The Study of . . . , p. 113; and Carl Cough and
John Murray, TrSignificant Others and Evaluations," Sociometry,
XXII (1964), 502.

66Herbert C. Kelman, "Processes Of Opinion Change,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, XXV (Spring, 1961), 64.

 

 

 

 

67

Kelman stated that ". . . if an individual finds a particular
relationship satisfying, he will tend to behave in such
a way as to meet the expectations Of the other."67 The
selection of satisfying relationships depends, Of course,
upon the student's perception Of the reciprocity Of that
role relationship.68

What are, then, the pertinent questions which must
be raised in understanding the self-concept Of ability of
a student and his perception Of others' definitions about
him as a learner? To answer the question one must ask:
What are those reciprocal-role relationships which an
adolescent has? Do these reciprocal-role relationships
influence a student's academic behavior? What specific
relationships are maintained by meeting the Obligation
Of academic achievement by a student?

The last question has a particular relevance here.
It implies that in order to understand an individual's
academic behavior those reciprocal relationships which
center on the expectation of others about an individual
as a learner must be determined.

There is another related way to understand behavior
of an individual as a learner. The student takes into

account the definitions Of significant others in organizing

 

67Ibid., p. 64.

, 68Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . -:
1967, p. 16.

 

68

his own plan of action in a given situation. The notion
of "surveillance" as advanced by Lindesmith and Strauss
is relevant here. This notion implies that an individual
". . . regulates his behavior in terms of these supposed
opinions and attitudes Of others. He imagines what 'people'
would say 'if they know' or what they will say 'when they
know'."69 Taking account of this position, Brookover added
to it by saying that "under conditions of perceived
surveillance it is believed that parents, friends, and
teachers will have their greatest influence over the academic
' 7O
behavior of the student." He continued:
Students take into account in their decision those
who they think are concerned about their behavior
as students. When a role relationship is valued by
a student and he perceives that others in that
relationship are concerned about how he behaves in
school, a reciprocal relationship exists. There-
fore, information about who students think of as
being important in their lives along with information
about who students tend to view as being concerned
with their academic behavior is pertinent . . .7
The discussion Of the student role-relationship
falls into the general perspective of reference group

theory. The concept Of the reference group was coined

by Hyman in social psychology in the 1940's.72 This concept

 

69Alfred R. Lindesmith and A. L. Strauss, Social

Psychology, ed. (New York: The Dryden Press, 1959), p. 394.

 

7 I I
c)Brookover, et al., Self-Concept Of Ab111ty . . . ,
1967, p. 16.

 

71Ibid., pp. 16-17.

72Hyman, "The Psychology of . . . ,"

 

69

and reference group theory were further developed by
Newcomb,73Merton and Kilt,74Kelly,75Brookover76and others.77
The concept of reference group has been used by
various researchers in various ways, and much confusion has
arisen for two reasons: (1) the vagueness of the signifi-
cance of the concept of reference group, and (2) inconsistent
and sometimes contradictory formal definitions. Shibutani,
in his examination Of current literature dealing with the
concept of reference group, disclosed that it has been
used in three distinct ways: (1) Reference group is con—
sidered as that group which serves as a comparison point
for actors; (2) It is the group to which actors aspire;

and (3) It is that group whose frame Of reference is

8 . . . . . . .
assured by actors.7 Sim1larly, not1ng the amb1gu1t1es 1n

 

73T. H. Newcomb, Social Psycholpgy (New York: Harpers,

 

1958).

74R. K. Merton and A. S. Kitt, "Contributions to the
Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in Continuties in Social
Research, ed. by R. K. Merton and P. F. Lazarsfeld (Glencoe:
Free Press, 1950).

75H. H. Kelly, "Attitudes and Judgments as Influenced
by Reference Groups," in Readings in Social Psychology, ed.
by Guy Swanson (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952).

 

 

6Brookover and Gottlieb, Sociology Of Educatipp_. . . ,
Chapter XVI. In this chapter the writers discuss the
importance of role theory upon "student role" in detail.

 

7Tomotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives,"
American Journal of Sociology, LX (May, 1955), 562-569.
Kuhn, "The Reference Group Reconsidered," The Sociological
Quarterly, V (Winter, 1964), 6-21.

78Shibutani, "Reference Groups as . . . ," in Manis
and Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction: A . . . , pp. 159-60.

 

 

 

 

70

in the use of this concept, Kuhn proposed a new concept of
"The orientation other," which "refers to a social Object
which may be a single other or a group" and has four defin—
ing attributes:

l. The term refers to the others to whom the
individual is most fully, broadly and basically
committed, emotionally and psychologically;

2. it refers to the others who have provided him with
his general vocabulary, including his most basic
and crucial concept and categories;

3. it refers to the others who have provided and
continue to provide him with his categories of
self and Others and with the meaningful roles to
which such assignments refer;

4. it refers to the others in communication with whom
his self-conception is basically sustained and/or
changed.79
Two things should be noted here. First, one Of the

pressing concerns in the literature dealing with the
reference group theory is with identifying the significant
others who provide the subject with norms and values which
serve as his point of comparison and aspiration. Second,
in the frame of reference Of the symbolic interactionist,
Mead, Dewey, and Cooley emphasized the role of others in
the development Of self and meaning. Mead's notion Of
taking the role Of the other was similar to Cooley's notion

of internally imagined others. In fact, all those who

emphasize the social origin Of the self take into

 

79Manford H. Kuhn, "The Reference Group Reconcidered,"
‘in Manis and Meltzer, ed., Symbolic Ineraction. . ., p. 181.

 

71

consideration the crucial role played by others in the
process.80 Mead's concept Of "generalized others" is
relevant in the general discussion of role theory. However,
Brookover did not incorporate Mead's notion of "generalized
others" in his self-concept theory, but refined the notion
by taking into account the point which C. W. Mills brought
to the fore.81 Mills pointed out that it is not all others
in the situation who guide one's behavior and whose
definition an individual takes into consideration. Rather,
it is the significant others' definition that he takes

into account. Brookover asserted "that parents and

friends make up both membership and reference groups for
the adolescent."

In making reference to "taking the role Of the
generalized other," Mead meant that each person looks at
the world from the perspective of the culture Of the group
of which one is a member. Within the limit set by his
cultural milieu, the individual interacts with others and
in the process comes to learn to perceive, think, form
judgments, and control his action. The generalized perspec-
tive Of others which he shares also aids him in defining

his Objects, other people, the world, and himself. It

 

80Harry S. Sullivan, Conceptions of Modern Psychiatty
(Washington, D.C.: William Alanson White Psychiatric
Foundation, 1947); Karen Horney, Self Analysis (New York:
Norton, 1942); E. R. Hilgard, "Human Motives and the Concept
of Self," American Psychologist, 4:9 (September, 1949).

 

 

 

81Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967' 'po 14.

 

 

72

also helps him in visualizing and articulating his line
Of action from the standpoint of generalized others. His
plan of action involves anticipating the reactions of
others, resisting his undesirable impulses, and guiding
his conduct. The socialized person, in the Meadian frame
of reference, is the one who conforms to the norms and
values of others by defining each situation prOperly and
by meeting his Obligations in each Of the situations he
encounters. In doing so he controls his personal conduct
from the vieWpoints of others and expects that others
would also govern their conduct in the same manner.
Chapter III contains a selective review of the
literature on self—concept, and thus explores in more
detail the concept itself and its implications for a theory

Of learning in school.

CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

In Chapter I it was pointed out that educators
and social scientists generally tend to explain variations
in school learning within the frame of reference of the
fixed ability model and psychometry (mental measurement
or intelligence testing.) It was suggested that the
basic assumptions of psychometry are restrictive in
scope and usefulness for meeting the needs of contemporary
societies; they are also restrictive of the aspirations
and expectations of various groups of peOple. Moreover,
psychometric theory and practice are based upon ideas which
cannot stand the recent evidence produced by the work of
such noted scholars as J. McV Hunt,l Milton Schwebel,2

Jerome Bruner,3 and D. A. Pidgeon.4 The work of these

men has led to an entirely new appraisal of human

 

lHunt, Intelligence and Experience. . .

 

2Schwebel, Who can be . . .

 

3Jerome Bruner, The Process Of Education (New York:
Vintage Books, 1960).

4D. A. Pidgeon, "Intelligence Testing and Compre-
.hensive Education," in Genetic and Environment Factors in
Human Ability, ed. by J. F. Meade and A. S. Parkers
TEdinburgh, London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966).

 

 

73

74

potentialities and learning. All of them found enough
reason to believe that human intelligence is developed
in social experience.5

In this chapter, a review Of selected studies on

self—concept is presented. The review of literature is

organized under two main headings: (l) Self—concept as

 

a theoretical construct. The discussion under this head-

 

ing attempts to clarify the way self—concept as a
theoretical construct has been defined and used by various

researchers; and (2) Self—concept as it relates to

 

achievement in schools. Under this heading selected studies

 

which bear directly upon the basic hypotheses stated in
Chapter I are discussed.

The critical review of self-concept research
presented in this chapter is basically drawn from Brookover,

8

et al.;6 Ahmad Sidawi;7 James C. Votruba; and Perry Zirkel.9

 

5Brian, Intelligence, Psychology and . . .

 

6Brookover, et al., Self- -Concept of Ability. . .
1962, pp. 7-13; BrooEover, et aL, Self- -Concept of Ability .
. . , 1965, pp. 15- 28; Brookover, et al., Self- -Concept Of
Ability . . . , 1967, pp. 17-43.

7

 

 

SidawifGSelf-Concept Of Ability . . . ,”pp. 395-6.
I
8Votruba,‘A Comparative Analysis . . . ,”pp. 10-26.

9Perry A. Zirkel, "Self—Concept and the 'Disadvantage'
of Ethnic Group Membership and Mixture," Review Of Educational
Research, XLI,3 (1971), 211-225. Zirkel's review extends
Wylie's and Brookover's review of literature on self-concept
because it is specifically focused on the empirical studies
Which relate self-concept to ethnic group membership;
Wylie's landmark review on self—concept did not include
this. '

75

Zirkel's review of self—concept research is the most recent
one. This review of literature should throw further light
on how the theoretical frame of reference Of this study,
presented in Chapter II, enhances the understanding of
variability in learning among children in schools and thus,
unlike the fixed ability approach, complements other
theories of learning which focus on the process of inter-
action between the individual learner and others in his
sociocultural environment.

A most comprehensive and critical review of research
on self-concept was completed by Ruth C. Wylie and others.
Among other things, she found that research on self-concept
shows a lack of consistency, clarity, and completeness which
is due to a "bewildering array" of definitions, instruments,
and research designs.

Wylie summarized the status Of self—concept theory
in relation to social interactionism. She pointed out that:

Conceivably there are a number of general ways in
which social interaction and self-concept might be
related. Perhaps the most Obvious and important
possibility is that one's self—concept is shaped
through interaction with others . . . . HoweVer,
propositions of this kind have not been develOped
explicitly enough to point clearly towards definitive,
empirical tests. Perhaps partly as a result of such
vagueness, this theoretically crucial class Of

relationships between variables has been inadequately
explored.

 

10Ruth C. Wylie , The Self—Concept (Lincoln, Nebraska:

University of Nebraska Press, 1961), p. 2; Also see, D. D.
Crowne and M. W. Stephens, "Self-Acceptance and Self-
Evaluative Behavior: A Critique of Methodology," Psychological

 

 

Bulletin, LVIII (1961), 104-121.

llWylie, The Self Concept. . . , pp. 136-159.

 

76

Brookover and his associates reviewed the litera-
ture on self-concept which appeared between 1962 and 1967
and came to a similar conclusion. "Literally hundreds of
studies have been done on self-concept and reported in the
educational, sociological and psychological literature.
Yet few Of these studies can be replicated because of
either poor methodology or unclear conceptualization, or
usually both."12

The review Of literature on self-concept and the
criticism Of studies on self-concept were specifically
completed by Brookover and his associates "from the stand-
point Of the theory behind the research project [self-concept
of academic ability and school achievement] namely, Meadian
social behaviorism or its refinement-~symbolic inter-
actionism." Their critique of self—concept studies and
methodology "focuses upon the way 'self-concept' as a

theoretical construct is used and defined by researchers."13

Self-Concept as a Theoretical Construct

 

Definition Of Self-Concept
and Self Antecedents

 

 

The fact that there are many definitions of self-

concept and related constructs was pointed out by Wylie,l4

 

12 . .
Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ab111ty . . .
1967, p. 20. A review of literature on self-concept which
appeared during April 1963 to 1967 is included in Brookover,
_et aL, ibid., pp. 17-43. A review of self-concept studies
prior to that day may be found in Brookover, et al., Self-
Concept of Ability . . . , 1962, pp. 7-12.
13Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . .
1967, pp. 17-18

I

 

I

14Wylie, The Self-Concept . . . . n. 2.

77

Brookover,15and Zirke1.l6 Brookover, et a1. pointed out
that the confusion in understanding the definition Of
self-concept is created because researchers Often use the
term "self-concept" in the title of their studies which,
in fact, are investigating such subjects as conformity,

ambition, adjustment, physical ability, physical appear-

ance, or social virtues}.7 Furthermore, overlapping terms
such as self-esteem,18 self-image,19 self-perception,20

22

self-reportfn'and sense of personal worth confuse the

 

15Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 19.

l6Zirkel, "Self-Concept and the . . . ," p. 216.

 

l7Brookover, et al., Self-Concept Of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 19.

18B. F. Meketon, "The Effects of Integration upon
the Negro Child's Responses to Various Tasks and Upon His
Level of Self-Esteem” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Kentucky, 1966L Dissertation Abstracts, XXX
(1969), 2339 A-2340 A.

19M. Lansman, "The Relationship Of Self-Image to
Negro Achievement and Attendance in a Racially Integrated
Elementary School" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
New York University, 1968), Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX
(1968), 442A-443A.

20A. T. Soares and L. M. Soares, "A Comparative
Study of the Self—Perceptions Of Disadvantaged Children in
Elementary and Secondary Schools," Proceedings of the 74th
Annual Convention Of the American Psychological Association,
IV (1969), 659-660.

21P. P. Yeatts, "An Analysis of Developmental Changes
in the Self-Report Of Negro and White Children, Grades Three
Thru Twelve" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1967), Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1968), 823.

22H. F. Butts, "Skin Color Perception and Self-
Esteem," Journal Of Negro Education, XXII (1963), 123-128.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

definition Of self-concept. Finally, the confusion is
created because Of "the distinction between multi-and
unidimensional definitions Of self-concept."23 For these
reasons, some researchers have suggested that "self-
concept" as‘a relevant variable in understanding such
behavior as achievement in school or dropping out Of school

should be discarded.24

It is therefore vital that self-
concept as a variable should be more carefully defined
and research designs should be based upon a sound theoretical
frame of reference which would allow for replicative studies
in the future.

Social scientists also disagree about the origin
of the self. Most Of them tend to agree that it is social
in origin, although each person has his own individual self.25
The development of self-image has been traced by some authors

26 Within the frame of reference of Meadian

to an early age.
social psychology, a child develops his own self-definition
and the definitions of Objects around him by learning and
internalizing the symbols used by others around him. In

Mead's view, society exists prior to self, and self emerges

 

23Zirkel, "Self-Concept and the. . . ," p. 216.

24R. E. Beaird, "Self-Concept as Related to Adolescent
School Drop Outs," Dissertation Abstracts, XXV,10 (April,
1965), 5724.

25A. T. Jersild, In Search of Self (New York: Bureau
Of Publication, Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1952).

26See, J. C. Dixon, "Development Of Self-Recognition,"
Journal Of Genetic Psyehology, XCL (December, 1957), 251-256,
in J. J. Gordon and'A. W. Combs, "The Learner: Self and
Perception," Review of Educational Research, XXVIII,5 (December,
1958), 433.

 

 

 

 

79

in the context of society. The development of the self
follows the development Of the ability of the individual

to take the roles of others in a process of social communica-
tion. The self emerges in the process of interacting with
others. The importance of the self-other relation in the
development Of self-concept has already been discussed in
Chapter II.

The social origin of the self has been emphasized
by other authors such as Karen Horneyr7and Harry Stack
Sullivan?8 According to Hilgard, "The self is thus a
prOduct of interpersonal influences . . . I am inclined
to believe that the self, as a social product, has full

meaning only when expressed in social interaction."29

Self-Concept: Is it a Process
or a Fixed Trait?

 

 

In most of the studies on self-concept, researchers
have generally assumed that self-concept is a fixed trait
possessed by individuals; i.e., most Of them have con-

ceptualized self-concept as an inner and intrapersonal trait

 

 

 

"which an individual brings to the educational setting."30
27 .
Horney, Self Analys1s. .
28Sullivan, Conceptions of Modern . . .
29E. R. Hilgard, "Human Motives and the Concept Of

Self," American Psycholggists, IV,9 (September, 1949), 379.

30John K. Tuel and Rosemary Wursten's study is one
_example Of those studies which are based upon such an
assumption about self-concept. See, John K. Tuel and
Rosemary Wursten, "The Influence of Intra-Personal Variables
on Academic Achievement," California Journal of Educational
Research, XVI, 16 (March, 1965), 58-64.

 

80

But, from the Meadian perspective, the perspective
of the present study, "Self is a process rather than a
thing, a verb rather than a noun, and by no means a fixed
trait lugged around by the '1earner'. Self is con-
ceptualized as a label referring to certain symbolic

behaviors in which individuals engage."31

Self-Concept: Global or General
vs. Specific

 

 

Researchers in the area of self-concept have
concerned themselves with the problematic distinction
between global or general self-concept and specific self-
concepts.32 Global self-concept implies over-all personal
perception in a broader social context, whereas specific
self-concept is restricted to a relatively narrower
social setting. For example, in the social context Of
school, a student's school-related self-concepts (e.g.,
"My grades are good," "I am a good student in physics,
but poor in English," "I am accurate in my school work.")
may be expected to more closely relate to his performance

in school than the correlation between other dimensions

 

of self-concepts (e.g., "I am very handsome," "I am
well-behaved," "I am popular.") and performance in school
31

Brookover, et al., Self-Concept Of Ability . .
1967, p. 23.

 

32Zirkel, "Self-Concept and the. . . ," p. 216.

81

subjects. "On logical grounds, items which assess specific
academic self-conceptions ought to be superior to general

self-perception items when school achievement is to be

predicted."33

Similarly, in her review of self-concept studies,
Ruth Wylie found that

Most of the hundreds of researchers aimed at studying
self-regard are apparently based on the assumption
that individual differences exist in an over-all or
global self-evaluative attitude . . . Even if a '9'
factor were to be demonstrated and a variety of
instruments used, it seems clear that such a factor
can account for only a small part of the variance

in the instruments. 4

Thus, Wylie explored "children's estimates of their ability
to do school work,"35 which is a more restricted aspect Of
self-evaluation. Brookover's concept of self—concept of
academic ability is in accord with Wylie's notion Of more

restricted aspects of self-evaluation.36

 

33Brookover, etafld, Self—Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 23.

 

 

34Wylie, The Self—Concept . . . , cited in BrOokOver,
et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . , 1967, p. 21.

351bid.

36

Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 21.

 

82

In concluding, a review Of studies by Craig,37Piers

. 38 39 . 40
and Harr1s, Nash, and Wickersham, Brookover wrote:

It seems reasonable to conclude that the small Observed
associations commonly found between general self-
perceptions and school achievement are primarily the
result of the association between academic self-
perceptions (known to be highly correlated with achive-
ment) and general self-perceptions. In fact . . . if
one controlled for the academic dimension of self-
concept the association between general measures Of
self-congept and GPA (grade point average) will drop
to zero.

Self-Concept: Is it Real or Ideal?

In the literature on self-concept, many researchers
tend to think there is a difference between what a person
thinks he is capable Of doing (his ideal self-concept) and
what he can actually do (his real self-concept). For

example, a student with an I.Q. score Of 90 may think he

is capable of finishing studies in college, but his counselor

 

37Helen B. Craig, "A Sociometric Investigation Of
the Self-Concept of the Deaf Child," American Annals Of
the Deaf, CX,4 (1965), 456-478.

38Ellen V. Piers and Dale B. Harris, "Age and Other
Correlates of Self-Concept in Children," Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, LV,2 (1964), 91-95.

39Ralph J. Nash, "A Study Of Particular Self-Percep-
tions as Related to Scholastic Achievement of Junior High
School Age Pupils in a Middle Class Community," Dissertation
Abstracts, XXIV,9 (1964), 3837-3838.

40Janet M. Wickersham, "Self-Perceptions, in Relation
to Grades and Report Cards, of Third and Sixth Grade Children
From Above Average Socioeconomic Backgrounds in Richmond
and Wayne Township," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI,6 (December,
1965), 3116-3117.

 

 

 

 

 

 

41Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 24.

 

83

may define the student's self-concept in this situation as
"ideal" and not "real." Thus a concern for incongruities
or discrepancies between the "real-self," "ideal-self," and
a stated "real-self" is frequently shown in the research on
self-concept.42 Similarly,other writers have pointed out
discrepancies between self-expectations and the perceptions
of others' expectations.43
The above trend in self-concept research represents

a clinical concern. It implies that the presence Of dis-
crepancies between an individual's "real-self" and his "ideal-
self" is an indication of conflict and maladjustment, and may

be undesirable or harmful.44

 

42See J. E. Williams, "Changes in Self and Other
Perceptions Following Brief Educational-Vocational Counsel-
ing," Journal of Counseling_Psychology, IX (1962), 18—30;
Clifford D. Miller, "An Exploratory Investigation of Self-
Concepts of High Achieving, Average Achieving, and Low
Achieving Groups Of Junior High Pupils as Perceived by Pupils
and Their Teachers," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI,3 (Sept-
ember, 1965), 1483-1484; Mildred T. Richardson, "Discrepancy
Measurements Relating Students' Self-Concept of Mental Ability
with Mental Health Stability, and Empirical Study Of Ninth
Graders," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI, 5 (November, 1965),

2592.

 

43Mary C. Davis, "Vocational Choice and Self-Others'
Expectations Congruence as a Function Of Ego Identity,"
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI, 2 (1965), 1168; Richardson,
"Discrepancy Measurements Relating . . . ."

44B. Berelson and G. A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An
Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, 1964), p. 291.

 

.1? .T‘Wmnmmr

84

On the other hand, one may argue that such discrepan-
cies may be necessary to arouse strong motivational forces
to act in certain directions, and that such action may not
be possible otherwise. For children who are growing up under
the influence of multiple others in schools and elsewhere,
the differences between real-ideal self may be a natural
indication of growth and develOpment.45 But the variation
between what individuals regard as the "ideal-self" and the
"real-self" may not be so great if they are growing up in the

. . 46
same soc1o-cultural env1ronment.

According to the theoretical orientation develOped
by Brookover and his associates,

both 'ideal' self and 'real' self are behaviors which
emerge in social discourse with self and others. A
comprehensive description of the sources of 'ideal'
self, if we were to use the term, would include the
normative prescriptions perceived by the actor as
occurring within his primary and secondary groups.
Hence, 'ideal' self as well as 'real' self would
likely correspond with cultural boundaries.

If the assumption is true that self-concepts emerge

 

45H. V. Perkins, "Factors Influencing Change in
Children's Self-Concepts," Child Development, XXIX, 2 (June,
1958), 230.

 

46Merville C. Shaw and Gerald J. Alves, "Guidance in
Practice: The Self-Concept of Bright Academic Underachievers,"
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXXII, 4 (1964), 401-403;
Densley H. Palmer, "A Comparison of the Consistency of the
Self-Judgments of Physically Disabled and Non-disabled Male
College Students," Dissertation Abstracts, XVI, 8 (February,
1966), 4456.

 

 

85

through a process Of language interaction in which
the person takes into account how he is defined by
others, and if all others in the life of a person
provided similar definitions of a person, we would
anticipate a low discrepency between 'real'and
'ideal' self.47

Moreover, "The research literature is less than clear
on how these discrepancies cause the harm that is assumed to
result from them."48 Measured discrepancies between the
"real" self and "ideal" do not seem to affect actual perform-
ance.49 Academic achievement is not related to such discrep-
ancies.

' In spite of the long tradition of research on this
subject, no one has demonstrated conclusively that
poorer school achievement, poor mental health, or poor
anything is a consequence or even a concomitant Of a
discrepancy between stated 'real' and stated 'ideal'
self concepts,

asserted Brookover.51

Within our theoretical perspectives, there is no 'real'
self entity apart from behavior. . . . When a person
says 'I am . . . ' or 'I would like to be . . . ,'
these are 'real behavioral events [because they are
symbolic behavior] no less worthy of study than any
other behavioral events.

 

47Brookover, et a1, Self—Concept of Ability . . . ,

1967, pp. 26-270

481bid., p. 26.

49M. Moses and R. Duvell, "Depreciation and the Self
Concept," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XVI, 4 (October,
1960), 388.

50F. M. Jervis, "The Meaning of a Passive Self-Concept,"
Journal of Clinical PaychologY, XV, 4 (October, 1959), 372.

51Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,

‘1967, p. 26.

521bid., p. 25.

86

Self-Concept as it Relates to
Achievement in Schools

 

 

In this section, a review of selected studies which
bear directly upon the basic hypotheses stated in Chapter I
is presented.

One Of the major hypotheses stated in Chapter I was
that self-concept Of academic ability is associated with
academic achievement. This hypothesis was based upon the
assumption that an individual's self-concept can affect his
performance and behavior. Several studies have established
the relationship between self-concept and behavior.53 A
positive correlation between general self-concept and high

55 who

achievement was reported by Renzaglia54 and Reeder,
examined correlates Of self-structure by using general per-
sonality traits to determine self-concept. Their method,
however, did not directly tap the students' self-concepts as

learners, which is the focus of the present study. The role

Of self-concept in achievement in a task-oriented situation

 

53See Thomas S. McPartland, John H. Cumming, and
Wynona Ganetson, "Self-Conception and Ward Behavior in Two
Psychiatric Hospitals," Sociometry, XXIV (1961), 11-14; and
Walter C. Reckless, Simion Dinitz, and Ellen Murray, "Self-
Concept as an Insulator Against Delinquency," American
Sociological Review, XXI (1956), 744-746.

54G. A. Renzaglia, "Some Correlates of the Self-
STructure as Measured by an Index Of Adjustment and Values"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1952), cited by Wylie, The Self-Concept . . . , p. 72.

55Thelma A. Reeder, "A Study of Some Relationships
.Between Level of Self-Concept, Academic Achievement and
Classroom Adjustment," Dissertation Abstracts, XV (1955,
2472.

 

 

 

87

was investigated by Roth. On the basis of the results of
his study, Roth concluded that ". . . in terms Of their con-
ception of self, individuals have a definite investment to
perform as they do. With all things being equal, those who
do not achieve choose not to do so, while those who do

56 Further evidence on the rela-

achieve, choose to do so."
tionship between positive self-concept and school achievement
was Offered by Coopersmith, who found the correlation of .36

between the above variables in a group of 102 fifth and sixth

57 Supporting evidence was reported by

grade children.
Bodwin, who studied the relationship between immature self-
concepts and reading abilities in the third and in the sixth
grades, and found a positive correlation of .72 and .62
between the above two variables, respectively.58
In Chapter I of the present study it was also hypo-
thesized that a student's self-concept of academic ability
would be affected by his perception of the evaluation which

significant others hold of him as a learner. Basic to this

hypothesis is the assumption "that people significant

 

56R. M. Roth, "Role of Self-Concept in Achievement."

Journal of Eaperimental Education, XXVII (June, 1959), 265-281.

 

57S. COOpersmith, "A Method for Determining Types Of
Self-Esteem," Journal Of Educational Research, LIX (1959),
87-94.

58F. B. Bodwin, "The Relationship Between Immature
Self-Concept and Certain Educational Disabilities" (unpub-
‘lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1957),
p. 77.

88

or important to another person can profoundly influence that

59 Various studies provide support

person's concept of self."
for this theoretical position.

For example, Videbeck's experiment supports the
proposition “that self-conceptions are learned and that the
evaluative reactions of others play a significant part in the

60 Videbeck in his study demonstrated that

learning process."
a person's self-rating was significantly changed in the hypo-

thesized direction after one critique by an evaluator.

Further evidence was Offered by Rosen, Levinger, and Lippitt,

who studied the effect of group-related determinants on desire
for change; and reported that a person's desire for change

was positively related to the wishes of others for him.61
Clarke investigated the relationship between college academic

performance and expectancies and reported a positive relation-

ship between a student's academic performance and the academic

expectations held by his significant others as perceived by

 

 

him.62 Staines' study demonstrated that the self-concepts
59Brookover, et aL, Self—Concept of Ability. . . ,
1962, p. 10.

60Richard Videbeck, "Self-Conception and the Reaction
of Others," Sociometry, XXIII (December, 1960), 351-359.

615. Rosen, G. Levinger, and R. Lippit, "Desired
Change in Self and Others as a Function Of Resource Ownership,"
Human Relations, XIII (1960), 187-192.

62W. E. Clarke, "The Relationship Between College
Academic Performance and EXpectancies" (unpublished Ph.D.
'dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960).

 

 

89

Of students were changed when their teachers, as significant
others, made positive comments to them and created an atmos-

63 In another

phere which provided psychological security.
study conducted by Davidson and Lang, it was found that
children's perception of teachers' feelings toward them cor-
related positively and significantly with the children's

64 Studies by Miyamoto and Dornbush,65 and

self-perception.
Reeder, Donahue, and Biblarg66 demonstrated a positive rela-
tionship between self-concept and perceived evaluations by
significant others. Furthermore, the relationship between
self-concept of academic ability in school and academic
performance, as well as between self-concept of academic
ability and perceived evaluations by significant others, was

indicated by research carried out by Brookover, Thomas, and

Patterson.67 Their research also demonstrated the relationship

 

63J. W. Staines, "Self-Picture as a Factor in the
Classroom," British Journal of Educational Paychology, XXVIII

64H. H. Davidson and G. Lang, "Children's Perceptions
of Their Teachers' Feeling Toward them Related to Self-Per-
ception, School Achievement and Behavior," Journal of Experi-
ment Education, XXIX (1960), 107-118.

65Frank Miyamoto and Stanford Dornbuch, "A Test Of
the Inter-actionist Hypothesis of Self—Conception," American
Journal Of Sociology, LXI (1956), 399-403.

66Leo G. Reeder, G. A. Donahue, and A. Biblarg, "Con-
ception Of Self and Others," American Journal of Sociology,
LXVI (1960), 153.

67W. B. Brookover, Shailer Thomas, and Ann Patterson,
,"Self-Concept Of Ability and School Achievement," Sociology
Of Education, XXXVII (1964), 271-278.

 

 

 

 

 

p

90

between a student's perception of evaluation by significant
others Of his academic ability and his academic performance.
That self-appraisal reflects the appraisals of significant
others was demonstrated in a study conducted by Helper.
Helper studied the relationship between parental evaluations
of their children and the children's self-evaluations, and
reported that "On the whole, then, the data seem to point
out the existence Of a slight but real tendency toward simi-
larity between parents' evaluations of their children and
the children's self-evaluations."68 The theory that the self-
concept an individual holds is learned from interaction with

69

others was also supported by Manis. Similarly, Coopersmith,

in a comprehensive study entitled The Antecedents of Self-

 

Esteem, indicated that "Taken as a whole the results do indi-
cate that favorable attitudes and treatment by persons signi-

ficant to an individual, be they parents or peer, are likely

70

to have enhancing effects upon self-judgments." By this

 

68M. M. Helper, "Parental Evaluations Of Children
and CHildren's Self-Evaluations," Journal Of Abnormal and
Social Psyehology, LVI (1958), 90.

69M. Manis, "Personal Adjustment, Assumed Similarity
to Parents and Inferred Parental Evaluations of the Self,"
Journal Of Consulting Psychology, XXII (1958), 481-485.

70Stanley Coopersmith, The Antecedents of Self-
Esteem (San Francisco and London: W. H. Freeman and Company,

1967), p. 79.

 

 

91

statement Coopersmith did not mean that individuals' self-
judgments would be enhanced if the significant others made
uncritical, unrestricted remarks about the person and held
totally favorable attitudes toward him. Bledsoe and Garrison
stated that "The pupil's self-concept is an outgrowth of his
experience; it is largely achieved through contact with others.
Thus the pupil's self-concept is dependent upon the quality of
people with whom he has associated}.71 l
Several other studies focusing on such topics as the 1
changes in self-concept in a group setting, the effects of failure :
on self-concept, and the effect of counseling on self-concept
and achievement in schools were discussed by Brookover and

72 Commenting on the research on self-concept,

his associates.
Brookover suggested that "There is substantial theoretical
rationale for inducing changes in the self-concept and the
performance of the individual through the modification of the ex-

73 He further pointed out

pectations of significant others."
that there is a need "for collecting information on the social

context within which the student learns rather than the

 

71J. C. Bledose and K. C. Garrison, The Self-Concepts
of Elementary School Children in Relation to Their Adademic
AChievement, Intelligence, Interests, and Manifest Anxiety
(Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, College of Educa-
tion, 1962), p, 168.

72Brookover, et aL, Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1965, pp. 16-28.

73Ibid., p. 28.

 

 

92

characteristics or traits of the student himself as has been
the case in educational psychology.74 He noted that concern
with social context has recently been shown by researchers
who have become interested in the "sociology of learning,"

but most of them have focused on such social background
variables as father's occupational level, other socioeconomic
status characteristics, the number of science courses taken during
the teacher's college training, size of schools, neighborhood,
and a host of other variables.75 Brookover pointed out that
most researchers have seldom given any attention "to the
development of propositions about how these social background
factors become translated into differential action in the

classroom."76

Likewise, many sociologists and social
psychologists have advocated the idea "that1flu3actor organizes
his behavior according to his definitions of the social con-
text. . . . But the translation of socio-psychological assump-
tions into theoretical propositions and educational research,

however, is virtually absent."77

 

74Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,

1967, p. 18.

 

 

75See S. Boocock, "Towards a Sociology of Learning:
A Selective Review of Existing Research," Sociology of Educa-
tion, XXXIX (Winter, 1966), l-45; Brookover, et al., Self-
Concept of Ability . . . , 1967, p. 18.

 

 

 

76Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . .,
1967, p. 18.

77Ibid., p. 19.

93

Brookover's Study: An Overview of
Propositions and Findings

 

 

According to the basic propositions of Brookover's
theory,

A student's self-concept of academic ability results
from his perceptions of the evaluations significant
others hold of his ability. The student's self-concept
of academic ability in turn functions to limit the
level of academic achievement attempted. Self-concept
of academic ability is therefore hypothesized as an
intervening variable between the expectation and
evaluations of significant others and school achieve-
ment. The relationship of perceived evaluations of
significant others to self-concept is conceptualized
as a necessary and sufficient condition, i.e., a
change in the perceived evaluations of others will be
reflected in a change in self-concept. The relation-

' ship of self-concept of academic ability to academic
achievement, on the other hand, is hypothesized as a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for the
occurrgnce of a particular level of academic perform-
ance.

Brookover and his associates systematically tested
the above theory. The data they obtained revealed "that
parents and other family members are more likely than any
other category to be 'significant others' for adolescents
during the junior and senior high school years."79 This is
contrary to other assumptions, which point out that friends
are more likely to be "significant others" for the adolescent

during the above period.80 However, in later years friends

 

781bid., p. 140.

79Ibid., p. 141.

80See James S. Coleman, "The Adolescent Subculture
‘ and Academic Achievement," Journal of Sociology, LXV (1960),
341-347.

 

94

as "significant others" become important and the impact or
perceived evaluation of friends on self-concept of ability
increases.81 Teachers are less likely to be important as
"significant others" for the major portion of the secondary
school group.82
In regard to the relationship between self-concept

of ability and I.Q. scores, socioeconomic status, and achieve-
ment in schools, Brookover wrote that

The relationships supporting the social psychological

theory of school learning presented here are not there-

fore greatly affected by variations in either measured

intelligence or socioeconomic status. Rather, the

evidence indicates that much of the correlations

between these variables and school achievement is 83

accounted for by variation in self-concept of ability.
In explaining performance by students in schools, the self-
concept of ability appears to be a more relevant variable
than the others because it explains how the evaluations of
others are translated into behaviaor which is related to
achievement in schools.84

The systematic testing of the basic propositions of

Brookover's theory has not provided any basis for rejecting

 

81Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 141.

 

 

821bid., p. 142.

831bid., p. 145.

84Ibid., pp. 144-146.

95

it. "Rather, substantial support has been produced."85 The

theory advocated by Brookover was further supported by Edsel

Erickson,86 Ann Patterson,87 Richard Morse,88 Kenneth Harding,89

90 Ahmad Sidawi,91 and James Votruba.92

David Haarer,
Chapter IV describes the methods used in the collec-

tion and analysis of the data.

 

8SIbid., p. 146.

86Edsel Erickson, "A Study of Normative Influence of
Parents and Friends upon Academic Achievement" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965).

87Ann Patterson, "An Evaluation of an Instrument
Designed to Measure the Construct, Self-Concept of Academic
Ability" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1966).

88Richard Morse, "Self-Concept of Ability, Significant
Others, and School Achievement of Eighth Grade Students: A
Comparative Investigation of Negro and Caucasian Students"
(unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963).

89Kenneth L. Harding, "A Comparative Study of Cauca-
sian Male High School Students who Stay in School and Those
Who Drop Out" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1966).

90David L. Haarer, "A Comparative Study of Self-Concept
of Ability between Institutionalized Delinquent Boys and Non-
Delinquent Boys Enrolled in Public Schools" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964).

91Sidawi, "Self-Concept of Ability . . ."

92

Votruba, "A Comparative Analysis . . .

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter the population and site of this
research is described. The operational definitions of the
major and related variables and instruments are specified,
and the procedures for data collection and data analyses

are presented.

Population and Site of Research

 

The population under analysis included 1219 seventh
grade students who were enrolled in sixteen different
schools during the 1970-71 academic year in the city of
St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada. Five of these schools
were being administered by the Avalon Consolidated School
Board, while eleven others were controlled by the Roman

Catholic School Board.

Types of Analyses and POpulation

 

Two sets of analyses were done in this study. Out
of the above 1219 students who participated in the study,
complete data for one set of analyses were available only

for 161 students. For the second set of analyses data

96

97

were available for all the 1219 students. It should be
noted that 161 students on which achievement data were
available formed an adequate sample to test the hypothesized
relationship between student's self-concept of ability and
his academic achievement and other related questions. The
correlations obtained between self-concept of ability and
academic achievement (see Chapter V) in this study using
the sample consisting of 161 students are not significantly
different from the correlations between these variables
found by Brookover, Sidawi and Votruba in their studies.

1. The relationship between self-concept of academic
ability and achievement in school was analyzed in the
first set.

2. The second set of analyses focused on the relav
tionship between self—concept of academic ability and

perceived evaluations by others (N=1219).

Data Collection Procedures

 

The data were collected by means of a questionnaire.
The questionnaires were distributed to the students in the
classroom by teachers under the supervision of the princi-
palsHLn each of the fifteen schools on December 14, 1970.
In one school, questionnaires were distributed on December

15.

Instruments Used

 

The following instruments were used to collect the

data:

98

1. Michigan State University (M.S.U.) Self-
Concept of Academic Ability Scale.

2. M.S.U. Perceived Evaluations of Students'
Academic Ability by Others Scales.

3. M.S.U. Significant Others Questionnaires.

4. M.S.U. Specific Subject Self—Concept of

Academic Ability Scale.

Major and Related Variables

The following are the variables analyzed in this

 

study:
1. Academic Achievement
2. Self-Concept of Academic Ability
3. Perceived Parents' Evaluation
4. Perceived Friends' Evaluation
5. Perceived Teachers' Evaluation
6. Perceived Principals' Evaluation
7. Perceived Counselors' Evaluation
8. Perceived Ministers' Evaluation
The other related variables are listed below:
9. Specific Subject Self—Concept of Ability:h1
Six Subjects (i.e., Mathematics, English,
History-Geography, Science, Literature and
French)
10. Sex
Data on variables such as educational attainment

of father and mother, occupational level of parents, and

99

score on intelligence tests were not available. This lack
of data, to some extent, does not permit the desired
comparison of this study with studies conducted by Brook—
over, Sidawi and Votruba. Although the variations in the
major hypotheses due to the above variables cannot be
accounted for in this study, these variables are not
central to the interaction theory of Brookover. There is
some evidence that SCA is significantly associated with
academic achievement when I.Q. scores and SES (socio—

economic status) variables are controlled.1

Operationalization of Variables

 

In this study the major and related variables are

operationalized as below.

Academic Achievement

 

The indices of a student's academic achievement
are:

(l) the grade point average,

(2) grades in each of the six subjects

(Mathematics, English, Science, History~
Geography, Literature and French).

Grades obtained by students were not made available
by all schools. Grades could be obtained only for 69 male
and 92 female students from six schools out of the sixteen.
The grades obtained by these students represented the marks

received by them during the period of March through May,

1970-71.

 

lBrookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . ., 1962,
pp. 37, 39; also see Votruba{“The Comparative Analysis. . .,np.35.

 

 

100

The grading system included an allotment of letter
grades to students which corresponded with total marks
obtained by them in each subject out of the maximum marks
of one hundred. The letter grades corresponded to the per-

centages of marks as follows:

A = 85-100
B = 75-85
C = 60-74
D = 50-59
F = below 50

For the purposes of this study, students were
graded oneafive-point scale, i.e., a student who obtained
a letter grade of "F" was given one point, two points for
letter grade "D," three points for letter grade "C," four
points for the letter grade "B," and five points for the
letter grade "A."

The grade point average was computed by adding the
points obtained by students in Mathematics, English, His-
tory and Geography, Science, and Literature and dividing
the total scores by five. It should be noted here that
grades obtained by students in French were excluded in
computing the grade point average for two reasons: (1)
the grades in French for all the students were not avail-
able, and (2) the grading system for French was not uniform
in all the schools. In some schools only a pass or fail
grade was given, in others, letter grades of A, B, C,
were given. It was not clear how these letter grades

corresponded to numerical grades.

101

Self-Concept of Academic Ability

In this study self-concept of academic ability
"refers to the evaluating definitions which an individual
holds of himself in respect to his ability to achieve in
academic tasks in general as compared with others in his
school class."2 This definition Of self-concept is derived
from Mead's social psychology and is consistent with the

Meadian concept of formulation of the self. E
Operationally defined, a students' self-concept of E

t

In

ability is the sum of his responses on the Michigan State

 

University Self-Concept of Adademic Ability Scale, here-
after referred to as "SCA" (see Appendix A ). This scale
was developed by Brookover et_al. and has been tested for
its reliability and validity by Ann Peterson.3 The scale
consists of eight multiple choice items and "each item

is scored from 5 to 1 with the higher self-concept alter-
natives receiving the higher values. In keeping with our
definition of general self-concept of academic ability,
each item asks the student to compare himself with others

I O O I O O 4
in his soc1a1 system on the dimenSIOn of academic competency.

 

2Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,
1967, p. 59.

3See Ann Peterson, "Reliability and Validity of
Self-Concept of Ability Scale," in Brookover, et al.,
1967, pp. 155-172.

4Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,
1967, pp. 59-60.

 

 

102

Students Perceptions of Evaluation of
Their Academic Ability by Others

 

 

The self-other relationship and analyses of its
effect on the formation of general self—concept of ability
is basic to this study. In order to measure the self—

other relationship the Perceived Evaluation of Students'

 

Academic Ability by Others Scale, as developed by Brookover

 

gt_al. at Michigan State University, was used.5 Brookover
§£;3l, in their studies concerned themselves with students'
perceptions of how three significant others-~parents,
friends, and teachers-—evaluated their academic ability.
They used three scales to measure the self-other relation-
ship.

But, in this study it was intended to examine the
students' perceptions of others' evaluations of their
academic abilities by three more "significant others":
principal, counselors and minister or priest. The addition
of these three "significant others" was based upon
observations about the setting of the educational system
in Newfoundland. Because schools in Newfoundland are
organized along denominational lines, it was reasoned that
in this context a priest or minister would play an impor-
tant role in the lives of students. Based upon the obser-
vation that the British educational practices had con-
siderable influence on the outlook of school authorities

‘ in Newfoundland, it was thought that principals might

 

5Ibid., pp. 60-61.

103

perceive their roles as comparable to that of head
masters in the British school system, and thus might be
exerting considerable influence in the formation of
students' self-concepts as learners. In recent years
Newfoundland's educational system has been experiencing
the impact of American educational practices and the
trend is towards introducing counseling services into the
Newfoundland schools. This observation raised the possi-
bility that counselors might also be playing important
roles in the formation of students' self—concept of
ability.

Thus, in order to measure students' perceptions of
others' evaluations of their academic ability by parents,
friends, teachers, principals, counselors and ministers,
six scales were used.* Each scale was composed of multiple
choice items and each is referred to as follows:

1. Perceived Evaluations of Students' Academic
Ability by Parents Scale (PPEV).

2. Perceived Evaluations of Students' Academic
Ability by Friends Scale (PFEV).

3. Perceived Evaluations of Students' Academic
Ability by Teacher Scale (PTEV).

4. Perceived Evaluations of Students' Academic
Ability by Principal Scale (PXEV).

5. Perceived Evaluations of Students' Academic
Ability by Counsellor Scale (PCEV).

6. Perceived Evaluations of Students' Academic
Ability by Minister Scale (PMEV).

 

*See Appendix B.

104

General Significant Others(see Appendix C)

 

The names of individuals who were "significant
others" in the lives of students were obtained in response
to the following statement: "There are many people who
are important in our lives. In this space below, list the

names of the people who you feel are important in your

 

life. Please indicate who each person is." This question
was designed by Brookover et a1. and responses of students

to the above question were labeled as student's general

.8' mmm~

significant others.

Academic Significant Others

 

The names of people who were "significant others"
in the academic lives of students were obtained in
response to the question prepared by Brookover et_§l,
"There are many people who are concerned about how well
young people do in school. In the space below, list the
names of the people you feel are concerned about how well

you do in school. Please indicate who each person is."

 

Specific Subject Self-Concept of
Academic Ability (SSSCA)

 

 

A student's perception of how well he performs in
different subjects is his SSSCA. Operationally defined

it is the student's response to the Michigan State Univer-

 

sity Specific Subject Self-Concept of Ability Scale (see

 

Appending ). This scale was modified by adding two more
subjects: French and Literature. The items on this scale are

similar to the items on the M.S.U. Self-Concept of Academic

 

105 i

Ability Scale, the only difference being that this time

 

it deals with specific subjects: Mathematics, English,
Science, History—Geography, Literature, and French. These
are the core academic courses offered in Newfoundland
schools. "The student is asked to respond separately by
subjects thus giving four eight-item tests which are scored

6
like the general self-concept test."

Data Analysis Procedures

 

Analysis procedures may be summarized as follows:

F uni—.1

(1) Data were coded and punched on I.B.M. cards by the
professional key punchers at Michigan State University
Computer Laboratory and analyzed by using the I.B.M.
370/155 computer at Newfoundland and Labrador Computor
Services Limited, St. John's, and CDC 360 at Michigan
State University; (2) Total scores were computed from the
Self-Concept of Ability Scale, the Perceived Evaluations
by Other Scales, and the grade point average of each of
the respondents; (3) Pearson Product Moment Correlations,
means, standard deviations, Kurtosis were calculated
using the I.B.M. 370/155 computer; (4) Correlations were
based upon raw scores. For missing data, the model
response in the scale ‘was substituted; (5) A comparison
was made between the results found by the Brookover
study, the German, and the Lebanon study with the present

(study (i.e., the Newfoundland study).

 

6Brookover, et al., Self—Concept of Ability. . .,
1962, p. 29.

CHAPTER V

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The major hypotheses are tested, and the results
of the analyses are presented in this chapter. The results
of this study are also compared with the results of the
Brookover, the German, and the Lebanese studies.
Relationship of Self-Concept of
Academic Ability to Achievement
The relationship between self-concept of ability
(SCA) and achievement in school (grade point average or GPA)
was stated in the form of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Students' self-concept of ability is

associated with academic achievement.

Correlational Analysis

In order to test hypothesis 1, the Pearson Product
Moment Correlation was calculated. The correlation between
SCA and GPA for the male students (N=69) was .49 and .51
for the female students (N=92). Both of these correlations
are significant beyond the .05 level.

The magnitude of correlations between SCA and GPA
found in this study are comparable to the magnitude of the
correlations between SCA and GPA found in Brookover's,

Votruba's and Sidawi's studies.

106

107

Brookover, in his sample of seventh grade students,
obtained a correlation of .62 for the males (N=225) and
.55 for the females (N=307).l Votruba used a sample of
eighth grade students (N=750) in Gissen, Germany and
obtained a correlation of .56.2 Sidawi used a sample of
seventh grade male students (N=326) in Lebanon and obtained
a correlation of .39.3

There are slight differences between the results
obtained by Brookover and the results obtained by others.
The difference may be accounted for by the fact that Brook-
over used a number of indices to determine achievement by
students in schools, while only grade point average (GPA)
was used as an index of school achievement by others. In
the present study, GPA was calculated from the grades
obtained by students between the period of March through
May. Sidawi obtained a relatively low correlation between
SCA and GPA in Lebanon. "Factors accounting for such dif-
ferences between Brookover's findings and this study's may
include the following: the type and number of indexes used
to determine achievement, the number of items used to give

the total scores, which are known elements introducing

variation and error."4 It should be noted that the

 

lBrookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,
1967, p. 88.

2

 

Votruba, "A Comparative Analysis. . ., p. 34.

3Sidawi, "Self-Concept of Ability. . .," p. 140.

41bid., p. 140.

108

correlations between SCA and GPA reported in all these
studies are significant beyond the .05 level.

Thus, the major hypothesis that self-concept of
ability is associated with school achievement was substan-
tiated, and it seems possible that self-concept is a
significant factor influencing achievement for the seventh
grade pOpulation of this study. In the absence of other
competing variables such as father's occupations and I.Q.
scores it was not possible to carry out more stringent
tests for hypothesis 1. However, hypothesis 1 was further
supported when data on specific self-concept of ability
were analyzed.

Specific Subject Self-Concept of Ability

(SSSCA) and its Relationship to Grades
in Six Specific Subjects

 

 

 

Mathematics, English, History
and Geography, Science,
Literature and French

 

 

 

In Chapter IV, a review of literature on self-
concept as global vs. Specific was presented and it was
pointed out that specific self-concept is restricted to a
relatively narrow self-definition in a narrow social
context. Brookover pointed out that:

on logical grounds, items which assess specific
academic self-conceptions ought to be superior to

general self-perception items when school achievement
is to be predicted.5

 

5Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,
1967, p. 23. Also see discussion on it in Chapter IV.

 

.3 WWI

109

It was further suggested by him: "that self-concept of
ability may be differentiated into specific-subject self—
concepts for males."6 These general theoretical prOposi-
tions were stated in hypothesis form as follows:
Hypothesis 2: Student's specific subject self-concept of

ability (SSSCA) is associated with his

achievement in the corresponding subjects

in schools.

The above hypothesis was tested by using correla-

tional analysis. The correlations between SSSCA and grades

in six different subjects are shown in Table l. The data

for SSSA were obtained by distributing the Michigan State

 

UniversitygSpecific Subject Self-Concept of Ability Scale.7

 

The correlations shown in Table 1 are of a similar
order of magnitude as the correlation between self-concept
of ability and grade point average (.49 to .51). All
these correlations, with the exception of one, are sig-
nificant beyond the .05 level, and thus give further
support to the claim that students' self-concept of
ability is associated with academic achievement.

According to the frame of reference of this study,
the Specific subject self-concept of ability is a better
predictor of grades in specific subjects but "The general

self-concept of ability scale is the better predictor of

 

6Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,"
1962, p. 50.

7See p.101, Chapter IV of this study.

110

TABLE l.--Corre1ation Between Specific Subject Self-Concept
of Ability and Grades in Each of the Six Subjects
for Males and Females.

 

Correlation Coefficient

 

Variables Correlated

 

Male N Female N
Self-Concept of Ability in
Math--Grade in Math. .47 56 .43 89
Self-Concept of Ability in
English--Grade in English .31 64 .35 91
Self-Concept of Ability in
History-Geography--Grade
in History and Geography .30 37 .61 89
Self-Concept of Ability in
Science--Grade in Science .43 62 .50 89
Self-Concept of Ability in
Literature--Grade in
Literature .37 37 .34 89
Self-Concept of Ability in
French--Grade in French .66 38 .20* 87

 

*
Correlation is not significantly different from
zero.

total grade point average than any of the specific subject
scales."8 These general theoretical propositions were
stated in the form of the following testable hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Associations between student's specific
subject self—concept of ability and
achievement in each of the corresponding
subjects is greater than the associations
between student's general self-concept of
ability and achievement in each of the
subjects.

 

8Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,"
1962, p. 47.

 

111

Hypothesis 4: Associations between student's self-concept
of ability and overall achievement (grade
point average) is greater than the associa-
tion between student's specific subject
self-concept of ability and overall
achievement.

The basic reasoning behind hypotheses 3 and 4 is
this:
If the specific self-concept is functionally
different from the general (SCA), the specific
subject self-concept correlations with specific
subject achievement should be significantly higher
than the general self—concept correlations.9
For the purpose of comparison, the correlations
between SSSCA and grades in each subject, and correlations
between SCA and grades in each subject are presented in

Table 2 (see hypothesis 3).

The correlations between SCA and GPA, and the corre—
lations between SSSCA and GPA are presented in Table 3
(see hypothesis 4).

The correlations shown in Table 2 between SSSCA
and grades in each of the six subjects are of essentially
the same magnitude as the correlations between SCA and
grades in each of the six grades. There are no significant
differences between the correlations between SSSCA and
grades in each of the subjects and corresponding correla-
tions with self-concept of ability and grades in each

subject.10

 

91bid., p. 45.

0 . . .
Correlations were statistically tested for
significant differences.

9"1.

112

TABLE 2.--Correlation Between Specific Subject Self-Concept
of Ability and Grades in Each of the Six Subjects
and Correlation Between General Self-Concept of
Ability and Grade in Each of the Six Subjects
for Males and Females.

 

 

 

Variables
Correlation.Coefficient
SSSCA GSCA
Male Female Male Female

Math .47 .43 .55 .40
English .31 .35 .40 .48
History-Geography .30 .61 .23 .43
Science .42 .50 .51 .47
Literature .37 .34 .40 .53
French .66 .20 .43 .31

 

TABLE 3.--Correlation Between General Self—Concept of
Ability and Grade Point Average and Correlation
Between Specific Subject Self-Concept of Ability
and Grade Point Average for Male and Female.

 

Variables Correlated Correlation CoeffiCient

 

 

M N F N
GSCA - GPA .49 65 .51 91
SSCA in Math--GPA .47 65 .55 91
SSSCA in English--GPA .40 65 .40 91
SSSCA in History and Geography--GPA .32 65 .64 91_
SSSCA in Science--GPA .45 65 .54 91
SSSCA in Literature--GPA .32 65 .44 91
-SSSCA in French--GPA .48 63 .48 91

 

All r's statistically significant beyond .05 level.

P: '7'. ' I_r .w—w

113

The correlations between SSSCA and GPA, and correla-
tions between SCA and GPA shown in Table 3 are essentially of
the same magnitudes. Thus hypotheses 3 and 4 were not
supported for the seventh grade sample used in this study.

Brookover, in his study, used a sample of seventh
grade students (N=1050) to test if "students' self-concepts
of ability in specific subject areas are functionally
distinct from their general self-concepts of ability" and
found that with the exception of "English the correlation
between Specific subject self-concept and subject achievement
are higher than the correlation between general self-
concept and achievement in specific subjects. Three of the
Six correlations were significantly higher."11 Brookover's
analyses also supported hypothesis 4. He found the self-
concept of ability scale was a "better predictor of total
grade point average than any of the Specific subject

scales,"12

although SSSCA is a good predictor for males.
Sidawi and Votruba did not test hypotheses 2, 3 and 4.
Factors accounting for the results obtained in this
study may be due to cultural factors and the nature of the
curriculum. It seems obvious that seventh grade students

in their study did not differentiate specific subject self-

concept of ability from their self-concept of ability.

 

lllbi§,, p. 45. For other results see pp. 42-50.

lZIbid., pp. 47-50.

114

Self-Concept as an Intervening Variable
One of the basic assumptions in the theoretical
frame of reference of this study was that "self-concept of
academic ability is dependent upon perceived evaluations cf
significant_others and that academic achievement is related

to these perceptions only indirectly through the association

of those perceptions with self—concept and other factors."13

Hypotheses 5 and 6 were formulated to test this assumption.

Hypothesis 5: The magnitude of the associations between
the perceived evaluations of academic
ability by others and self—concept of
academic ability is greater than the
associations between self-concept of
ability and academic achievement.

Brookover points out that

this hypothesis is derived in part from the postulate
. . . that self-concept of ability is a necessary
but not sufficient factor in school achievement. In
this context we hypothesize that some students who
are evaluated by others as able to achieve and who
believe that they are able to do so may not choose
to perform in accordance with either the perceived
evaluations of others or their self-concept of
ability. The correlation between SCA and GPA are
therefore hypothesized to be lower than the per-
ceived evaluation and SCA correlations."14

The correlations are Shown in Table 4.

AS indicated in Table 4, for females, the magnitude
of correlations between perceived evaluations and SCA are
slightly higher than the association between self-concept

of ability and school achievement (grade point average).

 

13
Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,

1967, p. 18..
14

 

Ibid, p. 118.

115

TABLE 4.--Correlations Between Perceived Evaluations by
Friends, Parents, Teachers, Principals,
Counsellors, Ministers, and Self-Concept of
Academic Ability, and Between Self-Concept of
Academic Ability and Academic Achievement, by Sex.

 

Correlation with SCA

 

Perceived Evaluation by

 

Male Female

(N=69) (N=92)
Friends (PFEV) .53 .69
Parents (PPEV) .57 .62
Teachers (PTEV) .62 .70
Principals (PXEV) .53 .61
Counsellors (PCEV) .51 .72
Ministers or Priests (PMEV) .37 .64
Grade Point Average (GPA) .49 .51

 

All r's statistically Significant beyond .05 level.

In the case of males the magnitude of associations between
perceived evaluations of friends, parents, teachers,
principals, ministers and SCA are relatively higher (except the
correlation between PMEV and SCA) than that of the correla-
tion between SCA and GPA (.49). Correlations between per-
ceived evaluations and SCA, however, are not significantly
different than that of the correlation between SCA and GPA.
Hypothesis 6: The magnitude of the correlation between
self-concept of academic ability and
academic achievement is greater than the
correlation between perceived evaluations

of academic ability and academic achieve-
ment.

(‘1 rdl-Ullimm

116

Hypothesis 6 is derived from the assumption that:
any variable intervening between independent and
dependent variables should be more highly corre-
lated with the dependent variable than the 15
independent variable is with the dependent one.
The support of hypothesis 6 is suggested by the results of
the correlational analysis presented in Table 5; although
there is no Significant difference between the correlation of

perceived evaluations and GPA, and the correlation between

SCA and GPA.

TABLE 5.--Correlation Between Self-Concept of Ability (SCA)
and Achievement (GPA), and Correlation Between
Perceived Evaluations and GPA, by Sex.

 

Coefficient of Correlation

 

Variables Correlated

 

Male N Female N
SCA - GPA .49 69 .51 91
PFEV - GPA .20 65 .40 90
PPEV - GPA .24 65 .38 91
PTEV - GPA .25 65 .42 89
PXEV - GPA .31 65 .39 90
PCEV - GPA .25 59 .31 87
PMEV - GPA .27 57 .32 87

 

In order to test the above hypothesis in a more
refined way, a first order partial correlation analysis was

run in which variations in the perceived evaluations of

 

lSIbid., p. 119.

117

others were partialled out of the correlations between

SCA and GPA. Similarly, SCA was partialled out of the

 

correlations between perceived evaluations of others and
GPA. Then, the results of the first order correlations
were compared to the zero order correlations.

It was hypothesized that the resulting first order
correlations (SCA x GPA) would differ in the same
direction aS the zero order correlations. It was
further hypothesized that the correlations between
the intervening variable, SCA, and the dependent
variable, GPA, would be reduced less by controlling
the independent variable, perceived evaluations,
than would the correlations between the independent
and dependent variables by controlling for the

° intervening variable.16

The results of the first order partial correlations

for males are shown in Table 6 and for females in Table 7.

TABLE 6.--The First Order Partial Correlations Between
Grade Point Average (GPA) and Self-Concept of
Ability (SCA) Compared with Correlations
Between GPA and Perceived Evaluation of Friends
(PFEV), Parents (PPEV), Teachers (PTEV),
Principals (PXEV), Counselors (PCEV) and
Ministers (PMEV) for Males.

 

SCA

GPA

PFEV
PPEV
PTEV
PXEV
PCEV
PMEV

Variables:

CD\JC\U14>~LUNl—‘
O

 

First Order Partial Correlation with SCA or Perceived
Evaluation Controlled.

 

r12.3=.48 r12.4=.44 r12.5=.39 r12.6=.43 r12.7=.43 r12.8=.43
r23.1=—.o7 r24.1=-.05 r25.1=.o2 r26.1=.oo r27.1=.oo r28.1=.18

 

 

16Ibid., p. 120-121.

118

TABLE 7.--The First Order Partial Correlations Between
Grade Point Average (GPA) and General Self-
Concept of Ability (SCA) Compared with Correla-
tions Between GPA and Perceived Evaluations of
Friends (PFEV), Parents (PPEV), Teachers (PTEV),
Principals (PXEV), Counselors (PCEV) and
Ministers (PMEV) for Females.

 

variables: SCA

GPA

PFEV
PPEV
PTEV
PXEV
PCEV

PMEV

wflmU'IbUJNl—J

 

First Order Partial Correlation with SCA or Perceived
Evaluation Controlled

L

r12.3=.35 r12.4=.37 r12.5=.36 r12.6=.34 r12.7=.42 r12.8=.41
r23.1=.08 r24.1=.1o r25.1=.05 r26.1=.17 r27.1=.1o r28.1=.oo

 

The first order partial correlations (for males)
shown in Table 6 between perceived evaluation and GPA when
controlling for SCA were smaller (almost reduced to zero)
than the correlations between SCA and GPA when controlling
for perceived evaluations. It should be further noted that
the first order partial correlations between SCA and GPA
range from .39 to .48. On the average, these correlations
are only .03 less than the comparable zero order correla-
tion of .49. On the other hand, the comparable zero order
correlations between perceived evaluations and GPA ranged

from .20 to .31 (see Table 5).

119

The results of the first order correlations for the
females are Similar to the results found for the boys (see
Table 7). However, there are some sex differences. The
first order partial correlations between SCA and GPA when
controlling for perceived evaluations are effected more
than similar correlations for the males (see Table 6). The
first order partial correlations for females when controlling
for perceived evaluations ranged from .34 to .42. On the
average, these correlations are .15 less than the zero order
correlation of .51 between SCA and GPA (see Table 5).

° On the whole, the correlations between GPA and
SCA are larger when perceived evaluations are controlled
than those between GPA and perceived evaluations when SCA
is controlled in this study.

The above analysis, therefore, seems to provide
confirmation to the hypothesis that self-concept of ability

is an intervening variable.

Comparison with Other Studies

 

The results of the Simple correlational analysis
and the first order correlation analysis which were carried
out to test hypotheses 5 and 6 are complementary to the
results obtained by Brookover, Votruba and Sidawi.

Hypothesis 5 was tested by Sidawi, Brookover and
Votruba. Sidawi used a sample of seventh and ninth grade

students in Lebanon and found "correlations between the

120

first pair (perceived evaluations by others and SCA)
ranged from .66 to .83, and between the second pair (SCA
and GPA) from .37 to .38 for the whole self-concept
scale."l7 Brookover, in his longitudinal study, found the
correlations between the first pair ranged from .50 to
.77; and between the second pair from .49 to .55.18
Votruba used an eighth grade sample and found correlations
between the first pair ranged from .78 to .81, and found a
correlation of .56 between SCA and GPA.19 In the present
study the correlations between the first pair ranged from
.37 to .72 and between the second pair, from .49 to .51
(see Table 4).

Hypothesis 6 was tested by Votruba and Brookover.
Votruba found acorrelation of .56 between GPA and SCA.
Correlations between perceived evaluations and GPA in
his study ranged from .50 to .52.20 Brookover, in his
longitudinal study, found the correlations between the
first pair ranged from .49 to .57; and between the second

21

pair from .32 to .52 In the present study the correla-

tions between the first pair (GPA and SCA) ranged from

 

l7See Sidawi, "Self-Concept of Ability . . .," p. 165.

18See Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability. . .,
1967, p. 119.
19

20See Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . .
1967, p. 120.

 

See Votruba, A Comparative Analysis. . . , p. 41.

 

I

121

.49 to .51, and between the second pair (perceived evalua-
tions and GPA) from .20 to .42 (see Table 5).

Like the present study (see Tables 6 and 7),
Brookover22 and Votruba went on to further test hypothesis
6 by "using a comparison in which variations in the per-
ceived evaluations of others was partialled out of the
correlation between SCA and GPA, and self-concept of
ability was partialled out of the correlations between
perceived evaluations of others and GPA."23 The results
of their analyses were complementary to the results of
this study.

The cross-cultural findings reported above provided
further support to the claim that SCA is an intervening

variable.24

Second Set of Analyses

 

Basic to the theoretical frame of reference of this

study "is the relation between the evaluations of others

 

and self-concept of ability."25 A related question is:
22Ibid., p. 122.
23 u .. .
Votruba, A Comparative AnalySis . . .," p. 42.
24

For the theoretical statement on this, see
Chapter II of this study.

25Brookover,‘e't al., Self-Concept of Ability .’. .,
1967, p. 104. Also see discussion on student role-
relationship in Chapter II of the present study.

 

‘ .9! 119mm

122

Who are the others with whom the actor associates in a
significant manner? "Much of the sociological and educa-
tional literature involving adolescents assumes that peers
become the primary reference group at this age level."26
In order to find out whether or not this is the case, in

this section the question regarding "significant others"

has been discussed first, and then the hypothesized relation-

ship between perceived evaluations by others and self-concept

of ability is tested.

Significant Others

 

The following two questions were used to identify
the "significant others" of seventh grade students in St.
John's. Responses to these questions were labeled "Academic

Significant others" (A80) and "General significant others"

(GSO).27 These questions are:

1. There are many peOple who are concerned about
how well young peOple do in school. In the
Space below, list the names of the peOple you
feel are concerned about how well you do in
school. Please indicate who each person is
(A80).

2. There are many peOple who are important in our
lives. In the Space below, list the names of
the people who you feel are important in your
life. Please indicate who each person is (GSO).

 

 

26Ibid., p. 69. See also James Coleman, The

Adolescent Society (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1961).

27See Chapter IV in this study.

 

123

The distribution of the responses of the seventh
grade students in the Avalon Schools and in the Roman
Catholic Schools, and the responses of male and female
students were tabulated separately for comparison purposes.

Such a comparison is not directly related to the
analyses being carried out in the present study. However,
as mentioned earlier, the organization of school systems in
Newfoundland on denominational lines provided an opportunity
to explore religious affiliated responses of students to
the above questions. Ruth Wylie has reviewed some studies

on "religious affiliation and self—concepts."28

For
example, Kuhn and McPartland reported an association between
the kind of religious group affiliation and the number of
"consensual references"made in response to the question,
"Who am I?"29
Responses of students are organized in two different
sets of "Significant others" categories. The first set of
categories of "Significant others" are formed in such a
way that they correspond to the names used in Six perceived
30

evaluations by others scales. The second set of signifi-

cant categories are similar to the categories used by

 

28Wylie, The Self Concept . . . , pp. 142-143.

29Ibid.; also see M. H. Kuhn and T. S. McPartland,

" American

 

"An Empirical Investigation of Self—Attitudes,
Sociolggical Review, XIX (1954), 68-76.

30For the description of these scales, see Chapter
IV of this study.

 

124

Brookover and Sidawi. This is done so that the responses
of students could be compared cross—culturally.

In Table 8 responses of students to the "academic
Significant others" question are listed and in Table 9
responses to the "general significant others" question are

listed.

TABLE 8.--Percentage of the Male and Female Seventh Grade
Students in the R.C. Schools and in the Avalon
Schools Who Named at Least one Person from Each
of the Following Categories of Significant
Others as being Concerned about how Well They
do in School.

 

The R.C. Schools The Avalon Schools
Categories of

 

 

 

Significant Others Female Male Female Male
(N=391) (N=133) (N=250) (N=294)
Mother 94 92 91 89
Father 90 85 86 86
Teachers 83 65 54 46
Principals 61 47 36 18
Friend 24 17 19 13
Counsellors 10 5 9 4
Priest or Minister 5 7 1 l

 

Academic Significant Others:
The R.C. Schools and the
Avalon Schools

 

 

 

It is clear from the results shown in Table 8 that
Mother (89% to 94%) and father (86% to 90%) were more often
»named than any other persons by all the students as being
concerned about how well they do in schools. Mother (94%),

Father (90%), teachers (83%), principals (61%), friends

125

TABLE 9.-—Percentage of the Male and Female Seventh Grade
Students in the R.C. Schools and in the Avalon
Schools Who Named at Least One Person from Each
of the Following Categories of Significant Others
as Being Important in Their Lives (GSO).

 

The R.C. Schools The Avalon Schools
Categories of

 

 

 

Significant Others Female Male Female Male
(N=391) (N=133) (N=250) (N=294)
Mother 95 86 88 83
Father 91 81 84 80
Teacher 58 35 26 24
Principal 32 17 10 5
Friend 38 26 34 22
Counsellor 10 5 5 2
Priest or Minister 9 11 2 2

 

(24%) and counselors (10%) were more often named by
girls in Roman Catholic Schools than other students as
being concerned about how well they do in school. On the

other hand, priests or ministers were less often mentioned

 

by most students than any other person as being concerned
about how well they do in schools, although boys in the
R.C. schools mention this category more often than the
other three groups. Parents, teachers and principals were
more often named by most students than friends (13% to 24%)
as being concerned about how well they do in schools.

The different pattern of response among girls in
the R.C. schools in regard to teachers and principals as

academic significant others may perhaps be explained by

.- _—__._____ 4 111

126

the fact that Roman Catholic teachers and principals are
generally also religious leaders in Newfoundland communi-
ties. This may have influenced the R.C. boys' responses
as well. There is some evidence that girls in general

are more likely to accept "others" than boys.31

General Significant Others:
The R.C. Schools and the
Avalon Schools

 

The results shown in Table 9 indicate that mother
(83% to 95%) and father (80% to 91%) were more often named
than any other persons by most students as important in
their lives. Mother (95%), Father (91%), teachers (58%),
principals (32%), and friends (38%) and counselors (10%),
were more often named by girls in the Roman Catholic
schools than other students as important in their lives.
Friends (22% to 38%) were more often named than principals
as important in their lives by most students. Priest seemed
to be more significant generally for the girls (9%) and the
boys (11%) in R.C. schools than the girls (2%) and boys (2%)
in the Avalon Schools.
Significant Others: The R.C.
Schools and the Avalon Schools

The data presented in Tables 8 and 9 clearly

indicate that parents, teachers, principals and friends

 

31See discussion on "Sex Differences and the Self
Concept," in R. C. Wylie, The Self-Concept . . . , pp.
143-149.

127

are both the academic and general significant others for
most of the seventh grade students. The responses of the
girls in R.C. schools to "significant questions" are dif-
ferent than the responses of other students. Data also
indicate that there are many "Significant others" in the
lives of students in seventh grade. The effect of these
"significant others" on students' self-concept of ability
is analyzed later in this chapter.
A comparison of findings of this study with the

findings of Brookover and Sidawi are presented in Table 10

(academic Significant others).32

Significant Others: A Comparison of
Brookover's, Sidawi's, and
the Present Study

 

 

 

Academic Significant Others

 

It is clear from Table 10 that mother (82%) and
father (87%) in the present study and parents (96%) in the
Brookover study were named more often than any other person
as concerned with how well they do in school. On the
average parents (85%) were more often named than any other
persons as significant academically. This was not so for
the seventh grade students in Lebanon. Sidawi's data is
confusing. At one place he mentioned that "teachers were

more often named (53%) than any other persons as concerned

 

32Votruba did not carry on this kind of analysis

(with his German sample.

128

TABLE 10.-—Percentage of Total Seventh Grade Students in
St. John's Who Named at Least One Person from
Each of the Following Categories of Significant
Others as Being Concerned About How Well They
Do in Schools, Compared with Brookover's and

Sidawi's Studies.

(Male and Female Combined,

 

 

 

 

 

 

N=1068).
Brookover's Sidawi's
Study (Male Study
Present and Female (Male,
Study Combined N=574)
N=248)
Parents 96 55
Mother 82
Father 87
School Personnel 84 60
Principals 37
Counselors 8
Priest 3
Adult Relatives 38 34
Grandmother 34
Grandfather 25
Uncle 21
Aunt 26
Age-Level Relatives 25 39
Cousin 6
Brother 19
Sister 23
Teacher 64 -- --
Peer or Friends 19 20 20
Unclassifiable (e.g.,
God, me, dog) 25 l --

 

129

,"33

with 'how well they do in school. But in another place,

data indicate that school personnel (60%) were named more
often than others.34 Probably, teachers are classified
with school personnel. In the Brookover study,3S teachers
are included under the school personnel category. A
comparison among these studies indicates that teachers were
more significant academically for seventh grade students
in Brookover's study (84%) than for their counterparts in
the Lebanese study (60%) and for the students (64%) in
the present study. In St. John's on the average, 24% of
the students also mentioned non—teaching personnel in the
schools as academic Significant others. In all three
studies only this category (teachers and school personnel)
approaches the nearly universal naming of parents as
academic Significant others.

Adult relatives were more often named by students
in the Brookover study (38%) than the Lebanese study (34%).
In the present study, on the average, 27 per cent of the
students named adult relatives as being concerned with
how well they do in school. However, grandmother was more
often named (34%) than other adult relatives.

Age level relatives seem to be more significant

academically for Lebanese students (39%) than for students

 

33. .66 . . n
SidaWi, Self-Concept of Ability . . . , p. 158.

34Ibid., p. 160.

35 . .
Brookover, 8t al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,

1962, p. 58.

 

130

in the Brookover study (25%). On the average, the age
level relatives were named to be significant academically
by 16 per cent of the students in the present study.
Sisters were more often named (23%) than brothers (19%)
and cousins (6%).

Peers or friends were named by 20 per cent of the
students in Sidawi's study as well as in Brookover's
study. In the present study 19 per cent of the students
named peers as significantly academically.

Students in the present study more often (25%)

named "God," me, "my dog,‘ and other unclassified

entities as academic Significant others.

General Significant Others

 

It was found in all the three studies that parents
were more often named than any other persons as important
in their lives (see Table 11). In Brookover's study
parents were more often named (100%) than their counter-
parts in Lebanon (89%). In the present study, father's
were named by 85 per cent and mothers by 80 per cent.
These figures are not strictly comparable to those of the
other studies, but it is quite possible that they indicate
that almost all students named either mother or father.

School personnel and teachers were more often (62%)
named by students in Brookover's study than their counter-

‘parts in Lebanon (38%). In the present study, on the

-131

TABLE ll.--Percentage of Total Seventh Grade Students in
St. John's Who Named at Least One Person from
Each of the Following Categories of Significant
Others as Being Important in Their Lives, Com-
pared with Brookover's and Sidawi's Studies
Male and Female Combined,(N=1068).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present Brookover's Sidawi's
Study Study (Male Study
and Female (Male,
Combined, N=574)
N=248)
Parents 100 89
Mother 80
Father 85
School Personnel 62 38
- Principal 17
Counselors 6
Priest 6
Adult Relatives 50 63
Grandmother 33
Grandfather 24
Uncle l9
Aunt 22
Age Level Relatives 63 71
Brother 42
Sister 41
Cousin 9
Teachers 38 -- --
Peers or Friends 31 47 38
Unclassified 23 9 --

 

average, school personnel including teachers were named by

33 per cent of the students as being important in their

lives. But this average of choices in each of the school

personnel categories is not comparable, as can be seen by

gnu-mm

132

the fact that 38 per cent of the students in this study
named teachers as being important.

Adult relatives were more often (63%) named by
students in Sidawi's study than their counterparts in
Brookover's_study and in the present study. In the
present study, on the average, adult relatives were named
by 25 per cent of the students as being important. Again,
grandmother was more often named (33%) than any other adult
relative as being important.

Age level relatives were more often named (71%)
by Lebanese students than their counterparts in Brookover's
study (63%). In the present study, brothers and sisters
were each named by more than 40% of the students.

Friends or peers were more often (47%) named by
students in Brookover's study than their counterparts in
Sidawi's study (38%) and in the present study (31%).

Students in the present study more often (23%) named "God,"

me, "dog,' and other unclassified entities than students

in the Brookover study (9%).

Summary of Significant Others
in the Three Studies

 

 

The comparison of the three studies indicates the
following:
1. Parents were more often named than any other

persons by the seventh grade students in all the studies

2F." mm

133

as important in their lives (General Significant
Others).

2. Parents were more often named as significant,
both academically and generally, by the seventh grade
students in the present Study and in the Brookover study.

3. In the Lebanese studies, teachers or school
personnel were more often named than any other persons as
significant academically.

4. Age level relatives were more often named as
Significant, both academically and generally, by the
Lebanese students and by the students in the Brookover
study than by the students in the present study.

5. Adult relatives were more often named as being
important by Lebanese students than students studied in the
U.S. and Newfoundland.

6. Friends were more often named as Significant
generally by the Lebanese students and the students in the
Brookover study than the students in the present study.

7. Teachers were more often named in all the
studies as academic significant others than as general
Significant others.

Relationship of Perceived Evaluations
to Self-Concept of Ability

 

 

Data on perceived evaluations by six others
.(parents, friends, teachers, principals, counsellors and

priest or minister) were analyzed for a combined sample of

134

1219 male and female seventh grade students. Perceived
evaluations by others scores were computed from six sub-
scales of PPEV (Perceived Parents' Evaluations), PFEV
(Perceived Friends' Evaluations), PTEV (Perceived Teachers'
Evaluations), PXEV (Perceived Principals' Evaluations),
PCEV (Perceived Counsellors' Evaluations) and PMEV (Per-
ceived Ministers or priest evaluations).36
Hypothesis 7: Student's perception of evaluations of their
academic ability by others (parents,
friends, teachers, principals, counsellors,
ministers or priests) are associated with
self-concept of academic ability.

In order to test the hypothesized relationship
between perceived evaluations by others and SCA correla-
tional analysis were run. Correlations between perceived
evaluations and SCA, male and female combined, in sixteen
schools are shown in Table 12.

The correlations Shown in Table 12 are significant
beyond the .05 level, however, the magnitude of association
between SCA and PCEV is small. This indicates that
students' perceptions of the evaluations of their academic
ability by six Significant others are associated with self-

concepts of academic ability of seventh grade students in

St. John's.

 

36See Chapter IV of this study for further discus-

sion on these sub-scales.

f

A.

135

TABLE 12.--Correlation Between Self—Concept of Ability
(SCA) and Perceived Evaluations by Parents
(PPEV), by Friends (PFEV), by Teachers (PTEV),
by Principals (PXEV), by Counselors (PCEV) and
by Ministers (PMEV), Male and Female Combined

 

 

(N=1219).
Variables Correlated Correlation Coefficient
SCA - PPEV .46
SCA - PFEV .46
SCA - PTEV .44
SCA - PXEV .38
SCA - PCEV .22
SCA - PMEV .32

 

Brookover, in his sample of seventh grade students,
found a correlation of .50 between perceived evaluation
by mother and SCA, of .52 between perceived evaluations by
father and SCA, and of .55 between PTEV and SCA.37 In his
longitudinal study involving grades eight through twelve,
the magnitude of the correlations between PPEV and SCA
ranged from .58 to .71, .50 to .77 between PFEV and SCA,
and .59 to .63 between PTEV and SCA.38 Sidawi in his sample

of seventh grade students in Lebanon, found a correlation of

.77 between PPEV and SCA, of .70 between PFEV and SCA and

 

 

of .73 between PTEV and SCA.39 Votruba in his sample of
37Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . .,
1962, p. 52.
38

Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . .,
1967, pp. 104-105.

39

 

Sidawi,"Self-Concept of Ability". . . , p. 147.

l' I (“II I‘ll- -‘Sll"

136

eighth grade German students found a correlation of .81
between PPEV and SCA and of .79 between the PTEV and SCA.4O
The results of these studies conducted at different places
are supportive of each other and seem to substantiate the
claim that students' perception of the evaluations of
others are associated with their self-concept of academic
ability at the seventh grade level.

Interrelation of Others'
Evaluations

 

 

Hymns-m

Within the frame of reference of this study per-
ceived evaluations of six others (PFEV, PPEV, PTEV, PXEV,
PCEV and PMEV) were independent variables. These perceived
evaluation scales do not measure the same things.

In order to find out to what extent perceived
parents' and perceived teachers' evaluations are inde-
pendently associated with self-concept of academic
ability, the relationship between PPEV and SCA, and PTEV
and SCA are examined by controlling the effect of other
variables. This was done by using first order partial cor-
relational analysis. The interrelation among perceived
evaluations are shown in Table 13. First order partial

correlations are shown in Tables 14 and 15.

 

40Votruba,"A Comparative Analysis". . . , p. 40.

137

TABLE l3.--Intercorrelation Between Perceived Evaluation of
Parents' (PPEV), Friends' (PFEV), Teachers'
(PTEV), Principals' (PXEV), Counselors' (PCEV),
and Ministers' (PMEV) of Seventh Grade Students
Male and Female Combined,(N=lZl9).

 

 

Variables Correlated Correlation Coefficient
PPEV X PFEV .75
PPEV X PTEV .79
PTEV X PFEV .68
PTEV X PXEV .74
PTEV X PCEV .48
PTEV X PMEV .63
PPEV X PXEV .69
PPEV X PCEV .47
PPEV X PMEV .60

 

The intercorrelations shown in Table 13 illustrate
a high association between the perceived evaluations of
academic ability of counselors, ministers, principals,
teachers, parents and friends, with correlations ranging
from .47 to .79.

Brookover in his longitudinal study involving
grades eight through twelve found high associations between
perceived evaluations of parents, friends and teachers, with

correlations ranging as follows:41

 

. 41Brookover et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . -,
1967, p. 106.

138

PPEV X PFEV .54 to .68
PPEV X PTEV .55 to .63
PTEV X PFEV .51 to .64

Sidawi, in his sample of seventh grade students in Lebanon,

found the intercorrelations among friends, parents and

teachers asfollows:42
PPEV X PFEV .68
PPEV X PTEV .66
PFEV X PTEV .74

Votruba did not analyze his data for the kind of analysis
being presented in this section.

The intercorrelations obtained by Brookover and
Sidawi are of the same magnitudes as the intercorrelations

found in this study.

TABLE l4.--Correlation Between Perceived Parental Evaluation
and Self-Concept of Ability with Perceived
Friends', Teachers', Principals', Counselors',
and Ministers' Evaluations Partialled Out, and
Zero Order Correlation Between Perceived Parental
Evaluations and Self-Concept of Academic Ability
for Seventh Grade Students Male and Female
Combined,(N=1219).

 

 

 

 

l = PPEV 5 = PXEV
2 = SCA 6 = PCEV Zero Order Correlation
3 = PFEV 7 = PMEV Between PFEV and PPEV
4 = PTEV
r12.3 = .20 .46
r12.4 = .44
r12.5 = .44
r12.6 = .42
r12.7 = .36
42

Sidawi,"Self-Concept of Academic Ability". . . ,
p. 152.

139

TABLE 15.--Correlations Between Perceived Teachers'
Evaluation and Self-Concept of Ability With
Perceived Friends', Parents', Principals',
Counselors', and Ministers' Evaluations Partialled
Out, and Zero Order Correlation Between Perceived
Teachers' Evaluation and Self-Concept of Academic
Ability for Seventh Grade Students LMale and
Female Combined,(N = 1219).

 

 

1 = PTEV 5 = pxsv
2 = SCA 6 = PCEV Zero Order Correlation
3 = PPEV 7 = PMEV Between PTEV and SCA

4 = PFEV

r12.3 = .14 .44

r12.4 = .14

r12.5 = .27

r12.6 = .39

r12.7 = .33

 

As noted in Table 14, the first order partial cor-
relation between PPEV and SCA was reduced to .20 from the
zero order correlation between PPEV and SCA (.46) when
perceived friends' evaluations were partialled out. On the
other hand when perceived evaluations by teachers' (PTEV),
principals (PXEV), counselors and ministers (PMEV) were
partialled out, the first order partial correlation between
PPEV and SCA was effected less. This indicates that per-
ceived parental evaluation is independently associated
with students' self-concept of academic ability, although
perceived friends' evaluation seems to have considerable

'effect.

 

140

Partial correlations between perceived teachers'
evaluations (PTEV) and self-concept of academic ability
(SCA) are shown and compared with zero order correlations
between PTEV and SCA in Table 15.

It is clear from Table 15 that partial correlations
between PTEV and SCA are reduced to .14 from the zero
order correlation between PTEV and SCA (.44), when per-
ceived evaluations by parents is controlled. This is
also the case when perceived friends' evaluations are
controlled. This indicates that the association between
PTEV and SCA is greatly influenced by the presence of PPEV
and PFEV. On the other hand, when PXEV, PCEV and PMEV are
controlled respectively, the first order partial correla-
tion between PTEV and SCA is reduced less from the zero
order correlation between the same two variables, although
PXEV seems to have considerable effect. The differential
effects of partialling out indicate that perceived evalua-
tion scales are not measuring the same thing. Perceived
parental and friends' evaluations seem to be influencing
the SCA of seventh grade students in this study more than
the perceived evaluations of teachers, principals, counse-
lors and ministers.

Brookover in his longitudinal study (grades eight
through twelve) "examined the affect of controlling the
perceived evaluation of teachers and friends on the cor-

relation between perceived parental evaluation and

 

141

self—concept of ability."43 He found the first order

partial correlation in each case remained .45 or above
except in grade 12. The zero order correlation ranged
from .58 to .71. When parents' evaluation is controlled,
"the effect of variations in perceived friends and teachers
evaluation on SCA are substantially reduced . . . "44
The first order correlations in this case ranged from .19
to .61, while the zero order correlation in each case
ranged from .50 to .77. Brookover's data indicated a
greater influence of perceived parents' evaluations on SCA
in'the earlier years, but that friends gained in the later
high school years is also apparent.45

It seems obvious from these findings that both the
parents and friends influence the student's self-concept
of ability (Table 12). The difference between Brookover's
findings and the findings of this study may be due to the
fact that in certain situations students may think that
their friends have a more accurate appraisal of their
academic abilities than their parents. This may be more
the case where parents' educational level on the average is
not high. Children seem to have some idea about the educa-
tional level of their parents, and if the students think

their parents do not have a good education in comparison to

 

43Brookover, et al., Self-Concept of Ability . . . ,
1967, p. 107.

44Ibid., p. 108.

45Ibid.

142

others (teachers, principals), they may not consider their
parents' judgment as accurate as that of their friends,
who spend much of the time in school with them listening
to the remarks of others (teachers, principals, counselors)
about their academic ability. In Newfoundland the educa-
tional level of a large number of the population is low,

relative to the population of North America.

Summary of Results

 

The major results of this study may be summarized
as.follows:

1. Self-concept of academic ability is signifi-
cantly related to school achievement of seventh grade male
and female students in six schools in St. John's. The correla-
tion between self-concept of ability and grade point
average was .49 for the boys (N=69) and .51 for the girls
(N=92).

2. Specific subject self concept of ability in
six subjects (Mathematics, English, History-Geography,
Science, Literature and French), except in the case of
French for girls, is related to seventh-grade achievement
in the corresponding subjects. For the boys the correla-
tions between SSSCA and grades in each of the corresponding
subjects ranged from .30 to .66 and for the girls from

.20 to .61 (see Table 1).

143

3. Specific subject self-concept of ability in
six subjects is related to seventh grade achievement in
the corresponding subjects approximately to the same degree
that self-concept of ability is related to achievement in
six subjects. Correlations between SSSCA and grades in
corresponding subjects ranged from .30 to .66 for the
boys, and for the girls from .20 to .61. Correlations
between SCA and grades in corresponding subjects ranged
from .23 to .55 for the boys and for the girls from .31
to .53 (see Table 2).

4. Self-concept of ability is related to overall
grade point average for seventh grade male and female
students in Six schools approximately to the same degree
as Specific subject self concept of ability. Correlations
between SCA and GPA was .49 for the boys and .51 for the
girls. Correlations between SSSCA and GPA for boys ranged
from .32 to .48, and for the girls from .40 to .64 (see
Table 3).

5. Perceived evaluations by significant others:
parents, friends, teachers, principals, counselors and
ministers or priests were significantly related to self-
concept of academic ability of seventh grade male and female
students in Sixteen schools in St. John's. The correlations
ranged from .22 to .46 for the combined population (N=1219)

,(see Table 12).

144

6. IntercOrrelationS among Perceived Parents
Evaluations, Perceived Friends Evaluations, and Perceived
Teachers Evaluations for the combined sample ranged from
.68 to .79 (see Table 13).

7.. Associations between perceived evaluations and
self-concept of ability is Slightly higher than the
association between SCA and overall achievement in school
(GPA) for females. In the case of males the magnitude of
the association between perceived evaluation of friends,
parents, teachers and counselors is slightly higher than
the association between SCA and GPA. The association between
perceived evaluation of priest and SCA is lower in magnitude
than the correlation between SCA and GPA.

For the females, the correlations between the first
pair of these variables ranged from .62 to .72. The correla-
tion between the second pair of variables was .51. For
males, the correlation between the first pair of variables
ranged from .37 to .62. The correlation for the second pair of
variables was .49 (see Table 4). These correlations,
however, were not significantly different from each other.

8. Association between perceived evaluation by
others and academic achievement (GPA) was lower in magnitude
than the association between SCA and GPA, although there

was no Significant difference.

145

The correlation between the first pair of
variables ranged from .20 to .42 and between the second
pair from .49 to .51 (see Table 5).

9. For males and females the first order partial
correlations between self-concept of academic ability and
academic achievement was less reduced from the zero order
correlation when perceived evaluations by others were
controlled (see Tables 6 and 7). E

10. For males and females the first order partial E
correlations between perceived evaluations by others and
academic achievement were greatly reduced from the zero
order correlations when self-concept of ability was con-
trolled (see Tables 6 and 7).

11. Parents were more often named than any other
persons by seventh grade students in St. Johns as being con-
cerned about how well they do in school. Mothers seemed
to be Significant academically for 94 per cent of the
girls and 92 per cent of the boys in the R.C. Schools and
for 91 per cent of the girls and 89 per cent of the boys
in the Avalon Schools (see Table 8). Fathers were named
by 90 per cent of the girls and 85 per cent of the boys in
the R.C. Schools, and by 86 per cent of the girls and 86
per cent of the boys in the Avalon Schools, as being con-

cerned with how well they do in school.

146

12. Teachers (83%), principals (61%), and friends
(24%) were named more often by the girls in the R.C.
Schools than other students as being concerned about how
well they do in school (see Table 8).

13. Mother (89% to 94%), father (85% to 90%),
teachers (46% to 83%) and principals (18% to 61%) were
more often named by most students than friends (13% to
24%) as being concerned about how well they do in school
(see Table 8). On the average, parents were named by 85
per cent of the students as significant academically.

14. Parents were more often named than any other
persons as important in their lives (see Table 11). Mother
was named most often in this respect.

15. Mothers (95%), fathers (91%), teachers (58%),
principals (32%), counselors (10%), and friends (38%) were
more often named by girls in the R. C. Schools than other
students as important in their lives (see Table 9).

16. Friends were more often (22% to 38%) named than
principals (5% to 32%) as being important in their lives
(see Table 9).

l7. Perceived friends' evaluations and perceived
parents' evaluations (both independent variables) contribute
most to the variation in self-concept of ability (dependent

variable) of seventh grade students (see Tables 14 and 15).

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

This study was designed to test cross-culturally

several hypotheses and explore questions developed by

W. B. Brookover and his associates at Michigan State

firm-mm

University, related to the social-psychological theory
of learning and achievement in school.

In carrying on the tradition of symbolic inter—
actionism developed by Charles Cooley, George Herbert
Mead and John Dewey, Brookover postulated that the student's
self-concept of academic ability results from his percep-
tions of the expectations and evaluations of Significant
others. Self-concept of academic ability is symbolic
behavior in as much as it involves the evaluative defini~
tions which a student uses in comparing his own academic
abilities with the academic abilities of other individuals
in his class. The extent to which a student would attempt
to achieve in school would be functionally limited by a
student's self-concept of academic ability. In this sense,
self-concept of academic ability is an intervening variable.
The expectations and evaluations of others do not directly

shape the behavior of a student in school. But the student's

147

148

own definitions based upon his perceptions of what others
think about him as a student, is crucial to his behavior
in school. The relationship of perceived evaluations and
academic achievement is conceptualized as a necessary and
sufficient condition, but a positive self-concept is seen
as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for academic
achievement.

It was hypothesized that a student's self-concept
of ability would be associated with his achievement in
school. This was supported by this research. The partial
correlations between self-concept of ability and academic
achievement when perceived evaluations were controlled,
the relatively higher correlations between self-concept
of academic ability and academic achievement than between
perceived evaluations and academic achievement, and the
relatively higher correlations between perceived evalua—
tions by others and self-concept of academic ability than
between self-concept of academic ability and academic
achievement gave support to the thesis that sé1£:3638épt as
a variable intervenes between perceived evaluations of others
and academic achievement.

The high correlations between perceived evaluations
of significant others and self-concept of academic ability
supported the theoretical propositions that perceived
evaluations by others are a necessary and sufficient
.condition for the formation of self-concept of academic
ability. In order for a student to develop a particular

self-concept of ability he must internalize the expectations

. " F'fi'fif mm

149

and evaluations of those others whom he thinks are important
in his life and are concerned about how well he does in
school.

The results of this study based upon data from
St. John's, Newfoundland, provide further support to
Brookover's social-psychological theory of learning.

The practical implications of self—concept theory
lie in developing a positive self-concept among those who
have been labeled Slow learners or uneducable. There is
enough evidence that academic achievement can be enhanced
by self-concept enhancement.1

The extent to which self—concept of ability is
enhanced will depend upon the effort of society and schools.
At the societal level, various movements such as the black
power movement create a socio-cultural condition for the
development of self-concept. On the other hand, at the
community and school levels, self—concept of ability can
be enhanced by discovering adequate forms of connections
between significant others and schools. There is enough
evidence that self-concept of ability can be modified by

Significant others.2 Parents, teachers,3 relatives,

 

1Kvaraceus et al., Negro Self-Concept . . . , p. 1-51;
Brookover, et al.,‘SeIf-Concept of Ability . . . , 1965, p. 209.

21bid, p. 212.

3B. C. VanKoughnett and M. E. Smith, "Enhancing
the Self-Concept in School," Educational Leadership, 27:3
(Dec. 1969), 253-255.

150

counselors4 as significant others may play an important
role5 in the enhancement of students' self—concepts of
ability which in turn may effect students' educational
aspirations and academic achievement. Methods of education
in schools involving parents and other significant others
(adult relatives) should be developed.6

If schools were to be designed on the basis of the
theory and findings of this research and related research,
curricula and programs, the resources of community, family,
and schools would be geared towards enhancing the self-
concept of ability of all children.

The main function of schools will not be sorting
and labeling students and putting the round pegs in round
holes by using the assumed criterion that learning ability
among students is differentially distributed due to inborn
differences. Early selection, grouping and streaming prac—
tices based upon assumed level of fixed ability would not
be practiced in schools. The task of educators would be

to create conditions which would facilitate the process of

 

4H.A.S. Zahran, "The Self-Concept in Psychological
Evidence of Adolescents," British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 37:225-240 (June 1967).

5A. O. Haller, et al., "Identifying Significant
Others and Measuring their Expectations for a Person,"
Sociological Abstracts 27:5 (1969), Suppl. 6, p. 10.

6I. F. Svadosky, "Family and School," International
Review of Education, Vol. XVI (1970). PP. 341-349.
'Savadosky discusses the connection between family and
schools in the Soviet Union.

 

 

 

 

 

. 3mm

151

self-concept enhancement as early as possible and to
exercise judicious surveillance.

The social responsibility of schools would be to
increase the "collective ability level" of the students
and, ultimately all of society.8

The selfefulfilling prophesies that perpetuate
social inequalities through schools by means of selection
and other processes would be analyzed in the light of
contemporary demand Dar social equality and social justice

in the distribution of social rewards.

 

7Erickson, "A Study of the Normative Influence
O O 0". p. 88.

8Robert Paris, "The Ability Dimension in Human
(Society," American Sociological Review (Dec. 26, 1961),
pp. 835-842.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

152

"7 TIT-.0 “mu m 3'"
1 ..

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, C. A. "Methodology of Comparative Education."
Education in Comparative and International Perspec-
tive. Edited by Kalil I. Gezi. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.,

Anderson, C. H. Toward a New Sociology:_ A Critical View.
Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1971.

Andor, L. E. Aptitudes and Abilities of the Black Man in
Sab-Saharan Africa 1784-1963: An Annotated B1511 -
graphy. Johannesburg, Africa: National Institute
for Personnel Research, 1966.

Auer, Howard J., Jr. "Self-Concept of Academic Ability of
West German Eight-Grade Students." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

Backer, H. S. "Whose Side Are We On?" Social Problems, XIV
(1967), 239-247.

Bagley, W. C. Determinism in Education. Baltimore:
Warwick and York, Inc., 1925.

 

Bandura, Albert and Richard Walters. Social Learnipgiand
Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1967. ’

 

Banks, Olive. The Sociology of Education. London: E. T.
Batsford Ltd., 1968.

 

Beaird, R. E. "Self-Concept as Related to Adolescent
School Drop Outs." Dissertation Abstracts, XXV, 10
(April, 1965), 5724.

Beleille, Andre. Social Inequalities: Selected Readipgs.
Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969.

Berelson, B. and E. A. Steiner. Human Behavior: An
Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964.

 

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckman. The Social Construction
of Reality. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and
Company, 1966.

 

153

154

Biggs, D. A. and D. T. Tinsly. "Student-Made Academic
Predictions." The Journal oiEducational Research,
LXIII, 5 (January, 1970), 197.

Bills, R. E. "Acceptance of Self as Measured by Interviews
and the Index of Adjustment and Values." Journalcf
Consulting Psychology, XVIII, 1 (1954), 22.

 

 

Blackstone, William T., ed. The Concept of Equality.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Company, 1969.

 

Bledsoe, J. C. and K. C. Garrison. The Self-Concepts of
Elementary School Children in Relation to Their
Academic Achievementy_Intelligence, Interests, and
Manifest Anxiety. Athens, Georgia: University of
Georgia, College of Education, 1962.

 

 

 

Bloom, Benjamin S. "Learning for Mastery." Evaluation
Comment, vol. 1 (May, 1968).

 

Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and
Method. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1969.

 

Bodwin, R. F. "The Relationship Between Immature Self-
Concept and Certain Educational Disabilities."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1957.

Boocock, S. "Towards a Sociology of Learning: A Selective
Review of Existing Research." Sociology of Education,

Bottomore, T. B. Classes in Modern Society. New York:
Random House, Inc., 1968.

 

. Critics of Society. New York: Vintage Books, 1969.

 

Boyer, William H. and Paul Walsh. "Are Children Born Equal?‘
Saturday Review, October 19, 1968, pp.6lff.

 

Brigham, Carl C. A Study of American Intelligence. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1923.

 

Brog, Walter R. Ability Grouping in the Public Schools.
Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State University Press,
1964.

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Edsel L. Erickson. Society, Schools,
and Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B. "A Social-Psychological Conception of
Learning." School and Society, LXXXVII (1959), 84-87.

 

.A- .. IEWIFTT’I'

. 4"." :\'. u

155

Brookover, Wilbur B., Edsel L. Erickson, and Lee M. Joiner.
Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement, III.
Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 2831.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press, 1967.

Brookover, Wilbur B. and David Gottlieb. A Sociology of
Education. Second edition. New York: American
Book Co., 1964.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., Jean M. LePere, Don E. Hamachek,
Shailer Thomas, and Edsel Erickson. Self-Concept
of Ability and School Achievement. Second Report
on the Continuing Study of the Relationships of
Self—Concept and Achievement and Final Report on
Cooperative Research Project No. 1636. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1964.

t '4‘ M01:

Brookover, Wilbur B., Ann Paterson, and Shailer Thomas.
Self—Concept of Ability_and School Achievement.
Cooperative Research Project No. 845. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1962.

Brookover, Wilbur B., Shailer Thomas, and Ann Paterson.
"Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement."
Sociology of Education, XXXVII (1964), 271-278.

 

Brownfair, John J. "Stability of the Self-Concept as a
Division of Personality." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XLV (1952), 606.

 

W

Bruner, Jerome. The Process of Education. New York:
Vintage Books, 1960.

 

Burma, John H., ed. Mexican Americans in the United States.
San Francisco, Calif.: Canfield Press, 1970.

Butts, H. F. "Skin Color Perception and Self-Esteem."
Journal of Negro Education, XXII (1963), 123-128.

Cahn, Edger 5., ed. Our Brother's Keeper: The Indian in
White America. New York: World Publishing Company,
1969.

 

Campbell,J. R. and C. W. Barnes. "Interaction Analysis: A
Breakthrough?" Phi Delta Kappan, L, 10 (June, 1969),
587-590.

 

Carroll, John B. "A Model of School Learning." Teacher's
College Record, 64 (May 1963), 729.

 

Chauncey, Henry. "Some Observations on Soviet Education."
Proceedings of the 1958 Invitational Conference of
TestingiProblemS. Princeton, N. J.: Educa-tional
Testing Service, 1959.

 

156

Chomsky, Noam. "I.Q. Tests: Building Blocks for the New
Class System." Ramparts, July, 1972, pp. 24-30.

 

Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper and Row,
1965.

 

Clarke, W. E. "The Relationship Between College Academic
Performance and Expectancies." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960.

Clayton, Stafford Alfred. Emergent Mind and Education.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,

 

 

1943.

Coleman, James S. "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic
Achievement." Journal of Sociology, LXV (1960),
341-347.

. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, 1961.

 

Coleman, James 5., ed. Education and Political Development.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Coleman, James S., et a1. Equality of Educational Opportunipy.
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1966.

Combs, A. W. and D. W. Soper. "The Self, Its Derivate

Terms and Research." Journal of Individual Psychology,
1957, 133-145.

 

. The Relationship of Child Perception to Achievement
and Behavior in the Early School Years. Cooperative
Research Project No. 814. Cainesville, Florica:
University of Florida, 1963.

 

Combs, A. W., D. W. Soper, and C. C. Courson. "The Measure-
ment of Self-Concept and Self—Report." Education and
Psychological Measurements, XXIII (1963), 493-500.

 

Combs, A. W. and D. Snygg. Individual Behavior: A Perceptual
Approach to Behavior. New York: Harper and Row,
Publishers, 1959.

 

Conant, James B. The American High School Today. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.

 

.Cooley, Charles H. Social Organization. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1909.

 

TN)! -4251

A l I'ELL. WT‘"

157

Coopersmith, S. "A Method for Determining Types of Self-
Esteem." Journal of Educational Research, LIX (1959),
87-94.

. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco
and London: H. W. Freeman and Company, 1967.

Cough, Carl and John Murray. "Significant Others and Evalu-
ations." Sociometry, XXII (1964), 502.

 

Craig, Helen B. "A Sociometric Investigation of the Self-
Concept of the Deaf Child." American Annals of the
Deaf, CX, 4 (1965), 456-478.

Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the Schooii
PrOgressivism_in American Education 1876-1957. New
York: A Vintage Book, 1964.

Crowne, D. D. and M. W. Stephens. "Self-Acceptance and
Self-Evaluative Behavior: A Critique of Methodology."
Psychological Bulletin, LVIII (1961) 104-121.

Cryns, A. G. J. "African Intelligence: A Critical Survey
of Cross-Cultural Intelligence Research in Africa
South of the Sahara." Journal of Social Psychology,
IVII (August, 1962), 283—301.

Daniels, J. C. "The Effects of Streaming in the Primary
Schools: What Teachers Believe." British Journal
of Educational Psychology, XXXI (1961), 69-78.

Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. "Some Principles of
Stratification." American Sociological Review, X
(1945), 242-249.

Deutsch, Morton and Robert M. Krauss. Theories in Social
Psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1965.

Dewey, John. The Quest for Certainty. New York: G. A.
Putnam's Sons, 1929.

. How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company,
1933.

. Theory of Valuation. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1939.

 

EaSh, Maurice J. "Grouping: What Have We Learned?" Educa-
tional Leadership, XVIII (1961), 429-434.

’Eckstrom, Ruth B. PExperimental Studies of Homogeneous
Grouping: A Critical Review." School Review, 69

 

(1961), 216-266.

158

Edel, Abraham. '"Scientists, Partisan and Social Conscience."
Transaction, IX, 3 (1972), 35—36.

 

Erickson, Edsel. "A Study of the Normative Influence of
Parents and Friends upon Academic Achievement."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1965.

Evans, Ross A. "Psychology's White Face." Social Policy,
MarCh/April, 1971, pp. 54—58.

 

Faris, Robert. "The Ability Dimension in Human Society."
American Sociological Review, December 26, 1961,
pp. 835-842.

Friedman, George. The Anatomy of Work. New York: The
Free Press, 1964.

 

Garvey, Reba. "Self—Concept and Success in Student Teaching."

Journal of Teacher Education, XXI (1970), 357-361.

 

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor
Books, 1961.

Goldberg, Miriam L., Harry A. Passow, and Joseph Justman.
The Effect of Abilitinrouping. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1966.

 

Goldthorpe, G. H. "Social Stratification in Industrial
Society." Structural Social Inegualities: A Reader
in Comparative Social Stratification. C. S. Heller,
editor. London: The Macmillan Company, 1969.

Gordon, H. L. "Mental Capacity of the African." Journal
of the African Society, XXX (July, 1934), 226-242.

 

Gordon, J. J. and A. W. Combs. "The Learner: Self and
Perception." Review of Educational Research, XXVIII,
5 (December, 1958), 433.

 

Gordon, Milton. Social Class in American Sociology.
Durham: Duke University Press, 1958.

Gouldner, Alvin. "Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of Value-free
Sociology." Sociology on Trial. M. Stein and A.
Vidich, eds. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1963.

 

Grams, W. 1., Jr. "A Multivariate Analysis of the Correlates
of Educational Efforts by Nations." Comparative
Education Review, XII, 3 (1968), 281-299.

 

a" :E .E. ”a. nth!"

159

 

 

Grieweeks, Laurabeth. "Measures of Self-Perception as
Predictors of Scholastic Achievement." The Journal
of Educational Research, LXIII, 5 (January, 1970),
203.

Gross, Mason W. and A. W. McEachern. Exploration in Role
Analysis: Studies in the School Superintendency
Role. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

 

Gumpert, Peter and Carol Gumpert. "On the Psychology of
Expectation in the Classroom." The Urban Review,
XXX (September, 1968), 21-26.

 

Haarer, David L. "A Comparative Study of Self-Concept of
Ability Between Institutionalized Delinquent Boys
and Non-delinquent Boys Enrolled in Public Schools."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1964.

 

Halsey, A. H., Jean Floud, and C. A. Anderson. Education,
° Economy and Society. New York: The Free Press,
1961.

 

Hampden-Turner, Charles. Radical Man. Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenleman Publishing Co., Inc., 1970.

 

Hanson, John W. and Cole S. Brembeck. Education and the
Development of Nations. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1966.

 

 

Harding, Kenneth L. "A Comparative Study of Caucasian Male
High School Students Who Stay in School and Those
Who Drop Out." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1966.

Helper, Malcolm. "Learning Theory and Self-Concept."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Ppychology, 51 (1955),

 

184-194.
Helper, M. M. "Parental Evaluations of Children and
Children's Self-Evaluations." Journal of Abnormal

 

and Social Psychology, LVI (1958), 90.

 

Herriott, Robert E. and Nancy Holt St. John. Social Class
and Urban School. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1961.

 

 

Herriott, R. E. "Some Determinants of Educational Aspiration."
Harvard Educational Review, XXX, 2 (1963), 157.

 

Hilgard, E. R. "Human Motives and the Concept of Self."
American Psychologists, IV, 9 (September, 1949), 379.

 

160

Hilgard, Ernest R. "A Perspective on the Relationship
Between Learning Theory and Educational Practices."
Theories of Learning and Instruction. Edited by
Ernest R. Hilgard. Chicago: The National Society
for the Study of Education, 1964.

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.

 

Homes, Rogers. "The Transient and the Subsumed: Some
Epistemological Implications of Cross-Cultural
Research." Comparative Education Review, XIV, 1
(February, 1970), p. 60.

Horney, Karen. Self Analysis. New York: Norton, 1942.

 

Horowitz, Irwin Louis. Three Worlésof Development. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Horton, John. "Order and Conflict Theories of Social
' Problems as Competing Ideologies." American Journal

 

of Sociology, May, 1971, pp. 707-708.

 

Howard, Robert C. and Leonard Berkowitz. "Reactions to the
Evaluations of One's Performance." Journal of
Personality, XXVI (1958), 494-507.

 

 

Hunt, J. McVicker. Intelligence and Experience. New York.
The Ronald Press Company, 1961.

 

Hunt, J. McVicker, ed. Human Intelligence. New Brunswick,
N. J.: Transation Books, 1972.

 

Husen, T., ed. International Study of Achievement in
Mathematics--A Comparison of Two Countries. 2 vols.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.

 

Hyman, Herbert. "The Psychology of Status." Archives of
Psychology, 269 (1942).

 

 

Jackson, Brian. Streaming: An Educational System in
Miniature. London: Routedge and Kegan Paul, 1964.

 

 

Jeneks, Christopher and David Riesman. The Academic
Revolution. New York: Anchor Books, 1969.

 

 

Jensen, A. R. "How Much Can We Boost I.W. and Scholastic
Achievement?" Harvard Educational Review, XXXIX, 1
(Winter, 1969), 1-123.

 

Jensen, Gale E. Educational Sociology: An Appioach to Its

 

Develppment as a Practical Field of Study. New York:

 

The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1965.

H— ?JJF' “In. W
A " ' ..

161

Jerslid, Arthur. in Search of Self. New York: Bureau of
Publication, Teacher's College, Columbia University,

 

 

1952..

Jervis, F. M. "The Meaning of a Passive Self-Concept."
Journal of Clinical Psychology, XV, 4 (October, 1959),
372.

Keniston, Kenneth. "A Second Look at the Uncommitted."

Social Poligy, II, 2 (July/August, 1971), 6-19.

 

Klineberg, Otto. Race Differences. New York and London:
Harper and Brothers, 1935.

 

Klineberg, Otto, ed. Characteristics of the American Negro.
New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1944.

 

Kilko, Gabriel. Wealth and Power in America. New York:
Fredrick A. Company, 1962.

. The Roots of American Foreign Policy. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1969.

 

Kuhn, M. H. and T. S. McPortland. "An Empirical Investigation
of Self-Attitudes." American Sociological Review,
XIX (1954), 68-76.

Kuhn, Manford H. "Major Trends in Symbolic Interaction
Theory in the Past Twenty-five Years." Sociological
Quarterly, V (Winter, 1964), 61-84.

 

 

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Kinch, J. W. "A Formalized Theory of the Self-Concept."
The American Journal of Sociology. LXVIII (1963),
481-486.

Lansman, M. "The Relationship of Self-Image to Negro
Achievement and Attendance in a Racially Integrated
Elementary School." Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX
(1968), 442A-443A.

 

Lavin, David E. The Prediction of Academic Performance.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965.

Leys, Norman. Last Chance in Kegya. London: Hograth
Press, 1931.

 

_Lindesmith, Alfred R. and A. L. Strauss. Social Psychology.
New York: The Dryden Press, 1959.

 

162

Linton, Ralph. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc., 1936.

 

Lipsitt, L. P. "A Self-Concept Scale for Children and Its
Relationship to the Children's Form of the Manifest
Anxiety Scale." Child Development, XXIX, 4 (Decem-
ber, 1958), 463. .

 

Lowther, Malcolm A. "Academic Achievement and Self-Esteem?
Bulletin, 35 (1963), 8-11.

Lundberg, Ferdinand. The Rich and the Super Rich. New York:
Bantam Books, Inc., 1969.

 

Lynd, Robert S. Knowledge for What? New York: Grove Press,
1939.

 

Mabugane, B. "Crisis in African Sociology." East African
Journal, V (December, 1968), 21-40.

 

," '.' T 1‘ . E ‘1'] A 1'!‘

Manis, J. G. and B. N. Meltzer. Symbolic Interaction: A
Reader in Social Psychology. Sixth edition. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1970.

 

 

Mann, Maxine. "What Does Ability Grouping Do to the Self-
Concept?" Childhood Education, XXXVI (1960), 357-360.

 

Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1936.

 

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimentional Man. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1964.

 

. An Essay on Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press,
1969.

 

Manis, M. "Personal Adjustment, Assumed Similarity to Parents
and Inferred Parental Evaluations of the Self."
Journal of Consulting PSychology, XXII (1958), 481-
485.

 

Martindale, Don. The Nature and Type of Sociological Theory.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1960.

 

 

Marx, Melvin H. "Intervening Variable or Hypothetical
Construct." The Psychological Review, LVIII (1951),
236.

Maslow, A. H. "Self-Actualizing People: A Study of
Psychological Health." Personality, Symposium No. 1
(1950), 11-34.

 

McCord, William M. and Nicholas J. Demeralt III. "Negro
Versus White Intelligence: A Continuing Controversy."
Harvard Educational Review, XXVIII (1958), 120-135.

 

163

McDermott, John. "Overclass/Underclass: Knowledge is Power."
The Nation, April 14, 1969.

 

McGurk, Frank. "A Scientist's Report on Race Differences."
U. S. News and World Report, September 21, 1956,
pp. 92-960

 

. "Negro vs. White Intelligence: An Answer."
Harvard Educational Review, XXIX (1959), 54-62.

 

McPortland, Thomas S., John H. Cumming, and Wynona Ganetson.
"Self-Conception and Word Behavior in Two Psychiatric
Hospitals." Sociometiy, XXIV (1961), ll-14.

 

Mead, George H. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1934.

 

. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of
of Social Behaviorist. Edited by Charles W. Morrier.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

 

Meade, J. F. and A. S. Parkers. Genetics and Environment
Factors in Human Ability. A symposium held by the
Eugenic Society, September-October, 1965.
Edinburg, London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966.

 

Meketon, B. F. "The Effects of Integration upon the Negro
Child's Responses to Various Tasks and Upon His
Level of Self-Esteem." Dissertation Abstracts,
XXXV (1969), 2339A-2340A.

 

Meltzer, N. The Social Psychology_of Geroge Herbert Mead.
Kalamazoo, Michigan: Division of Field Services,
Western Michigan University, 1959.

 

Meltzer, B. and J. Petras. "The Chicago and Iowa School of
Symoblic Interaltionism." Human Nature and Collec-
tive Behavior. Edited by Tamotsu Shibutani.
Englewood CIiffS, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

 

 

Merton, R. K. "The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy." Antioch
Review, VIII (1948), 193-210.

Social Theopy and Social Structure. Glencoe,
Ill.: The Free Press, 1957.

 

Merton, R. K. and A. S. Kitt. "Contributions to the Theory
of Reference Group Behavior." Continuities in Social

 

Research. Edited by P. K. Merton and P. F. Lazarsfeld.

 

Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950.

figw . '1 llflll!“

164

Metzger, L. P. "American Sociology and Black Assimilation:
Conflicting Perspectives." American Journal of
Sociology, LXXVI (January, 1971), 627-647}

 

 

Miller, Herman P. Rich Man, Poor Man. New York: Signet
Books, 1968.

 

Miller, Clifford D. "An Exploratory Investigation of Self—
Concepts of High Achieving, Average Achieving, and
Low Achieving Groups of Junior High Pupils as
Perceived by Pupils and Their Teachers." Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI, 3 (September, 1965), 1483-1484.

 

 

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1956.

 

- The Sociological Imagination. New York: Grove
Press, 1959.

 

. "Social Psychology: Model for Liberals."
Sociology and Pragmatism. Edited by Irving Louis
Horowitz. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

 

Mitchell, James V., Jr. "Education's Challenge to Psychology:
The Prediction of Behavior from Person-Environment
Interactions." Review of Educational Research,

XXXIX, 5 (1969), 696.

 

Miyamoto, Frank and Stamford Dornbuch. "A Test of the Inter-
actionist Hypothesis of Self-Conception." American
Journal of Sociology, LXI (1956), 399-403.

 

Moore, Joan. Mexican American. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

 

Morse, Richard. "Self-Concept of Ability, Significant Others,
and School Achievement of Eight Grade Students: A
Comparative Investigation of Negro and Caucasian
Students." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan
University, 1963.

 

Moses, M. and R. Duvell. "Depreciation and the Self-Concept."
Journal of Clinical Psyghology, XVI, 4 (October, 1960),
388.

Mumford, W. B. and C. E. Smith. "Racial Comparisons and
Intelligence Tests." Journal of the Royal African

 

Society, XXXVII (January, 1938), 46-57.

'Nash, Ralph J. "A Study of Particular Self-Perception as
Related to Scholastic Achievement of Junior High
School Age Pupils in a Middle Class Community."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXIV, 9 (1964), 3837-3838.

 

165

National Education Association. Address and Proceedings.
1939.

 

Newcomb, T. H. Social Psychology. New York: Harpers, 1958.

 

Nisbet, Robert A. Tradition and Revolt: Historical and
Sociological Essays.

 

 

Oliver, R. A. C. "Mental Tests for Primitive Races." The
Year Book of Education. London: Evans Brothers, 1935.

 

Ossowski, Staniglow. "Non-Equalitarian Classlessness--
Similarities in Interpreting Mutually Opposed Systems."
Class Structure in the Social Consciousness. Edited
by S. Ossowski. London: The Macmillan Company,
1963.

 

Palmer, Densley H. "A Comparison of the Consistency of
the Self-Judgments of Physically Disabled and Non-
Disabled Male College Students." Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI, 8 (February, 1966), 4456.

 

Patterson, Ann. "An Evaluation of an Instrument Designed
to Measure the Construct, Self-Concept of Academic
Ability." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1966.

Pease, John, William H. Form, and Huber Rytina. "Ideological
Currents in American Stratification Literature."
The American Sociologists, May, 1970, pp. 127-137.

 

Peterson, Joseph. Early Conceptions and Tests of Intelligence.
New York: World Book Company, 1925.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. A Profile of the Negro American.
Princeton, N. J.: D. VanNostrand Co., 1964.

 

Pettigrew, T. F. and K. W. Black. "Sociology in the Desegre-
gation Process: Its Use and Disuse." Uses of
Sociology. Edited by P. L. Lazarsfeld, W. H. Swell,
and H. L. Wilensky. New York: Basic Books, 1967.

 

Piaget, J. "The DevelOpment of Time Conceptions in the
Child." Psychopathology of Childhood. Edited by
P. H. Hoek and J. Zubin. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1955.

 

Porter, John. The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1965.

 

Reckless, Walters C., Simon Dinitz, and Ellen Murray. "Self-
Concept as an Insulator Against Delinquency." American

Sociological Review, XXI (1956), 744-746.

166

Reeder, Leo G., G. A. Donahue, and A. Biblarg. "Conception
of Self and Others." American Journal of Sociology,
LXVI (1960), 153.

Reeder, Thelma A. "A Study of Some Relationships Between
Level of Self-Concept, Academic Achievement and Class-
room Adjustment." Dissertation Abstract, XV (1955),
2472.

 

Remender, Peter A. "Symbolic Interaction and Education: Some
Marginal Notes." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1971.

Renzaglia, G. A. "Some Correlates of the Self-Structure as
Measured by and Index of Adjustment and Values."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1952.

Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.
Washington, D. C.: Government PrintingAOffice, 1968.

 

Richardson, Mildred T. "Discrepancy Measurements relating
Students' Self-Concept of Mental Ability with Mental
Health Stability, and Empirical Study of Ninth
Graders." Dissertation Abstract, XXVI, 5 (November,
1965),2592.

 

Rose, Arnold M",ed. Human Behavior and Social Processes.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962.

Rose, A. M. "A Systematic Summary of Symbolic Interaction
Theory." Human Behavior and Social Process. Edited
by A. M. Rose. Boston: Houghton-MiffIin, 1962.

 

Rosen, S., G. Levinger, and R. Lippit. "Desired Change in
Self and Others as a Function of Resource Ownership."
Human Relationships, XIII (1960), 187-192.

 

Rosenberg, Morris. Society and the Adolescent Self Image.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobbson. Pygmalion in the
Classroom, Teacher Expectation and Pupil's Intellectual
Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and’Winston,
Inc., 1968.

 

 

Roszak, Theodore; The Making of a Counter Culture. Garden
City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1969.

‘Roth, R. M. "Role of Self— -Concept in Achievement." Journal
of Experimental Education, XXVII (June, 1959), 265-
281.

 

167

Rusk, Bruce. Alternatives in Education. Toronto: General
Publishing Company Limited, 1971.

 

Russell, Roger W. "Psychology: Noun or Adjective." The
American Psychologist, XXV, 3 (March, 1970), 215.

 

Sanders, Donald P. "Toward a Theory of Educational Develop-
ment." Comparative Education Review, XIII, 3 (October,
1969), 283. -

Schwebel, Milton. Who Can Be Educated? New York: Grove
Press, 1969.

Sexton, Patricia Carjo. Spanish Harlem. New York: Harper
and Row, 1965.

 

Shaw, Merville C. and Gerald J. Alves. "Guidance in Practice:
The Self-Concept of Bright Academic Underachievers."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXXII, 4 (1964),
401-403.

Shibutani, Tamotsu. Society and Personaliiy. Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961.

Shibutani, Tamotsu, ed. Human Nature and Collective Behavior:
Papers in Honor of Herbert Blumer. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J. Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Sidawi, Ahmad. "Self-Concept of Academic Ability and School
Achievement in Lebanon." Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

Simon, Brian. Intelligence, Psychology and Education.
London: Lawrence andIWiShart, 1971.

Sizemore, Barbara A. "Social Science and Education for
Black Identity." Black Self-Concept: Implications
for Education and Social Science. Edited by dames
A. Banks and Jean Dresden Grombs. New York: McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1972.

Smith, Brewster M. "The Phenomenological Approach in
Personality Theory: Some Critical Remarks." Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLV (1950), 516-

522.

Soares, A. T. and l. M. Soares. "A Comparative Study of
Self-Perceptions of Disadvantaged Children in Elemen-
tary and Secondary Schools." Proceedings of the 74th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, IV (1969), 659-660.

 

Staines, J. W. "Self-Picture as a Factor in the Classroom."
British Journal of Educational Psychology, XXVIII

168

Steiner, Stan. The New Indians. New York: Delta Publishing
Co., 1967.

 

Stoddard, George D. The Meaningyof Intelligence. New York:
The MacMillan Co., 1943.

 

Stone, Gregory P. and Harvey A. Farbernaw. Social Psychology
through Symbolic Interaction. Waltham: Ginn-Blaisdell
and Company, 1970.

 

 

Strauss, Anselm, ed. The Social Psychology of George

Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1956.

 

 

. George Herbert Mead on Social PSychology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Strauss, A. L. The Contexts of Social Mobility. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1971.

 

Sullvian, Harry S. Conceptions of Modern PSychiatry.
Washington, D. C.: William Alanson White Psychiatric
Foundation, 1947.

 

Swift, D. F. "Educational Psychology and the Environment:
A Controversy at Cross-Purposes." British Journal
of Sociology, XVI (1965), 334-350.

 

 

Svensson, Nils-Erick. Ability Grouping and Scholastic
Achievement. Stockholm: Almquist and WikseII,l962.

 

 

Thomas, W. I. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Brown and
Company, 1931.

 

Thorndike, Robert L. "Pygmalion in the Classroom." The
Record, LXX, 8 (May, 1969), 805-807.

Time, July 17, 1939, p. 65.
Trowbridge, N. "Cross-Cultural Study of Creative Ideas in

Children." Comparative Education Review, XII, 1
(February, 1968), 80-83.

 

Tuel, John K. and Rosemary Wursten. "The Influence of Intra-
Personal Variables on Academic Achievement."
California Journal of Educational Research, XVI, 16
(March, 1965), 58-64.

 

Tumin, M. M. "Some Principles of Stratification: A
Critical Analysis." American Sociological Review,
XVIII (August, 1953), 387-393.

 

169

U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. Racial Isolation in the
Public Schools. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1967.

 

 

Videbeck, Richard. "Self-Conception and the Reaction of
Others." Sociometry, XXIII (December, 1960), 351-
359.

 

Votruba, James Charles. "A Comparative Analysis of a Social-
Psychological Theory of School Achievement."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.

Walsh, W. B. "Validity of Self-Report." Journal of
Counseling Psychology, XIV (January, 1967), 22.

 

 

. "Validity of Self-Report: Another Look." Journal
of Counseling Psychology, XV, 2 (March, 1968), I86.

 

Wickersham, Janet M. "Self-Perceptions, in Relation to
Grades and Report Cards, of Third and Sixth Grade
Children from Above Average Socioeconomic Back-
grounds in Richmond and Wayne Township." Dissertation

 

Abstracts, XXVI, 6 (December, 1965), 3116-3117.

 

Wiersima, W. "A Cross—National Comparison of the Academic
Achievement of Prospective Secondary School Teachers."
Comparative Education Review, XIII, 2 (June, 1969),
209-212.

 

Wilhelm, Sidney. "Scientific Unaccountability and Moral
Accountability." The New Sociology. Edited by
I. L. Horowitz. New York: Oxford University Press,
1964.

 

Williams, J. E. "Changes in Self and Other Perceptions
Following Brief Educational-Vocational Counseling."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, IX (1962), 18-30.

 

Wylie, Ruth C. The Self-Concept: A Critical Survey of
Pertinent Research Literature. Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska, 1961.

 

 

Yates, Alfred, ed. Grouping in Education. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1966.

 

Yeatts, P. P. "An Analysis of Developmental Changes in the
Self-Report of Negro and White Children, Grades
Three through Twelve." Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX
(1968), 823.

 

170

Zeitlin, Irving M. Ideology and the Development of

Ziekel,

Sociological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.

Perry A. "Self-Concept and the Disadvantage of
Ethnic Group Membership and Mixture." Review of
Educational Research, XLI, 3 (June, 1970), 211-225.

'"_' T—"T—f-T‘I'Y

APPENDICES

171

APPENDIX A

SELF-CONCEPT OF ADADEMIC ABILITY SCALE

172

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

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

am the best

am above average
am average

am below average
am the poorest

00.1060
HHHHH

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

am among the best

am above average

am average

am below average

am among the poorest

(DQJOU‘DJ
HHHHH

3. 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

4. Do you think you have the ability to complete college?

a. yes, definitely

b. yes, probably

c. not sure either way
d. probably not

e. no

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

among the best
above average
average

. below average
among the poorest

(DQJOU'D)

6. 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?

very likely
somewhat likely

not sure either way
unlikely

most unlikely

(DD-CUB)

173

174

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

my work is excellent

my work is good

my work is average

my work is below average

my work is much below average

(DDJOU‘DJ

8. What kinds of grades do you think you are capable of getting?

a. mostly A's (85% to 100%)

b. mostly B's (75% to 84%)

c. mostly C's (60% to 74%)

d. mostly D's (50% to 59%)

e. mostly E's or F's (0% to 49%)

APPENDIX B

PERCEIVED EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT'S
ACADEMIC ABILITY BY OTHERS SCALES

. Best Friend

Parents

Teachers

Principals
Counselors

Priests or Ministers

mums-unor-
O

175

Think about your closest friend at school. Now answer the following-
questions as you think this FRIEND would answer them.

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

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
.c. Average

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

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average '

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

a. Yes, definitely d. Probably not
b. Yes, probably e. Definitely not
c. Not sure either way

4. 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 e. Somewhat unlikely
b. Somewhat likely d. Very unlikely
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Mostly A's (85% to 100%) d. Mostly D's (50% to 59%)
b. Mostly B's (75% to 84%) e. Mostly E's]
c. Mostly C's (60% to 74%) or F's](0% to 49%)

Please answer the following questions as you think your PARENTS
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 answers each
question.

176

177

1. How do you think your PARENTS would rate your school ability

compared with other students your age?

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

2. Where do you think your PARENTS would say you would rank in
your high school graduating class?

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

3. Do you think that your PARENTS would say you have the ability
to complete college?

a. Yes, definitely d. Probably not
b. Yes, probably e. Definitely not
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Very likely d. Somewhat unlikely
b. Somewhat likely e. Very unlikely
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Mostly A's (85% to 100%) d. Mostly D's (50% to 59%)
' b. Mostly B's (75% to 84%) e. Mostly E's]
%
c. Mostly C's (60% to 74%) or F'S](O% to 49 )

Think about your favorite teacher--the one you like best; the one
you feel is most concerned about your schoolwork. 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. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average y e. Among the poorest
c. Average

178

2. Where do you think this TEACHER would say you would rank in
your high school graduating class?

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

3. Do you think that this TEACHER would say you have the ability
to complete cdllege?

a. Yes, definitely d. Probably not
b. Yes, probably e. Definitely not
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Very likely d. Somewhat unlikely
b. Somewhat likely e. Very unlikely
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Mostly A's (85% to 100%) d. Mostly D's (50% to 59%)
b. Mostly B's (75% to 84%) e. Mostly E's]
c. Mostly C's (60% to 74%) or F's](0% to 49%)

Think about your PRINCIPAL. Now answer the following questions
as you think your PRINCIPAL would answer them.

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

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

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

2. Where do you think your PRINCIPAL would say you would rank in
your high school graduating class?

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

179

3. Do you think that your PRINCIPAL would say you have the ability
to complete college?

a. Yes, definitely d. Probably not
b. Yes, probably e. Definitely not
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Very likely d. Somewhat unlikely
b. Somewhat likely e. Very unlikely
c. Not sure either way

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

a. Mostly A's (85% to 100%) d. Mostly D's (50% to 59%)
b. Mostly B's (75% to 84%) e. Mostly E's]
c. Mostly C'S (60% to 74%) or F's](0% to 49%)

Think about your favoriate COUNSELLOR the one you like best; the
one you feel is most concerned about your schoolwork. Now answer
the following questions as you think this COUNSELLOR would answer
them.

 

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

question.

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

 

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

2. Where do you think this COUNSELLOR would say you would rank in
your high school graduating class?

 

a. Among the best d. Below average
c. Above average e. Among the poorest
d. Average

3. Do you think that this COUNSELLOR would say you have the ability
to complete college?

 

a. Yes, definitely d. Probably not
b. Yes, probably e. Definitely not
d. Not sure either way

'* ”_‘_'~ "iii—T rr

180

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

 

a. Very likely d. Somewhat unlikely
b. Somewhat likely e. Very unlikely
c. Not sure either way

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

 

a. Mostly A's (85% to 100%) d. Mostly D's (50% to 59%)
b. Mostly B's (75% to 84%) e. Mostly E's]
c. Mostly C's (60% to 74%) or F's](0% to 49%)

Think about your favorite PRIEST OR MINISTER--the one you like best;
the one you feel is most concerned about your school work. Now ‘
answer the following questions as you think this PRIEST OR MINISTER
would answer them.

 

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

question.

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

 

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

2. Where do you think this PRIEST OR MINISTER would say you would
rank in your high school graduating class?

 

a. Among the best d. Below average
b. Above average e. Among the poorest
c. Average

3. Do you think that this PRIEST OR MINISTER would say you have the
ability to complete college?

a. Yes, definitely d. Probably not
b. Yes, probably e. Definitely not
c. Not sure either way

4. In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university professor,
work beyond four years of college is necessary. How likely do
you think this PRIEST OR MINISTER would say it is that you could
complete suchjadvanced work.

1
a. Very likely d. Somewhat unlikely
b. Somewhat likely e. Very unlikely

c. Not sure either way

 

181

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

 

a. Mostly A's (85% to 100%) d. Mostly D's (50% to 59%)
b. Mostly B's (75% to 84%) e. Mostly E's]
c. Mostly C's (60% to 74%) or F's](0% to 49%)

APPENDIX C

SIGNIFICANT OTHERS QUESTIONNAIRES

1. General Significant Others

2. Academic Significant Others

182

1. There are many people who are important in our lives. In the space
below, list the names of the people who you feel are important in
your life. Please indicate who each person is.

Names Who Is This Person?

 

If you finish before the time limit, please sit quietly. DO NOT TURN THE

PAGE .

 

183

184

2. There are many epople who are concerned about how well young people
do in school. In the space below, list the names of the people you
feel are concerned about how well you do in school. Please indicate
who each person is.

Names Who Is This Person?

If you finish before time limit, please Sit quietly. DO NOT TURN THE
PAGE .

APPENDIX D

SPECIFIC SUBJECT SELF-CONCEPT OF ABILITY SCALE

185

Now we would like to again answer some of the same questions, but this
time about four different subjects which you are now taking or have taken
in the past.

Circle the "X" under the heading which best answers the question.
Answer for all six supjects. (You will have one "X" circled on each line.)

 

 

1. How do you rate your ability in the following school subjects compared
with your close friends?

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

poorest average average average best

Math

English

History and Geography
Science

Literature

'French

XXXXXX
NNXXXX
><><><><><>S
XXXXXX
xxxxxx

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
the below I am above the
pgorest average average average best

 

 

Math X X X X X
English X X X X X
History and Geography X X X X X
Science X X X X X
Literature X X X X X
French X X X X X

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

Among Among
the Below Above the
poorest average average average best

Math X X X X X
English X X X X X
History and Geography X X X X X
Science X X X X X
Literature X X X X X
French X X X X X

186

187

Do you think you have the ability to do college work in the following

subjects?

Math

English

History and Geography
Science '
Literature

French

Where do you think you would

ing subjects?

Math

English

History and Geography
Science

Literature

French

Not sure Yes,
Probably either prob- Yes

 

.119. L wax ably definitely
X X x x x
X X x x x
X X X x x
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X

rank in your college class in the follow-

Among Among
the Below Above the
poorest averagafi average aVerage best

- _. _-..__..___._ x—-—-

 

 

><><><><><><
><><><><><><
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
><><><><><><

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

Math

English

History and Geography
Science

Literature

French

 

Not
sure Some-

Most either what Very
likely Unlikely, way likeiyy likeiy
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X

188

7. Forget for a moment how others grade your work. In your own Opinion
how good do you think your work is in the following subjects?

My work
is much My work My work My work
below is below is My work is

average average average is good excellent

 

Math X X X X X
English X X X X X
History and Geography X X X X X
Science X X X X X
Literature X X X X X
French X X X X X

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
Math X X X X X
English X X X X X
History and Geography X X X X X
Science X X X .X X
Literature X X X X X
French X X X X X

APPENDIX E

ABBREVIATIONS

189

Self Concept of Academic Ability = SCA
Specific Subject Self-Concept of Ability = SSSCA
Grade Point Average = GPA

PPEV

Perceived Evaluation of Student's Adademic Ability by Parents

Perceived Evaluation of STudent's Adademic Ability by Friends PFEV
Perceived Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability by Teachers = PTEV

PXEV

Perceived Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability by Principals

PCEV

Perceived Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability by Councelors

Perceived Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability by MInisters = PMEV

190