WWWWIIHIHIIIIHWHIIHHINIWN1llllilHllHl 128 041 THS 4 «22‘». . i I’M-D— ‘-‘~ am i“ ' N I'l'HES‘b I ’ {as 51.4,, ,5; ’5!» ate Uri’ersmfly v v I- . “‘1“ v ‘ ‘ ‘ -v "‘ "I.” This is to certify that the thesis entitled LAOTIAN REFUGEE CHILDREN IN AN AMERICAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: PEER RELATIONS AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS presented by Mary Ellen Hensel Thompson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts degree in Psychology lw Qflqwrw dajor professor Date February 23, 1983 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution bV1ES‘.} RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout fron “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. E?!) €33 (EE‘CEM‘fE LAOTIAN REFUGEE CHILDREN IN AN AMERICAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: PEER RELATIONS AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS BY Mary Ellen Hensel Thompson A MASTERS THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1983 ABSTRACT LAOTIAN REFUGEE CHILDREN IN AN AMERICAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: PEER RELATIONS AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS BY Mary Ellen Hensel Thompson K This study investigated the social adjustment of a small group of Laotian refugee children in their elementary school. A peer nomination reputation measure and a best-friends/least liked sociometric measure were completed by participating classmates of the Laotian children. Teachers completed a Child Behavior Checklist on the Laotian child(ren) in their classes and on the other children in the class of the same gender. Analyses revealed that the Laotian children were seen by their classmates as quiet and shy more often than were their American peers. They were not, however, perceived as withdrawn, and were neither isolated from nor rejected by their peers. Their teachers uniformly characterized these children as quiet, hard-working, near-model students. The possibility that this is a stereotypic perception was discussed. Anecdotal information pertaining to their adjustment was presented, along with a discussion of their families' relation to American society and economy. Recommendations for future research were made. Dedicated to my husband and partner, Glenn. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Lucy Ferguson for her help, her encouragement and her unflagging faith in my ability to eventually finish this document. I would also like to thank the other members of my Thesis committee, Andy Newcomb and Ray Frankman. I would also like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Pat Hepp, the Director of Refugee Services for Catholic Social Services of Lansing, Michigan, for her assistance in securing a translator and in enlarging my understanding of the refugee experience in general and of the customs of the Lao people in particular. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . 2. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . SUbjeCtS. O O O I O O O 0 0 Instruments . . . . . . . . 3 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . Play. . . . . . . . . . . Best friends/Least-liked. Child Behavior Checklist. Play. . . . . . . . . . . . Best friends/Least-liked. . Child Behavior Checklist. . 4. DISCUSS ION. O O O O O O O O O APPENDIXES A. Letters to parents. . . . . . B. Child's packet. . . . . . . . C. Teacher's packet. . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv 10 10 15 19 19 21 23 23 26 27 30 38 40 45 49 Table Subjects. . . LIST OF Peer Data Statistics. Peer Data Group Means Teacher Data. TABLES 13 24 25 28 Chapter 1 Introduction The several groups of refugees from Southeast Asia who have entered this country in the past few years represent an important addition to the minority population within this country. Since 1975, well over a half a million of these refugees have entered the United States. More thousands are waiting in refugee camps in Thailand and the Phillipines. The United States has pledged to admit 14,000 more each month. Thus, this minority will continue to grow. These refugees typically have urgent and special needs as they go through the process of resettlement in their new country, coming as they do from a very different cultural setting, and often speaking no English. Their particular needs in the areas of employment, housing, education, and family life present special problems for service agencies in the communities in which they settle. These needs are just beginning to be identified. Refugee service agencies and mental health clinics around the country are learning about these needs through experience, and are trying to deal with them on the basis of limited information, acquired largely through trial and error (Cohon, 1977; Harmon & Robinson, 1981; DHEW IRAP, 1979; Koschman, Tobin & Friedman, 1981; Robinson, 1980; Tobin, Friedman & Koschman, 1981; Tung, 1979). In order to develop programs and resources adequate to meet the needs of these 1 2 new minority groups, it is of the highest priority to study their resettlement process and their integration into the community, so that we can gain a better picture of their needs and problems and how best to address them Research on this recent group of immigrants is very difficult to find. Most of it appears to be exclusively descriptive in nature, and not "hard" research as such (Ellis, 1980; Vignes & Hall, 1979). Research specifically designed to gain knowledge of particular Indoohinese refugee groups and their integration experience, as a process, is needed. Such research has the potential for aiding professionals and para-professionals in their attempts to assist refugees who are encountering significant problems in the process. This study is an attempt to begin investigation of this process of integration. Specifically, this project is the study of the integration of a small group of Laotian refugee children into their new social environment in the United States. This small group of children and their families were living in Lapeer, Michigan at the time of the study. Lapeer is a small rural community of farmers and auto workers. The Laotian families were settled in the area because jobs were promised to them by the managers of a local mushroom farm. The ownership of the farm had just changed and the new foreman was a Laotian refugee who had entered the United States in 1975. He suggested that the farm bring in Laotian refugees to pick the mushrooms. The Tolstoy Foundation agreed to serve 3 as official sponsors of the refugees to be hired. They came, one famiy at a time, relatives and friends of the foreman. They were a tight-knit group. All of the men, and many of the women, worked together at the farm. For the most part, they all lived in one area of the community and the children attended the same school. The foreman of the mushroom farm served as their leader, at work and in the community. The study was conducted in one of the primary social settings of school age children in the United States, the elementary school. It was decided, for several reasons, to begin the study of the refugee experience by studying the assimilation of refugee children. First of all, the school is an American institution, a familiar context for the American researcher, and easily accessible. The Laotian family, the logical unit for such research, is an unfamiliar context for the researcher. Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that Laotian families would be initially accessible for such purposes. Secondly, since the researcher is primarily interested in families with children, it seemed logical to begin in the one institution which is a part of the life of every child in America, the elementary school. By locating Laotian children in the school, one is able to identify and locate Laotian families with children. The elementary school is the first ubiquitous American social institution with which young Laotian families come into contact. Thirdly, the school was 4 chosen as an entry point into the Laotian community of families because of its traditional importance in the Laotian culture. It was felt that by associating the research with the school, participation by the Laotians in the study would be greatly facilitated, if not insured. As originally conceived, this study was to include the collection of parent data as well as the data collected in the school. The researcher was unable, however, to complete that portion of the study. The project fell victim to a very common phenomenon among the refugee population from Southeast Asia, secondary migration. The entire sample, save one family, left the area and moved to California with their leader. They left quickly. The local representatives of their sponsoring organization and the principal of the school the children attended heard of their planned move only two weeks before they left Lapeer. The parent data had not been collected before they left. The elementary school aged children in these families were chosen as the subjects of the study because there is evidence to suggest that refugee children of this age group might be assimilating quickly, perhaps more quickly than any other members of the family (Ellis, 1980; Maykovich, 1972; Vecchione, 1981). Certainly their involvement with the school and their increasing facility with the English language would generate some pressure on the parents to become assimilated, particularly if the children are assimilating well. As a result, the children may well 5 contribute a great deal to the assimilation of the family as a whole. This is a cross-cultural study involving refugees and is, therefore, heir to certain social risks. The greatest risks are associated with the misinterpretation of results because of errors due to cultural ignorance on the part of the researcher. Such errors are potentially very serious because they could lead to faulty generalizations concerning a group of people who are relatively powerless in American society and unable to correct the mistaken image. Such inaccurate knowledge would be of no use to mental health workers and might actually interfere with successful assistance of refugees. Every effort has been made to avoid such errors in this study. A large bibliography relevant to the past experience and current adjustment of Southeast Asian refugees has been collected and studied. Interviews with Laotian refugees and with refugee assistance personnel have been conducted by the researcher. From the interviews has come advice, based on experience, concerning the cultural relevance of approaches, questions and concepts. In order to investigate the integration and adjustment of a group of people to a new social environment, it is necessary to have some understanding of the former social environment as it existed in their own country. Such understanding is crucial when attempting to interpret data on the group's behavior and adjustment. The Laotian refugees in this country have come here from a society with values and 6 customs which are decidedly different from those of American society in many areas. Of particular interest for the purposes of this study are the many ways in which the Laotian understanding of social relations differs from that of Americans. The Laotians generally stress rank rather than equality. They prefer the predictability of formality and ritual to the American custom of informality and spontaneity. Their concept of the importance of self is different from that of Americans as well. In Laos, the group, and its needs and expectations, takes precedence over the self. (This is particularly true in regard to the family, which is extremely important in Laos.) Groups look to their leaders as authorities and expect them to be strong, controlling leaders. This contrasts sharply with the American ideal of democratic group process. (Murphy, 1976) The open, direct, mode of communication often associated with Americans is very foreign to Laotians, who tend to be indirect and exceedingly cautious in their communication. The oriental emphasis on "saving face” is important in Laotian culture. Not only is it important to save face for oneself and one's family, but also for those around one. An important concept in Laos is 'gengjai'. Gengjai is a social custom that essentially means that the inferior in rank never offends, insults, embarrasses a superior, nor causes him to lose face. Even when s/he is convinced that s/he is in the right, an inferior in rank will always submit to a superior 7 in order to maintain the status of the superior (Murphy, 1976). Highly regarded by Laotians in interpersonal relationships are serenity, equanimity, imperturbability and self—control. These values are likely to be seen in restraint of gesture, moderation and quietness of speech, lack of argumentativeness and concealment of any displeasing emotion (LeBar & Suddard, 1960). A pamphlet on the care and adjustment of Lao children in the United States describes these children as quiet, self—contained, passive, accepting and likely to acquiesce unquestioningly (DHEW 320,028). The status and style of education in Laos is also very different from that in the United States (Moua & Seal). Education is traditionally associated with religion in Laos. Teachers are highly respected authorities, not to be questioned, even by parents. The students show great respect in the classroom. They rise to greet the teacher when he enters and sit quietly during their lecture-style classes. They speak only if directly addressed by the teacher and they venture no questions at all (Ellis, 1980). American teachers have previously had little or no experience of Laotian children in their classrooms. They may have had Asian-american students of other nationalities in their classrooms, however. Their perceptions of these refugee students may therefore be affected by their experience with these other Asian-american students who look 'so much like the Laotians. Asian-american students generally are seen in a very positive light by American teachers 8 (Botho, 1971; Schwartz, 1972; Wong, 1980). More often than Caucasian students, they are credited with emotional stability and academic competence. They are seen as hard-working and well-behaved. Often, Asian-american students are seen as gifted in the area of mathematics and are described as artistic by their teachers (Ellis, 1980). In sum, they would seem to be model students in their academic orientation and, particularly, in the area of behavior. Thus, there are many reasons to suspect that these elementary school children might adjust well to life in the United States. The Laotian cultural values and educational style, as it affects their behavior and attitudes, should serve to make them easy to get along with. They are likely to be appreciated by their teachers and well—liked, or at least easily tolerated, by peers. They are most likely to be seen as shy by everyone around them because of their general quietness of demeanor and their reticence to speak in class. Thus, they may well be largely ignored by many of their peers. This may be particularly true of the young girls, who are of very low status in the hierarchy of respect in Laotian culture, by virtue of both their age and their sex. They may be especially quiet and deferential. This cultural information leads to several hypotheses about the way Laotian elementary school children in the United States might be perceived by their American peers and teachers. 9 First, and foremost, they are likely to be seen as shy and quiet. Their quietness may even be interpreted as sadness or withdrawal, especially in light of the cultural tendency to moderate all emotion. The quietness may cause these children to be over-looked by their peers, resulting in low social impact as measured by a sociometric questionnaire. They will most likely be seen as cooperative and non-competitive, hard—working and well-behaved. They may also be seen as artistic and mathematically-inclined. CHAPTER 2 Methods Subjects The subjects in this study were 125 children attending an elementary school in Lapeer, Michigan. This particular school was chosen because there were 11 Laotian children who were students there. Each of the seven classrooms in the school which contained a Laotian child were included in the study. Included were one sixth-grade room of 30 participating students, one fifth-grade room of 18 participating students, one third-grade room of 17 participating students, two second-grade rooms of ten and 15 participating students, and two Split rooms, one third- and fourth-grade room of 16 participating students, and one fifth- and sixth-grade room of 19 participating students. The experimental group consisted of the eleven Laotian children. Three matched-pairs control groups were formed. In each group there was a child matched with each one of the Laotian children in terms of classroom and gender. Some attempt was made to match on the basis of age as well. However, the Laotian child was often older than the other children in their classrooms because of problems with language, and because they were deprived of education during the war and during their flight. American children in the classrooms who are older than their peers are there for very different reasons, (often because they have trouble learning), and so are not appropriate as controls for age in 10 11 some cases. Each of the children in the first control group, Neighborhood, was matched with the Laotian child in his/her classroom on the basis of the neighborhood in which they lived. (There was no match on this variable for one of the Laotian children, so this group has one child less than the Laotian Group.) This variable is important from the standpoint of the pool of friends available to a child outside of the school. There are distinct residential sub-areas in the area from which the school draws its population, two sets of apartment buildings with central play areas, and one subdivision of single-family homes with yards. The play experience of the children in these two differing types of neighborhoods might differ greatly. This would, of course, affect the child's integration into the school's social structure. Each of the children in the second control group, Years, was matched with the Laotian child in his/her classroom on the basis of the number of years spent attending the elementary school where the study was conducted. Many of the Laotian children did not come to this school as kindergarteners. The length of time a child has been associated with a particular social structure could be expected to have profound effects on his/her integration into that structure. Each of the children in the third control group, Siblings, was matched with the Laotian child in his/her 12 classroom on the basis of the number and ages of their siblings. Sibling constellation is a variable that affects social development and may therefore affect the child's skills necessary for social adjustment. It was not possible to match sibling constellation exactly, so particular attention was given to matching the pattern of older siblings as closely as possible in the belief that older siblings would exert the most influence on their younger sibs. Table 1 provides a complete listing of the subjects in the Laotian Group and in these three control groups, and includes the relevant demographic data. A fourth control group was also formed. This group, the large American Group, was composed of all of the subjects in the study except the Laotian subjects. The first contact was made with the parents of all of the children in the 7 rooms through letters sent home from school with the children (see Appendix A). The letters explained the process of data collection and offered assurances of confidentiality and anonymity. An informed consent form for the parents of the participating children was included in each letter (see Appendix A). A simplified version of the letter was translated into Lao and sent home to the parents of each of the Laotian children (see Appendix A). This was done because, according to refugee assistance personnel, the original version, sent to the American parents, contained too many culturally alien concepts to be understood well by the Laotian parents. Neither form of the 12 classroom on the basis of the number and ages of their siblings. Sibling constellation is a variable that affects social development and may therefore affect the child's skills necessary for social adjustment. It was not possible to match sibling constellation exactly, so particular attention was given to matching the pattern of older siblings as closely as possible in the belief that older siblings would exert the most influence on their younger sibs. Table 1 provides a complete listing of the subjects in the Laotian Group, and in these three control groups, which includes the relevant demographic data. A fourth control group was also formed. This group, the large American Group, was composed of all of the subjects in the study except the Laotian subjects. The first contact was made with the parents of all of the children in the 7 rooms through letters sent home from school with the children (see Appendix A). The letters explained the process of data collection and offered assurances of confidentiality and anonymity. An informed consent form for the parents of the participating children was included in each letter (see Appendix A). A simplified version of the letter was translated into Lao and sent home to the parents of each of the Laotian children (see Appendix A). This was done because, according to refugee assistance personnel, the original version, sent to the American parents, contained too many culturally alien concepts to be understood well by the Laotian parents. Neither form of the 13 TABLE 1 Subjects Experimental - Laotian Group Years in Older Grade Age Sex Class School Siblings Residence 6 12 F 1 3 M 17 house F 14 6 13 F 2 3 F 1A apartment 5 11 M 3 3 M 15 apartment 5 10 F 3 3 M 12 house 3 8 F A 3 M 12 house F 10 3 10 F A 2 apartment 3 8 M u A M 15 apartment M 11 3 8 M 5 A M 17 house F 1n F 12 2 8 M 6 3 F 14 apartment F 13 2 9 M 6 2 apartment 2 8 F 7 2 M 17 apartment M 16 Control Group - Neighborhood Grade Age Sex Class Residence 6 11 F 1 house 6 11 F 2 apartment 5 10 M 3 apartment 5 10 F 3 house 3 8 M A apartment 3 8 F u house 3 8 F 4 apartment 3 8 H 5 house 3 8 M 6 apartment 2 8 F 7 apartment 14 TABLE 1 cont. Control Group - Years Grade Age Sex Class Years in school 6 11 F 1 3 6 11 F 2 3 5 10 M 3 2 5 10 F 3 3 3 8 F u 2.5 3 8 M ’4 u 3 9 F u 1.5 3 8 M 5 u 2 7 M 6 3 2 7 M 6 2 2 8 F 7 2 Grade Age Sex Class Older Siblings 6 11 F 1 F 19 M 17 6 11 F 2 F 16 M 1" F 12 5 10 M 3 F 13 M 11 5 10 F 3 F 11 3 8 M A M 10 3 9 F u F 17 M 14 M 13 3 8 F u 3 8 M 5 F 2” M 22 M 19 M 16 2 7 M 6 F 10 2 7 M 6 15 letter indicated the primary interest in refugee children. This was not mentioned because of the possibility that such knowledge on the part of the children might bias their responses, perhaps causing them to include the Laotian children on their sociometric measures when they might not otherwise have done so. After informed consent forms were returned, the data were collected from only those children whose parents had consented. Moreover, it was felt that it would be unethical to ask the participating students questions which might give the researcher information about children whose parents did not give permission for them to participate in the study. It was therefore decided that the children could only draw on the pool of names of the participating children when completing the sociometric measures. As part of the procedure, the children themselves were also asked to sign a form agreeing to take part in the study and promising not to discuss it with others (see Appendix B). Instruments The children completed two peer-nomination sociometric measures designed to gain information about friendships and peer social structure within each classroom. These were administered to the classroom as a whole with each child completing his/her own questionnaires. Each child also completed a form asking for the information necessary to identify the children for the control groups, ie; address, number of children in family, with ages and grades, and 16 number of years at the school (see Appendix B). The first questionnaire was a Best friends/Least-liked questionnaire (Bower,1960) which requires the child to write the first name and last initial of the three participating children of each gender who are his/her best friends, (six names), and of the three participating children of each gender with whom s/he wouldn't want to play, (six names). There were two forms, one for girls and one for boys. The only difference was that the form for girls asked for girls' names first, and the form for boys asked for boys' names first (see Appendix B). The second questionnaire required the child to assign participating children in the classroom to parts in a hypothetical play of which s/he was director. There are 18 parts, and the child was required to select a child for each part and put the first name and last initial of the child in the blank next to the part to which s/he had been assigned (see Appendix B). These measures were designed to describe the integration of each Laotian child into his/her peer group and to get some understanding of how s/he is seen by others. This questionnaire was a modified form of the Class Play instrument used by Newcomb and Bukowski (in press). Four play parts were added to the original 14 parts: part number 10, "Someone who doesn't play with other kids much."; part number 12, "Someone who is shy."; part number 15, "Someone who is very quiet."; and part number 18, "Someone who asks the teacher lots of questions.". These parts were added to 17 test the original hypotheses of the study. It was expected that the Laotian children would be nominated more frequently than the American children as quiet and shy. If their quietness were interpreted by their peers as withdrawal, they would also be expected to be nominated more frequently as not playing with other kids much. The part of a questioner was included as an exploratory item concerning their style of adaptation. It was intended to discern if they actively question to clarify their understanding of the expectations for their role in the classroom. The teacher in each of the classrooms was asked to complete a Child Behavior Checklist and to give performance and achievement data on the Laotian child in his/her classroom and on all of the other children in his/her classroom that are of the same gender as the Laotian child. The Child Behavior Checklist included items selected from the Child Behavior Checklist developed by Achenbach (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981), and the Michigan State University Child Behavior Checklist developed by Ferguson, Partyka & Lester (1974) (see Appendix C). Teachers indicated whether a given item was characteristic of each child or not by placing a (+) or (-) mark in the blank corresponding to that item and that child. Items numbered 4, "Often wakes up crying in the middle of the night-complains of nightmares.", and 7, "Has trouble falling asleep at night.", were ignored by all of the teachers as irrelevant. They were included because the original intent 18 of the researcher was to have the parents of each child complete the Child Behavior Checklist as well. The teachers, like the student participants, were not told the purpose of this study before they completed the questionnaires. It was feared, that contained Laotian children that the teachers might surmise themselves. However, they have they were unable to hypothesize so were, in fact, blind raters. because only the classrooms were chosen for this study, the intent of the study by assured the researcher that the object of the study and Chapter 3 Results Analysis This study is frankly exploratory in nature. As such it must be acknowledged that the data collected are difficult to interpret. Due to the fact that membership in an ethnic group is a naturally-occuring variable which can be neither manipulated nor randomized, causal inferences will be impossible. Furthermore, the very small number of subjects in each group raises the likelihood of anomalous findings. Finally, the fact that the study employs children as "raters" of a sort, creates two other problems. (1) Younger children are highly likely to exhibit a "halo effect" in their answers to the play questionnaire. This means that they tend to put the same person in all or many of the positive play parts, and a different person in all or many of the negative play parts. (2) Many children are likely to leave blanks on the questionnaires as well. Thus, it was not possible to make assumptions of normality or homogeneity of variance in reference to the underlying distribution of these items. As a result, it was necessary to use non-parametric statistics to analyze the data. No entirely satisfactory method of analysis was found. The test statistic used to compare the scores of the Laotian Group and the scores of each of the matched-pairs control groups was Fisher's Exact Test (Siegel, 1956). This test was chosen because of the small number of subjects in these groups. The Chi Square Test was used to 19 20 compare the scores of the Laotian Group and the scores of the large American Group. Play Scores were obtained for each child from the play data by tabulating the number of times s/he was nominated for each of the parts. Because the number of children in each classroom varied considerably, it was necessary to convert each of these scores to z-scores within classrooms. These standardized scores were then used in the analysis. Five scale scores were also obtained for each subject and were used for further analysis. Four of the scales were deve10ped and validated by Newcomb and Bukowski (in press). They are the Aggression scale, the Observable Prominence scale, the School Competence scale and the Immaturity scale. The fifth scale, the Withdrawn scale, was created for this study. The Aggression scale is composed of five items from the play data, Mean, Stuck-up, Selfish, Trouble and Bully. The Observable Prominence scale, which measures observable positive traits, is composed of four items from the play data, Liked, Captain, Sports and Good-looking. The School Competence scale is composed of three items from the play data, Helps, President and Smart. The Immaturity scale is composed of just two items from the play data, Sad and Afraid. The Withdrawn scale is composed of those items of the play data that were included to assess the possibility that the Laotian children would be perceived as withdrawn by their peers, Loner, Shy and Quiet. These scale scores were 21 computed by summing each individual's scores on the contributing items. The resulting scores were then converted to z—scores before analysis. ' The two groups being compared were combined to determine the median score for the entire group on each part and scale. The number of scores falling above and below the median was determined for the Laotian Group and the control group under consideration separately. In comparisons involving a matched-pairs control group, Fisher's Exact test was then computed, yielding a probability. This statistic represented the probability that the obtained scores would be found if the two groups were drawn from the same population. This procedure was followed three times for each of the 18 parts and for each of the five scales, once to compare the Laotian Group with the Neighborhood Group, once to compare the Laotian Group with the Years Group and once to compare the Laotian Group with the Sibling Group. In comparisons involving the large American Group, the Chi Square Test was computed for each of the 18 parts and the five scales. Best friends/Least-liked The Best friends/Least liked questionnaire yielded four scores for each child, a Best friend score which was a tabulation of the number of times that child was listed by others in that category, a Least-liked score which was a tabulation of the number of times the child was listed by others in that category, a social Impact score which was the sum of the other two scores, and a social Preference score 22 sum of the other two scores, and a social Preference score which was the arithmetic difference between the Best friends score and the Least—liked score. These scores were all converted to z-scores and analyzed using the Fisher's Exact Test and the Chi Square Test following the same procedures used for the play data. Further analysis was done using the two dimensional probability model developed by Newcomb and Bukowski (in press). In this model, the likelihood of a particular score is determined using a binomial distribution derived for each classroom separately on the basis of the number of students (raters) in the classroom. A significance level of p < .05 was used to determine rare scores. In this study, in all but one of the classrooms, a raw Best friends or Least-liked score of 7 or more was considered rare. An Impact score of 2 or less was considered rare. In the one smaller classroom, a raw Best friends or Least-liked score of 6 or more and an Impact score of 3 or less were considered rare. A mean score was also determined for each item on a classroom by classroom basis. Using this information, each child was then placed in one of 5 categories: stars--a rare Best friends score and a Least—liked score below the mean; rejects-~a rare Least—liked score and a Best friends score below the mean; isolates—-a lower than chance Impact score; controversials--a rare Best friends and/or Least—liked raw score and, if only one score is rare, a score above the mean on the other dimension; and average--a chance Impact score and a less than rare number of 23 Best friends and Least—liked nominations. Child Behavior Checklist The data from the Child Behavior Checklist were analyzed in very much the same way that the Play data were analyzed. The thirty-nine relevant questions yielded dichotomous answers. If a descriptive statement was characteristic of a child, a (+) mark was put on the sheet. If the statement were not characteristic of the child, a (-) was put on the sheet. These positive and negative marks were summed separately for each group, yielding two group scores very similar to the tabulation of above- and below—median scores on the Play data and the Best friends/Least—liked data. Analysis was again done using Fisher's Exact Test and the Chi Square Test. Play Analysis of the play data reveals significant differences between the Laotian Group and the control groups on five out of the 18 roles (see Table 2). Laotian children, as a group, were signifcantly more likely to be perceived as Liked by the other children than were the children in the Years Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10, and the Siblings Group, Fisher's Exact (1), pi< .10. They were also less likely to be regarded as Mean than were the children in the large American Group, x2 (1) = 5.98, p < .05 and were seen less often as Trouble—makers, x2. (1) = 4.79, p < .05. The Laotian Group received significantly more nominations for the role of Shy than did the children in any TABLE 2 PEER DATA Laotians VS Neighborhood Laotians VS Years Laotians V8 Siblings Laotians V3 Americans Fisher's Exact Probabilities Chi Square Scores 1 1 1 1 1 1 Liked .197 .0586 .0580 1 1.63 Afraid .999 .523 .922 1 .06 Helps 1.000 .808 .808 1 .06 Mean .669 .50“ .287 1 3.98b Sports .999 .922 .808 1 .62 Stuck-up .670 .829 .807 1 .82 President .670 .523 .287 1 .18 Selfish .395 .287 .523 1 .93 Smart .395 .808 .808 1 .15 Loner . .193 .807 1.000 1 .72 Trouble 1.000 .287 .50“ 1 “.79b Shy .0850 .005a .005a 1 7.69s Captain .670 .287 .287 1 .06 Sad .999 .808 .808 1 .18 Quiet .085c .808 .0580 1 9.09a Good-looking .670 .808 .807 1 .06 Bully .999 .807 .523 1 1.30 Questioner 1.000 1.000 .807 1 .02 Best Friend .395 .807 .808 1 .93 Least-liked .670 .287 1.000 1 1.44 Impact .999 .287 .807 1 .09 Preference .395 .808 .808 1 .82 I SCALES 1 :I Aggression .087c .287 .287 1 2.8uc Prominence .999 .000 .807 1 .06 School Comp. .395 .808 .287 1 .93 Immaturity .669 .779 .287 1 .06 Withdrawn .199 .133 .005a 1 H.71b a- p < .01 b- p < .05 25 TABLE 3 GROUP MEANS ITEMS Laotians Neighbors Years Siblings Americans Liked 1.27 .80 .73 .91 .72 Afraid .64 .80 .64 .27 .89 Helps 1.09 1.10 1.19 .54 .84 Mean .54 .30 .64 .73 .87 Sports .54 1.50 .27 1.45 .90 Stuck-up .64 .91 .54 .82 .88 President .54 1.10 .91 1.64 .91 Selfish .54 1.00 1.00 .82 .87 Smart 1.45 .70 1.00 1.27 .81 Loner .64 1.30 1.00 .54 .89 Trouble .27 1.20 .73 .64 .93 Shy 2.10 1.10 .54 .64 .73 Captain .64 .60 1.18 1.27 .89 Sad 1.09 .60 .91 .73 .84 QUiet 2.00 .80 1.09 .82 .76 Good-looking .36 1.40 .27 1.36 .92 Bully .54 1.00 .64 .64 .90 Questioner .91 .30. .27 .54 .84 Best Friend 5.18 4.30 5.18 4.91 5.62 Least-liked 3.54 4.40 5.36 4.27 4.88 Impact 8.73 8.60 10.36 9.09 9.66 SCALES Aggression 2.45 4.70 3.54 3.64 4.44 Prominence 2.82 4.30 2.36 5.09 3.51 School Comp.3.09 2.90 3.09 3.45 2.57 Immaturity 1.73 1.40 1.54 1.09 1.73 Withdrawn 4.64 3.20 2.82 2.00 2.38 26 of the control groups: large American Group, x2 (1) = 7.69, p < .01; Neighborhood Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10; Years Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .01; and Siblings Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .01. They were also significantly more likely to be perceived as Quiet than were the children in the large American Group, x2. (1) = 9.09, p < .01, the Neighborhood Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10, and the Siblings Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10. There were two scales which differentiated between the Laotian children and the control groups. The Laotian Group' scored lower on the Aggression scale than did the large American Group, x1 (1) = 2.84, p < .10, and the Neighborhood Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10. The Laotian Group scored significantly higher on the Withdrawn scale than did the children in the large American Group, x2 (1) = 4.71, p < .05, and the Siblings Group, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .01. Best friends/Least-liked None of the individual items on the Best friends/Least-liked questionnaire differentiated between the Laotian Group and any of the control groups (see Table 2). The Laotian children, when categorized according to the two dimensional probability model of Newcomb and Bukowski (in press), fell into three categories: stars--5 students; rejects--1 student; and averages--7 students. None of them fell into the other two categories, the isolates or the controversials. 27 Child Behavior Checklist There were several items on the Child Behavior Checklist that differentiated between the Laotian Group and the large American Group (see Table 4). The children in the Laotian Group were more often described as Accepting of New Ideas, x (1) = 5.11, p < .10., The children in the Laotian Group were less likely to be described as Nervous, x2 (1) = 4.58, p < .05, and were also less likely to be characterized as Sad, x (1) = 4.86, p < .05. They were also less likely to be viewed as Talking all the time, x2 (1) = 2.91, p < .10, Instigating mischief, x2 (1) = 5.00, p < .10, and Lying and cheating, x (1) = 4.47, p < .05. The Laotian children were also less likely to be regarded as Affectionate than were the children in the large American Group, xi (1) = 2.89, p < .10. The comparisons between the Laotian Group and the matched-pairs control groups yielded three significant differences (see Table 4). The Laotian children were more likely than were the children in the Years Group to be seen as Appreciative by the teachers, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10. And they were less likely than the children in the Years Group to be seen as Sad and unhappy, Fisher's Exact (1), p < .10. They were also less likely than the Siblings group to be viewed as Talking all the time, Fisher's Exact (1), P < .10. Of particular interest on this measure was the teacher's tendency to rate all of the Laotian children in similar ways. Even though the children were rated by different teachers, the ratings for each of the Laotian 28 TABLE 4 TEACHER DATA Group Means Laotians Neighborhood Years Siblings Americans Accept ideas 1.00 .90 .91 .82 .78 Nervous .00 .09 .18 .27 .29 Sad .00 .30 .27 .18 .26 Talkative .09 .30 .27 .45 .35 Appreciative 1.00 .70 .82 .91 .85 Instigator .09 .18 .27 .18 .29 Lie or cheat .00 .09 .27 .27 .31 Affectionate .45 .50 .73 .73 .69 Laotians Laotians Laotians 1 Laotians vs vs vs 1 vs Neighborhood Years Siblings 1 Americans I l Fisher's Exact Probabilities 1 Chi Square 1 Scores Accept ideas -.476 .500 .238 1 3.11b Nervous .476 .238 .107 1 4.583 Sad .090 .107 .238 1 4.863 Talkative .311 .355 .086 1 2.91b Appreciative .090 .238 .500 1 1.90 Instigator .586 .355 .631 1 3.00b Lie or cheat .476 .107 .107 1 4.47a Affectionate .999 .294 .294 1 2.89b a- p < .05 29 children were remarkably similar. On 12 of the 59 relevant questions, each of the Laotian children was rated in exactly the same way. Each of the teachers indicated that Concern about others, Cooperation, Appreciativeness and Helpfulness were characteristic of the Laotian child(ren) in his/her classroom. They were also described as Accepting of New Ideas, taking Pride in Accomplishment and possessing Good small muscle Coordination. 0n the other hand, each of the teachers indicated that the child(ren) in his/her classroom was not Nervous, Sad, prone to Temper Outbursts, Lying or cheating, or Pressure of Speech. This degree of unanimity of ratings was not found in any of the control groups. In the Neighborhood Group, on only one item were all of the children given the same rating. They were seen as asking Sensible Questions in new situations. In the Years Group, on none of the items were all of the children given the same rating. In the Siblings Group, on only four items were all of the children given the same rating. They were seen as Achieving Goals, taking Pride in Accomplishment and being C00perative. Pressure of Speech was seen as uncharacteristic of this group. The difference between the groups in terms of unanimity was found to be significant when tested using a Chi Square analysis, x2 (1) = 15.8, p < .01. Chapter 4 Discussion The Laotian children in this study appear to be adjusting very well to their life in the United States. They are apparently well-integrated into the social structure of their school. They are chosen equally as often as their American peers in the Best friends category and in the Least-liked category. Moreover, the hypothesis that their social Impact score would be lower than that of the children in the control groups was not borne out statistically. The hypothesis that the Laotian children would have low visibility among their peers was not borne-out. In fact, not one of the Laotian children fell into the category of isolates. The peers of these children find them likable. They are not seen as causing problems in class, or for others. They are not mean or aggressive. They are most definitely regarded as quiet and shy. None of these perceptions is particularly surprising in view of the Laotian cultural values of moderation and gengjai. What is more surprising is the finding that three of 11 Lao students fell into the stars category in the two-dimensional analysis of the Best friends/Least-liked data. The teachers also appear to think very highly of these children. The profile portrayed by the items which the teachers saw as significantly more characteristic of the Laotian Group and the twelve unanimous items is a very positive one. The items describe a child who is considerate, cooperative, appreciative of help, takes pride in 30 31 accomplishment, accepts new ideas easily, and handles small objects skillfully. This child is not nervous, tense, or sad, does not show pressure of speech, does not have temper tantrums and does not lie or cheat. This is a child who is not given to talking too much or instigating others to mischief. This profile suggests the model student stereotype found in other studies of Asian—american students. The unanimity of the teachers' ratings strongly suggests the possibility that the teachers may be responding with such a stereotype. This possibility is a potentially serious problem. Such stereotypes, no matter how positive they may be, serve to limit a person (Kanter, 1977). It would be unfortunate if the expression of feelings and potentialities in these children were limited by the stereotypic perceptions of them by those around them. The subjective impressions of the teachers, as conveyed in an individual interview with each teacher, matched the objective data in presenting a positive picture of the Laotian children's adjustment in the elementary school. They were generally described as conscientious, pleasant, somewhat creative, artistic, quiet and somewhat passive. The only problem that all of the teachers mentioned was the difficulty the children have with the language. This is to be expected in such a population and has been identified by some as the greatest problem faced by these refugee children (Ellis, 1980). 52 Some interesting anecdotal information was collected during the teacher interviews. One child in the Laotian Group was reported to be a discipline problem in the classroom. He was well-liked by his peers but tended to be disruptive during class, and was often put into the play role of the "Mean cruel boss". That particular child, according to the leader of the Lao community, spent a very long time in the refugee camp in Thailand. The leader attributed his problems to the difficult conditions under which he had to survive in the camp. He suggested that the boy's "meanness" was of survival value in the camp and that he simply had not unlearned it yet. It seems a plausible explanation when one considers the conditions in the camps (Liu, 1979; Harding & Looney, 1977). A second piece of anecdotal information concerns the son of the leader of the Lao community. Most of the children were described by their teachers as playing mostly with other Lao children on the playground. The leader's son was not described in this way. His teacher said that he plays mostly with American children. Moreover, he is a leader, not only among the Lao children, but among the American children. In light of his father's position in the community, and the fact that his father has worked closely with Americans for many years, first in the CIA and then with the management of the mushroom farm, this is not surprising. It is interesting, however, to speculate on the cause of the son's unique position in the social structure. He may be a fine example 33 of the effects of modelling. Alternatively, however, the determining factor may be his status as the son of the community leader. It may be that he and his family expect him to lead because of his position, and so he does.' This makes sense in light of the importance of status in the Laotian culture. Another interesting set of data was spontaneously generated by the Laotian children. Within three weeks of the time the Lao children left Michigan, over half of them had already written a letter to their teacher and/or a child in the school. The teachers were surprised at the number of letters that they received. Their experience with American children who had left their classes was not similar. These children, who seemed so quiet and shy, had made connections strong enough in Michigan to cause them to write very promptly. It suggests that the children were much more connected to peOple in their new social envmronment than the teachers realized. Perhaps they were misled by the quiet, well-modulated demeanor of the children, interpreting it as lack of connection, rather than simply a different style of interaction. This misperception on the part of the teachers is disquieting. A child who is misperceived by others as socially unconnected is at—risk socially. S/he may feel rejected by others who are simply not recognizing his/her feeling of connection. The story of the families of these children and their mass exodus is a shameful tragedy about a powerless group of 34 pe0ple in a nation that espouses the freedom and dignity of each individual. These people came to their new home in America as little more than indentured servants, brought in to work on the mushroom farm, for a time living in company housing, unable to obtain any other kind of employment. Their leader, the foreman at the mushroom farm, was a former employee of the CIA in Viet Nam and had been in America for several years. He was responsible for bringing the refugees to this country. He knew the ins and outs of surviving in America, and all of the newcomers relied on him. He guided and advised them, translated for them and served as their interpreter in their dealings with the institutions of this complex society. 'Eventually, his niece took over the job of liaison with the Department of Social Services as a worker for the Tolstoy Foundation. The leader himself, however, continued to do the interpreting for the families in all of their dealings with the schools, even accompanying the parents to parent-teacher conferences. The Laotians appeared to be happy in Lapeer. They had steady employment. They had a strong leader on whom to depend. However, Michigan's weather is very unlike that of their native Laos, and all of the refugees longed to be in a more temperate climate. When their leader suggested moving to California, it is certain that he got immediate affirmative response from the group of families under his wing. The tragedy however is that he led them, unsuspecting, into a tense and alien situation. They went to California as 55 strike-breakers, where they were escorted to their jobs by police to protect them from the wrath of the striking Americans. Californians, who already have as their neighbors 55% of the Southeast Asian refugees in the United States (Ellis, 1980), are not pleased by all of the secondary migration to their state. Their feelings toward this new small group of refugees who come as strike-breakers could hardly have been welcoming. The fact that they were strike-breakers reinforced their status as outsiders. Harm comes from the perception of the adult Indoohinese refugees as rivals for scarce jobs and resources in a depressed economy. This perception engenders fear and hatred of this relatively powerless minority. This perception is common in response to the Indoohinese refugees. Interviews with Americans in Lapeer revealed this attitude. It was also evident about a year ago in Texas when a group of Vietnamese fishermen and their families were driven out of a community on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico by the local shrimp fishermen. The small group of Laotion families who left Lapeer and moved to California are undoubtedly viewed in this way currently. What chance have they for positive adjustment to their new home? Another type of problem that these refugee families have been facing is personal value conflict, generated by cultural differences in value-orentation. There is evidence of this in the sample. From interview data, it became clear that the age group experiencing the most overt difficulty in entering 36 American society was the adolescent group. Informants reported that there was overt prejudice and harrassment of the Laotian boys in the high schools. The boys were finding this difficult to deal with because American peer values would dictate that they meet aggression with aggression, and parental Laotian values dictate that they meet aggression with passive resistance. Thus, the common parent/peer value struggle is a much deeper cultural conflict for these boys. Further research, then, might well be focused on this age group, and its members' relationships to the school and the family, with special emphasis on values and intergenerational conflict. This study has presented evidence that one sample of Laotian children in Michigan had been assimilated into the social structure of their peers. The evidence is encouraging. However, the finding that teachers appear to view their Laotian students in stereotypic ways is disturbing. The perception of the Indoohinese refugees by Americans who deal with them is of the utmost importance in facilitating or inhibiting their adjustment in this culture. It is also of particular importance as it affects the personal develOpment and adjustment of the refugee children. Perceiving of them as model students or model citizens and as detached in social relationships may be harmful in limiting their potentialities as individuals. This is a subtle, insidious kind of harm, the results of which may not be seen until later in a child's life-cycle, in the form of 37 adolescent rebellion or adult depression. An important area of further research, then, is the study of the actual behaviors of elementary aged refugee children and the relationship of these behaviors to the perceptions of their teachers and/or peers. Longitudinal study of this cohort of refugee children would also yield important information about the importance of these teacher perceptions on individual development. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A Letters to Parents 38 Dear Parent(s); I would like your help. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University in the Department of Psychology. One of my special interests is children and their development. I have designed a research project to gain information about the social behavior in school, and I am planning to conduct research in your child's classroom. I have obtained the permission and cooperation of the school district and your principal for this project. I would like your permission to include your child in my study. If you give your permission, your child will be asked to answer questions that are designed to get information about friendship patterns and the social structure of the classroom. Your child will be given the op ortunity at that time to decide for himself (herself) if he (she) wants to participate. With your permission, I may also be asking your child's teacher to provide information about what your child does in school. In some classrooms, this teacher information will be provided only on the boys, and in others, only on the girls. It is also likely that at some later date I will want to test your child's intellectual abilities. I am also interested in the parents' view of their child's behavior. In order to get that information, some of you will be sent another letter in the future and asked to participate personally in the project. As a parent who also has children in the Lapeer school system, I am aware that you may have questions about the use of any information I may get from, or about, your child. Let me assure you that all information will be held in the strictest confidence. The information gained is for research purposes only, and in any discussion of the research results, no names will be used. If you would like, a brief report of the overall findings will be sent to you when the study is completed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me any evening at 664—0907 for more information. Your child's participation is important to the success of my project. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Thompson Please detach and return to the school. I give permission for my child, , child's name to participate in the research study of friendships and social behavior being conducted by Mary Ellen Thompson at (present) Elementary School. Signed: 59 Dear Parent, I am from Michigan State University. I am interested in learning about children and their friendships and actions. Mr. Nugent has given me permission to ask the children at (present) School questions about their friendships. I will also be asking the teachers questions about the children in their classes. I need your permission to ask questions of your child and of your child's teacher. If you are willing, please sign below and return the signed form to the school. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Thompson I give permission for Mary Ellen Thompson to ask my child, , and his/her teacher questions to learn about children's friendships and actions. Signed: APPENDIX B Child's packet 40 CHILD'S PACKET NAME ADDRESS AGE BIRTHDATE MONT—H D' A'Y“ "Y'E'A'R" NUMBER or CHILDREN IN YOUR FAMILY NAMES AGES GRADES HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU ATTENDED (present) SCHOOL, INCLUDING THIS YEAR? 41 PAGE 2 THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO HELP ME WITH MY PROJECT. ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS I WANT YOU TO ANSWER. PLEASE FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS CAREFULLY, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. REMEMBER, THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS, AND NO ONE EXCEPT MYSELF AND THE PEOPLE HELPING ME WILL KNOW WHAT YOU WRITE. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU DO YOUR OWN WORK. BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. AND PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT YOUR ANSWERS WITH YOUR CLASSMATES. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO HELP ME AND YOU PROMISE NOT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR ANSWERS, PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME HERE DON'T TURN TO PAGE 3 UNTIL I SAY TO BEGIN. THANK YOU. 42 PAGE 3 THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE. WRITE THE NAMES OF THE THREE BOYS IN YOUR CLASS WHO ARE YOUR FRIENDS: 1) 2) 3) WRITE THE NAMES OF THE THREE GIRLS IN YOUR CLASS WHO ARE YOUR BEST FRIENDS: 1) 2) 3) NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE PEOPLE IN YOUR CLASS WITH WHOM YOU WOULDN'T REALLY WANT TO PLAY. WRITE THE NAMES OF THE THREE BOYS IN YOUR CLASS WITH WHOM YOU WOULDN'T REALLY WANT TO PLAY: 1) 2) 3) WRITE THE NAMES OF THREE GIRLS IN YOUR CLASS WITH WHOM YOU WOULDN'T REALLY WANT TO PLAY: 1) 2) 3) 43 PAGE 3 THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE. WRITE THE NAMES OF THE THREE GIRLS IN YOUR CLASS WHO ARE YOUR FRIENDS: 1) 2) 3) WRITE THE NAMES OF THE THREE BOYS IN YOUR CLASS WHO ARE YOUR BEST FRIENDS: 1) 2) 3) NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE PEOPLE IN YOUR CLASS WITH WHOM YOU WOULDN'T REALLY WANT TO PLAY. WRITE THE NAMES OF THE THREE GIRLS IN YOUR CLASS WITH WHOM YOU WOULDN'T REALLY WANT TO PLAY: 1) 2) 3) WRITE THE NAMES OF THREE BOYS IN YOUR CLASS WITH WHOM YOU WOULDN'T REALLY WANT TO PLAY: 1) 2) 3) 44 PAGE 4 THE NEXT THING I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS TO PRETEND THAT YOUR CLASS IS GOING TO HAVE A CLASS PLAY, AND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AS DIRECTOR, (THE LEADER). AS THE DIRECTOR, YOU MUST THINK OF THE CHILD IN YOUR CLASS WHO CAN BEST PLAY EACH PART. ON THE LINE NEXT TO EACH PART, WRITE THE NAME OF A CHILD WHO YOU THINK COULD BEST PLAY THE PART. 1. SOMEONE WHO IS LIKED BY EVERYBODY. 2. SOMEONE WHO IS OFTEN AFRAID AND WHO ACTS LIKE A LITTLE KID. . SOMEONE WHO TRIES TO HELP EVERYBODY. 3 4. SOMEONE WHO IS A MEAN, CRUEL BOSS. 5. SOMEONE WHO IS GOOD AT SPORTS. 6. SOMEONE WHO IS STUCK-UP AND THINKS THEY ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. 7. SOMEONE WHO SHOULD BE CLASS PRESIDENT. 8. SOMEONE WHO IS SELFISH. 9. SOMEONE WHO IS SMART AND USUALLY KNOWS THE ANSWER. 10. SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T PLAY WITH OTHER KIDS MUCH. 11. SOMEONE WHO CAUSES A LOT OF TROUBLE IN CLASS. 12. SOMEONE WHO IS SHY. 13. SOMEONE WHO ACTS AS TEAM CAPTAIN. 14. SOMEONE WHO ACTS SAD. 15. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY QUIET. 16. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY GOOD-LOOKING. 17. SOMEONE WHO PICKS ON SMALLER KIDS. 18. SOMEONE WHO ASKS THE TEACHER LOTS OF QUESTIONS. APPENDIX C Teacher's packet 45 TEACHER'S PACKET NAME GRADE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN CLASS BOYS GIRLS M.S.U. Department of Psychology CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST II Teacher Form Down the sides of the next few pages is a list of items describing many aspects of children's behavior--things that children do or ways they have been described by others. Across the top of each page are spaces for you to write in the first names and last initials of children in your class. Not all of the items in this list will apply to the particular children you are describing, but quite a few of them will. Put a plus sign(+) in the child's column by each item which applies to him/her. Put a minus sign (-) in the child's column by each item which does not apply to him/her. If there are some items which you can not mark because you do not know whether they apply or not, or have never had the opportunity to observe them, (for instance, ‘has trouble falling asleep at night.", if you see this child only in school and don't know anything about his/her sleep patterns), put a zero (0) by those items in the child's column. 46 d1———————_——u—————-——————-— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I : : : : 1. Is concerned about how his 1 1 1 1 1 (her) words or actions might 1 1 1 1 1 1 affect others. 1 1 1 1 1 1 : : : L : '1 2. ’Gets irritafed or angry 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a s a s 1 I I I 1 I l 5. Sometimes makes meaningless 1 1 1 1 1 1 or strange noises. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I l 1 L L I L 4. Often wakes up crying in the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 middle of the night-complains' 1 1 1 1 1 1 of nightmares. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l I I I 5. Acts in ways that makes 1 1 1 1 1 1 others not like him (her). 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 6. Doesn‘t pay much attention 1 1 ‘ ' 1 1 1 to others, seems more in— 1 1 1 1 volved with himself (herself)1 1 I I I I 7. Has trouble falling asleep 1 1 1 1 1 at night. ' ' ' 1 1 1 . : 8. Handles small objects skill- 1 1 1 1 1 fully. 1 1 I 1 1 9. Seldom laughs or smiles. 1 1 1 1 I I 10. Activity is focused on a par-1 1 1 1 '1 ticular purpose, seems to ac-1 1 1 1 1 1 complish what he (she) wants ' 1 1 1 1 11. Can accept new ideas without 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 getting upset. 1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 I I I I 1 12. Shows pride in accomplish- 1 1 1 51 1 a s 1 1 a I l I I I 15. Can‘t concentrate or pay 1 1 1 1 1 1 attention for long. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 14. Seems comfortable in new 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I situations. -——-——- 47 ‘I'l'l 111111. Tl'l'u'. 711111. ||'||"'|l|l'l'|'|'l. 15. Does what other adults ask 1l|l'l Tl'l'l him (her) to do. WIII e S n _ e «1 1o 11 e P w 0 S no .1 n u 9 r Vo 10 11 S «1 .n u no TI . .n e.a Tl C e aiu 9 r a S awn u .l 0 Sea V e r r V W e O “N WHO to +1 1. :1 HIIIIIIIIL IIIIIIIIIL IIIIIIIIIL 111111 1|IIIL II|| VIII", l|-| 'll' 18. Plays to win. II'|'||| I"|'||III 71111111 l'||"'| IIII LI'nIL 1"" T IIIIIII Spends most of time sitting and watching-doesn't play and do things with others. 19. Others seem to want to be with him (her). 20. 111111 '1"- Seems distrustful of others- doesn't think he (she) can rely on others or believe their promises. 22. Makes friends quickly and 21. v'"|'l'll. lllll IIIIL easily. 25: Selflconfident. IIIL LNIIL 1"11'II wlllwltl IIIILII. ll'l II||II IIII|| '||-'| III". I'll VII" Talks all the time. 25. 24. Seems sad and ufihappy. TIII Has uncontrollable out- bursts of temper. jl'l'| l|l|l||| ‘II'|'I'I 1" "llll. 1||||| 26. 27. PoIite and cooperative with others. I|"||'l, I." S n EV e n .n.1 W.n +0 n O O .Iau Lu 3 r o .10) C r 8 Ole Fql.n pe( Din a m 8.1 S r.n W e O.n r hto GD OnI Qu 2 29. Seems afraid to try anything jl'||l 111111 118W} 48 ||'I'|'||'|l'"|. II'IIYI'IIIfiIIIln-lllvl'llll ‘|'| 30. Energetic. 31. Asks sensible questions in .---...---T--- W111 11111 11""allll', Il'l"'l "l|1'"l" 711111111111. II'I 11111IIIIIIITII11||1II ll'l". new situations. Demands a lot of attention. ment in most things he (she) Shows pleasure and involve- does-enthusiastic. 32. 33. Competes with other children. are to be done. |I'||II'IIIII Gets other children to do mischievious things. 34. 35. Helps with work when things 36} w. 11111 1111 II'I.YI|I|'| YI"III|.1.II'| l|||I||I||I Y'I"|'|.l"| 11111fi11111i111 Quick and clever. 37. 1|||, 71117111 1111111T1111fil1111 willllilwillliwlllll wIIIIIIIIIIIIIfiIIIII ilIlWlilwllllluIIIII 1'"|I||III 1"I'III II'I,'.'III'I| Affectionate-enjoys being physically close with others. 39. Learns quickly from others. 38. Lying or cheating. 40. 71111 111111 l"||| 11111 is difficult to understand. 41. Speaks so rapidly heAIShe) BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Achenbach, T.M. & Edelbrock, C.S. Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child DevelOpment, 1981, fig. Botho, E. The achievement motive in three cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 1971, gg. Bower, E.M. Early identification of emotionally handicapped children in school. Springfield, 11., Charles C. Thomas, 1960. Cohon, J.D.Jr. The trauma syndrome: Identification, treatment, and referral of commonly seen problems. Paper presented at the Northern California Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program Conference, San Francisco, California, 1977. DHEW. Tips on the care and adjustment of Lao and Cambodian children in the United States. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Publication number 320.028. DHEW IRAP Special programs staff. National Mental Health needs assessment of Indochinese refugee populations. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 1979. Ellis, A.A. The assimilation and acculturation of Indochinese children into American culture. California State Department of Social Services, August, 1980. Ferguson, L.R., Partyka, L.B., & Lester, B. Patterns of parent perception differentiating clinic from non-clinic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2, 169-181. Harding, R.K., & Looney, J.G. Problems of Southeast Asian children in a refugee camp. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977, 124, 4, 407-411. Harmon, R., & Robinson, C. (Eds.). Social adjustment 49 50 services: Program components and models of social adjustment services for refugees. Indochina Refugee ActIOn Center, 1981. Kanter, R. Some effects of proportion on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 1977, 82, 965-990. Kao, O. Laotian Themes. New York: Center for Bilingual Education, Board of Education of the City of New York, June, 1977. Koschman, N.L., Tobin, J.J., & Friedman, J. Working with Indochinese refugees: A handbook for mental health workers and human service providers. Indochinese Social Service Outreach Program, 1981. LeBar, F.M., & Suddard, A. (Eds.) Laos--Its people, its society, its culture. Human Relations Area Files. New Haven, Hraf Press, 1960. Liu, W.T., Lamanna, M., & Murata, A. transition to nowhere: Vietnamese Refugees in America. Nashville, Charter House, 1979. Maykovich, M.K. Japanese-American identity dilemma (lst ed.). Tokyo, Waseda University Press, 1972. Moua, D. & Seal, B. ”Understanding your Lao students". Long Beach, California, Southeast Asians Learners Project, Long Beach Unified School District. Murphy, R.P. (Ed.) A Guide to Teaching the Lao. Ankeny, Iowa, Heartland Education Agency, 1976. Newcomb, A.F., & Bukowski, W.M. Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, (in press). Robinson, C. Special report: Physical and emotional health care needs of Indochinese refugees. Washington, D.C., Indochina Refugee Action Center, 1980. Schwartz, A.J. The culturally advantaged: A study of Japanese-American pupils. Sociology and Social Research, 1972. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956. Tobin, J.J., Friedman, J. & Koschman, N.L. Working with refugees: A manual for paraprofessionals, Volume ii: The life cucle, mental health, and mental illness. Indochinese Social Service Outreach Program, 1981. 51 Tung, T.M. The Indochinese refugee mental health problem: An overview. Paper presented at the First Conference on Indochinese refugees. Fairfax, Virginia, 1979. Vecchione, J. (Producer). No More Mountains: The Story of the Hmong. Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation, 1981. (Film) Vignes, J., & Hall, R. Adjustment of a group of Vietnamese people in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1979, 136, 4A. White, P.T. "The Land and Peoples of Southeast Asia". National Geographic, 1971, V.139. Wong, M.G. Model students? Teachers' perceptions and expectations of their Asian and white students. Sociology of Education, 1980, g;, 236-246. Wu, C.Y. The others. Civil Rights Digest, 1976, 3, 44—510