ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NONPROMOTION

AND THE MALE STUDENT'S SELF-CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC
ABILITY AND HIS PERCEIVED PARENTAL, FRIENDS',

AND TEACHERS' EVALUATIONS OF HIS ACADEMIC ABILITY

by Axel Alfred Johnson III

The basic purpose of this study was to determine
whether a relationship existed between the practice of
nonpromoting male students and the variables of: (l) the
student's expressed self-concept of academic ability;

(2) the student's expressed perception of his parents'
evaluations of his academic ability; (3) the student's
expressed perception of his teachers' evaluations of his
academic ability, and (5) the sixth grade grade—point
averages of the children who had been nonpromoted at
least two years prior to the sixth grade.

In order to investigate the foregoing variables
it was necessary to compare matched groups of nonpromoted
and promoted students.

The matching was done on the variables of race,
socio-economic status, academic ability, and point average
in the grade in which the nonpromoted child was nonpromoted,
which are noted in numerous studies as contributing
significantly to the self-concept of children and their

academic achievement in school.

Axel Alfred Johnson III

Academic ability was considered to be represented
by the mean score of the two most recent scores received
by all the students of the population on the Lorge-
Thorndike Test of Intelligence. These were used because
of a change in intelligence tests used in the school
system during the school careers of the students studied.
Socio-economic status was determined by a score assigned
to the student's fathers or in some instances, mothers,
occupation. This score was arrived at by using the
scale developed by Otis Duncan.

Grade-point averages were computed by assigning
number scores to the letter grades received by the male
students in spelling, reading, social studies, and
arithmetic in each of the grades one through six.

The total population selected was composed of
350 seventh grade male students who had spent their
entire school careers in an urban Middlewest public
school system. Only the students who had been in the
regular classroom program were included. The nonpromoted
population was composed of fifty—three males who had
been nonpromoted in a grade once in their school careers,
grade four or before. The continuously promoted
population consisted of 297 male students who had not
been nonpromoted in a grade and who met all of the
before mentioned criteria.

Data for the self-concept of academic ability,
perceived parental evaluations of academic ability,

perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability,

Axel Alfred Johnson III

and perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability,
were collected by administration of the questionnaires
developed by Wilbur B. Brookover to 206 seventh grade

- male students in the fall of 1967.

Chi-square analysis was used to determine the
significance of the relationships explored. In all
comparisons a 2 x 2 contingency table design was used,
and the null hypotheses developed were rejected at the
.05 significance level.

In order to make use of the chi—square analysis
it was necessary to dichotomize the scores received by
the students into high and low categories on academic
ability, socio—economic status, grade—point average,
self-concept of academic ability, and perceived parental,
teachers', and friends' evaluations of their academic
ability. Mean scores were computed for each variable,
and all scores falling below the mean were classified as
low scores, while those scores exceeding the mean were
classified as high scores. It was then possible to do
a chi-square analysis on each variable.

With the variables of academic ability, socio-
economic status, race, and grade-point average partialled
out, the nonpromoted male, when compared with his matched
counterpart, is characterized by: (l) a significantly
lower self-concept of academic ability, (2) a definite
but not significant trend toward lower perceived parental
evaluations of his academic ability; (3) not being

significantly different on the ratings on perceived

Axel Alfred Johnson III

teachers' and friends' evaluations of academic ability
from his matched counterpart; and (A) a sixth grade
grade-point average not significantly different from

his matched counterpart.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NONPROMOTION
AND THE MALE STUDENT'S SELF—CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC
ABILITY AND HIS PERCEIVED PARENTAL, FRIENDS',

AND TEACHERS' EVALUATIONS OF HIS ACADEMIC ABILITY

by

Axel Alfred Johnson III

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum
College of Education

1967

6 bf <7 ”.2 :2 i;
'3' lbw/pg

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As is so often the case, all of the large numbers
of people who contributed to this research cannot
practically be named. Appreciation is extended, never-
theless, to each and every one.

I am most assuredly indebted for the great
assistance, guidance, trust, and patience of Dr. Dale
V. Alam, chairman of my guidance committee. I am also
grateful to Dr. William J. Walsh, Dr. Charles A. Blackman,
and Dr. Myrtle R. Reul for their insightful suggestions
and guidance.

I wish to thank Dr. Wilbur Brookover for per—
mission to make use of the measuring instruments employed
in the study, for without them the study could not have
been possible.

The administration, teachers and children of the
Union School District of Jackson, Michigan are extended
a special thanks, for it was within their schools that
the seeds for this study were initially planted.

The extreme patience and support of my wife and
daughter are immeasureable. I thank them for their

understanding.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . ... I

Introduction. . . 1
Purpose of the Study. . . 2
Significance of the Study 3
Relationships to be Explored. 5
Definition of Terms . . 6
Data Collection Procedures. 7
Data Analysis Procedures. . 8
Limitations and Scope of the Study. 8
Summary . . . . 9
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 11
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . ll
Promotion and Nonpromotion: An
Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . l2
Promotion and Nonpromotion: The
Development of a New Dilemma . . . 1A
The Promotion and Nonpromotion Practices. 19
Nonpromotion: Its Apparent Impact on
the Academic Progress of Children. . . 28
Nonpromotion: Its Impact on the Social
and Emotional Development of Children. 37
Nonpromotion: Its Contribution to the
School Dropout Problem . . . . . . . AA
Nonpromotion: The Cost to the
Taxpayer in Dollars and Cents. . . . . 46
Summary of Promotion-Nonpromotion
Dilemma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A7
The Self- Concept. Its Relationship
to the Problem . . . . . . A8
The Development of the Self- -Concept . . . 52
Parents as Significant Others and
Their Impact Upon the Self-Concept. 52

iii

Chapter

III.

IV.

The Teacher as Significant Other
and Academic Achievement. . .
Failure: Its Impact Upon the Self-
Concept . . .
School Achievement and the .Self— —Concept
Self- -Concept of Academic Ability: The
Wilbur B. Brookover Studies. . .
Summary of Review of the Literature

RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY.

Identification of the Population.
Hypotheses to be Tested
Sampling Procedures
Instrumentation
Reliability of the Instruments
Other Data Used. .
Procedures for Treatment of Data.
Dichotomization of Variables
Summary

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.

Analysis of the Relationships
Summary . . . . . . .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . .

Summary of Procedures

Summary of Findings

Conclusions

Recommendations for Curriculum
Development.

Suggestions for Further Research.

APPENDICES.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

iv

Page

Table

2.1

4.3

A.A

LIST OF TABLES

Cumulative or Yearly Rates of
Nonpromotion By State Education
Departments 1935—1941.

Cumulative or Yearly Rates of
Nonpromotion By Cities 1935—I9AO

Distribution of Promoted and Nonpromoted
Males Scoring Either High (H) or
Low (L) With Respect to IQ, Socio-
Economic Status (SES), and GPA

Mean Scores of Variables and Ranges
of Scores for High and Low
Categories . . . . . . . . . . .

Chi—Square Analysis of Association
Between Matched Groups of
Continuously Promoted and
Nonpromoted Males and Level of
Self—Concept of Academic Ability

Chi-Square Analysis of Association
Between Matched Groups of
Continuously Promoted and
Nonpromoted Males and Level of
Perceived Parental Evaluations
of Their Academic Ability.

Chi—Square Analysis of Association
Between Matched Groups of
Continuously Promoted Males and
Level of Perceived Teacher
Evaluations of Their Academic
Ability.

Chi-Square Analysis of Association
Between Matched Groups of
Continuously Promoted and
Nonpromoted Males and Level of
Perceived Friends' Evaluations
of Their Academic Ability.

Page

21

22

78

82

86

87

89

90

Table Page

4.5 Chi—Square Analysis of Association
Between Matched Groups of
Continuously Promoted and
Nonpromoted Males and Sixth
Grade Grade—Point Average. . . . . . . 92

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A Michigan State University Self-
Concept of Ability - General

B Michigan State University Perceived
Parents' Evaluations of Academic
Ability Scale.

C Michigan State University Perceived
Friends' Evaluations of Academic
Ability Scale.

D Michigan State University Perceived

Teachers' Evaluations of Academic
Ability Scale.

vii

Page

105

107

109

Ill

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

 

The nonpromoting of children as a school policy
is by no means only of recent concern to educators.
Articles have been written expressing concern about the
possible impact of a policy of nonpromotion upon the
children who are nonpromoted for about as long as the
graded school structure has been in existence. A great
deal of confusion has centered around the policy of
nonpromotion, as is well summarized in a recent book by
John Goodlad and Robert H. Anderson.1

They have noted that the criteria used by one
teacher for nonpromotion are often the same criteria used
by a different teacher for promotion. They relate that
one teacher might nonpromote a student because she did
not feel he made sufficient academic progress during
the year to profit from the work of the grade above—— yet

another teacher might promote the student because the

teacher felt that if the child had not made the hoped for

 

1John I. Goodlad and Robert H. Anderson, The
Nongraded Elementary School (New York: Harcourt, Brace,
and World, Inc., 1963), pp. 32-33.

I

2
progress, he might as well move on to another grade and
teacher.

It appears from the writing of Goodlad, Anderson,
and others that there are no uniform criteria which are
followed to determine which children are to be promoted
or nonpromoted or whether children should be nonpromoted.

Available research presents evidence which gives
an indication that nonpromotion is detrimental to the
social, emotional and academic development of children.
But the evidence is inconclusive, and this is undoubtedly
one reason why it can be seen in the literature that
nonpromotion rates differ from school district to school
district, school to school, and even within schools.

This study is directed toward acquiring information
which could be useful in gaining a greater understanding
of the practice of nonpromoting children, and hopefully
toward providing information for teachers which could

cause them to alter their current promotional practices.

Purpose of the Study

 

It is the purpose of this study to determine
whether there are differences between male seventh grade
students who have been nonpromoted once in their school
careers and male seventh grade students who have been
continuously promoted in regard to selected character—
istics. These characteristics are:

l. The student's expressed self-concept of

academic ability.

‘3

The student's expressed perception of his

h.)

parents' evaluations of his academic ability.

3. The student's expressed perception of his

teachers' evaluations of his academic ability.

A. The student's expressed perception of his

friends' evaluations of his academic ability.

5. The sixth grade grade-point averages of the

children.

For purposes of this investigation, matched groups
were formed upon the variables of race, socio-economic
status, academic ability, and point average in the grade
in which the nonpromoted child was nonpromoted, which
have been noted in numerous studies as contributing
significantly to the self—concept of children and their
academic achievement in school.

As has been noted in the introduction of this
study, no consistent criteria are being used in the
decision making process regarding which children are not
to be promoted. That different criteria are followed is
not of central concern in this study. What is important
is whether a relationship does exist between nonpromotion
and the before mentioned variables regardless of the

reasons for the nonpromotion.

Significance of the Study

 

Each year many children are nonpromoted in the
schools of our nation. Some of the past research has

demonstrated that the practice of nonpromotion does

24

not accomplish what educators have long believed it
accomplishes-- that of raising the eventual academic
achievement level of those children who are not promoted.
Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover and associates have demonstrated
that the academic achievement level of children is
highly correlated with self-concept of academic ability.
It may be that a relationship does exist between the
self-concept of academic ability of children and their
nonpromotion. If this study demonstrates that a
relationship does exist, then a new approach to answering
many of the questions concerning nonpromotion will be
found. It would lay the groundwork for future research
to determine whether nonpromoting a child is a cause of
a low self-concept of academic ability, or a low self—
concept of academic ability is a cause of nonpromotion.
Nonpromoting a child has the effect of labeling a
child as being less capable than the other children in
his class. By doing this educators may be causing or
compounding a child's low self—concept of academic
ability. If this study illustrates that there is a
relationship between nonpromotion and the male student's
self-concept of academic ability, then teachers would
have evidence which hopefully would cause them to think
more carefully about nonpromoting children, and there-
fore alter their behavior. It also might help them to
be more aware of children in their classes who see
themselves in a negative light, and to try to provide

these children with experiences that would cause them

5

to feel better about themselves, and hopefully to

achieve better in school.

Relationships to be Explored

 

In order to study the following relationships

matched groups were formed to control for differences

in levels of academic ability, socio-economic status,

academic achievement, and race. The relationships were:

1.

h.)

Does a relationship exist between nonpromoted
students and continuously promoted students
with respect to their self-concept of
academic ability?

Does a relationship exist between nonpromoted
students and continuously promoted students
with respect to their perceived parental
evaluations of their academic ability?

Does a relationship exist between nonpromoted
students and continuously promoted students
with respect to their perceived teachers'
evaluations of their academic ability?

Does a relationship exist between nonpromoted
students and continuously promoted students
with respect to their perceived friends'
evaluations of their academic ability?

Do the nonpromoted and continuously promoted
students differ with respect to their grade-
point average of four basic school subjects
in the sixth grade: reading, social studies,

math, and spelling.

6

Definition of Terms

 

Many of the terms to be described are familiar
to educators and layman alike, others are not. It is
important that the meaning intended and used for each
of these words or phrases be understood so that the
author and the reader have a common base of understanding:

1. Promotion: the procedure by which a child

 

is passed from grade to grade within the
graded school structure. Usually done at the
end of a school year.

2. Nonpromotion: the procedure by which a child

 

is retained in a grade for a second year
before being sent on to the next grade.
Usually done at the end of a school year.

3. Socio-Economic Status: a measure of the

 

father's or head of the household's
occupational level as measured by the Duncan
Scale.

4. Grade—Point Average: an average of the

 

student's academic performance in four
subjects: spelling, social studies,
arithmetic, and reading. Letter grades were
assigned numbers (A24, B23, C22, D21, E20)
and averages were computed.

5. Self—Concept of Academic Ability: refers to

 

the expressed behavior in which one indicates

to himself (publicly or privately) his

7
ability to achieve in academic tasks as
compared with others engaged in the same
task.

6. Perceived Parental Evaluations of Academic

 

Ability: a student's expressed perception
of his parents' evaluation of his ability
to achieve in school in relation to other
students.

.7. Perceived Teacher Evaluations of Academic

 

Ability: a student's expressed perception
of his teachers' evaluation of his ability
to achieve in school in relation to other

students.

8. Perceived Friends' Evaluations of Academic

 

Ability: a student's expressed perception
of his friends' evaluation of his ability
to achieve in school in relation to other

students.

Data Collection Procedures

 

The investigator first obtained permission from
the superintendent and principals of an urban Middlewest
school district to do this study in their district. The
necessary data for the matching of the groups were obtained
by using the information available in the cumulative
records of the students at the junior high schools of the
selected school system. This was done prior to the

opening of school, which allowed for easy access to the

8

records and minimal disruption of the school program.
The children from the sample were given the four

Brookover schedules during the third week of school.

Data Analysis Procedures

 

All data were treated as group data yielding a
single score for each group for each test. Matched
groups were formed by partialling out the variables of
academic ability, socio-economic status, race, and grade—
point average in the grade in which the nonpromoted male
was not promoted.

The scores which the matched groups of promoted
and nonpromoted students received with respect to self-
concept of academic ability, perceived parental
evaluations of academic ability, perceived friends'
evaluations of academic ability, were compared. The
sixth grade grade-point averages of the matched groups
were also compared.

Chi—square was used to determine the relative
associations among the variables in the study. In all
comparisons a 2 x 2 contingency table design was used,
and the hypotheses, which were stated in the null form,

were rejected at the .O5 significance level.

Limitations and Scope of the Study

 

This study was intended to determine whether a
relationship existed between the nonpromotion of male

students and their: (1) self-concept of academic

9

ability; (2) perceived friends' evaluation of academic
ability; (3) perceived teachers' evaluation of academic
ability; (4) perceived parental evaluation of academic
ability, and (5) sixth grade grade—point average. It
was not intended to show cause and effect, which can
only be adequately explored by means of a longitudinal
study.

It should be noted that boys were selected to
be studied because of the small number of girls who are
nonpromoted during their school careers and the resulting
difficulty of getting statistically significant results.
Their test results could not be placed together with
those of the boys as it was recommended by the author of
the test schedules that the data for each sex be handled
separately.

The measuring devices used to determine self—
concept of academic ability, and perceived parental,
teachers' and friends' evaluations of academic ability,
were pencil and paper tests. Because of this the students
could have answered as they thought the examiner would
want them to answer. Other means could be used to study
the variables with which this study is concerned, such
as observation and inference, which could avoid the

problem of self reporting.
Summary

The first chapter includes the problem to be

studied, the questions centering around the problem,

10
the terms to be used throughout the study, the justifi-
cation of the study, its limitations, and the procedures
to be used in the collection and analysis of data.

A review of the related research to the study is
included in the second chapter. The third chapter
contains an outline of the instrumentation and research
procedures, while Chapter IV includes an analysis of the
data collected. The final chapter contains the summary,
conclusions, recommendations for curriculum development,

and suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION

This chapter on the review of the literature
includes an historical perspective on the development of
the promotion—nonpromotion dilemma. Within this frame-
work an explanation is presented on how the graded school
organizational structure came into being, and how the
questions which we have been asking for many years
concerning promotion and nonpromotion practices have
evolved.

Past and current promotion practices of the
public schools of our nation will be reviewed, as will
the apparent impact of these practices upon the academic,
social, and emotional growth of children.

Within this chapter, the possibility of making
use of the self-concept of academic ability as a means of
determining whether continuous promotion or nonpromotion
appears to be most beneficial to children is explored.
Such areas as: (l) the development of the self—concept,
(2) the impact of failure upon the self-concept, (3) school
achievement and the self—concept, and (A) a review of
the Wilbur B. Brookover studies of the self—concept of

academic ability are included.

ll

l2

Promotion and Nonpromotion:
An Historical Perspective

 

 

The graded school, which was designed to add
structure to what some believed were inadequately
organized schools in the early nineteenth century, can
be traced back as early as 1818.1 In that year, the
citizens of Boston proposed a three-year school for
teaching the fundamentals required by the grammer schools.
Between the ages of four and seven, children in these
primary schools presumably would be taught simple
arithmetic and some little reading.2 Drake has written
in regard to the 1818 school in Boston:

At this time children were being admitted
into the English grammer school in Boston from
the primary school. These schools were being
taught by one teacher in a one-room school
building. The primary school was organized into
six classes, beginning with the learning of the
ABC's and providing elementary instruction in
reading and writing. By l823, the English
grammer school was divided vertically into
reading and writing schools, with the reading
school being further divided into four classes.
This general pattern continued to prevail until
1848, with a tendency toward grading as new
buildings were constructed.3
The foundation for the graded school was being

laid, and in 1848 what is considered to be the first

graded elementary school in the United States was

 

lWilliam E. Drake, The American School in
Transition (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall
Inc., 1955), p. 22 .

 

 

2Goodlad and Anderson, op. cit., p. 48.

3Drake, op. cit., p. 226.

l3
organized-- The Quincy Grammer School of Boston,
Massachusetts.u The school was not only unique in that
it was four stories high in contrast to the two-story
reading and writing schools of the period,5 but also
because of its interior. John D. Philbrick, principal
of the Quincy Grammer School, wrote that:
The essential features consisted, first in

giving a separate room to each teacher; second,

in grouping a sufficient number of these rooms in

the same building to accommodate pupils enough for

a good classification; third, in the provision of

an assembly hall spacious enough to seat all the

pupils accommodated in the building.

The graded school structure caught on rapidly, and
by 1870, according to Shearer, ”the pendulum had swung
from no system to nothing but system."7

Inherent to the graded structure was the necessity
of a child to master the academic requirements at each
grade level, or stay at that level until the subject
matter was mastered. So until a child could perform at
what the teacher and administration considered an

adequate level, he or she stayed in the grade for two,

three, or even four years.

 

LlIbid., p. 227.

5Goodlad and Anderson op. cit.

6John D. Philbrick, City School Systems in the
United States (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1885), p. 158.

 

7William J. Shearer, The Grading of Schools éNew
York: H. P. Smith Publishing Co., 1947), pp. 480—4 1.

l4

Promotion and Nonpromotion:
The Development of a New Dilemma

 

 

Promotion, or the advancement of a child in grade
level because of the meeting of some set of academic and
social standards, and nonpromotion-- the holding of a child
at grade level because of the failure to meet some set of
academic or social standards, are terms that have become
very familiar to the members of our society. They are
on the lips of almost every parent, grandparent, uncle,
aunt, and child in the spring of each school year. For
each June the teachers of the graded school systems in
our nation face the extremely vexing problem. They must
make a decision as to the students in their classrooms
who will be promoted and those who will not be promoted.
As one travels from school to school, he becomes aware
that there is a great amount of time and worry involved
for the teachers in making the extremely important
decision for those children who have had difficulty in
the classroom. He also becomes aware that there is a
great variance among the criteria utilized by the teachers
in coming to these decisions.

Goodlad and Anderson have written that the criteria
used by one teacher for nonpromotion are often the same
criteria used by a different teacher for promotion.

They found that one teacher might retain a student
because she did not feel he made sufficient academic
progress during the year to profit from the work of the

grade above—- yet another teacher might promote the student

15

because the teacher felt that if the child had not made

the hoped for progress, he might as well move on to

another grade and teacher. Goodlad and Anderson have

summarized several other reasons put forth by teachers

to explain the incidence of nonpromotion:

I.

We cannot go on indefinitely pushing children
up. Let's face it: some upper grades and
certainly our high schools expect children to
measure up. If we don't insist on certain
standards now, children will be unprepared for
what must inevitably come later.

The teacher in the grade immediately above
expects children to come prepared; it's just
too bad for the children if they are sent up
unprepared.

Continued inability to do the work of the grade
is discouraging and frustrating to children.
They are better off if retained in a grade
level where they can gain some success and
satisfaction.

The presence of slow learners in the class
presents a hindrance both to children and to
teachers who already are badly over-loaded.
Retaining slow learners will reduce this
problem.

Immature children, by repeating the grade, will
find more suitable playmates and work companions.
Promotion of all is unfair to those who have
come up to grade standards. These more able
students come to resegt equal reward for obviously
inferior performance.

Goodlad and Anderson have written that when the

question was reversed and teachers were asked to explain

why many teachers apparently decide on promotion as the

better alternative, the following reasons came forth.

I.

If the teacher and child have already failed

to make the hoped for progress, the child might
just as well move on to another grade and
teacher. (Sometimes this is stated that the
slow learning child will achieve just as much
in the grade ahead as he will by having to
repeat the present one).

 

8Goodlad and Anderson, op. cit., pp. 32-33.

16

[D

From the beginning, first—grade teachers must
deal with a wide range of individual differences.
They cannot reduce the range, and so teachers
in higher grades must anticipate dealing also
with the range as it exists.

3. Grade failure is itself more devastating to
the child's adjustment than are his difficulties
with the work at hand. Slow learners will have
enough problems in school without adding the
shame and humiliation of nonpromotion.

4. Since good teaching increases rather than
reduces the range of abilities with which a
teacher must deal, retaining a few children at
the bottom end is not likely to reduce
materially the next teacher's problem of
dealing with individual differences. Besides,
if each grade retains some children, each
grade will carry these into the next year, thus
assuring the presence of these slow learners
in any case.

5. Chronological age is the best single criterion
for determining the placement of a child with
other children. Consequently, keeping children
of the same age together (therefore promoting
them), is the best way to assure appropriate
work and play companions for all.

6. Class size and the cost of education are

increased when even a small percentage of

children is retained.

At elementary school levels, where children

are called upon to compete regardless of their

desire or readiness to do so, educational

practices must be adapted to the welfare of the
individual, not the child to arbitrary grade

standards. Promotion is aligned with such a

a point of view.9

2a

The difficulty which teachers have faced in choosing
one of the two alternatives is undoubtedly due to the lack
of clear cut criteria upon which to base their decision.
'The foregoing summary by Goodlad and Anderson lendS>
evidence to this fact. Because of the apparent lack of
criteria, attempts have been made by teachers to modify

the decision process.

 

9Ibid., pp. 33—34.

17

New terms have been developed that represent
policies that are somewhere between promotion and non-
promotion. Some of them are: annual promotion, conditional
promotion, double promotion, enrichment promotion,
flexible promotion, individual promotion, probationary
promotion, quarterly promotion, rapid promotion, selective
promotion, semester promotion, and subject promotion.lo
As will be made clearer later in this study, the use of
such terms does not resolve the basic dilemma.

What has further complicated the promotion-
nonpromotion decision process for teachers has been the
conflicting reports which have appeared in the literature.
Sandin has noted that several authors have written
articles expressing opinions that a policy of complete
promotion is designed to coddle the child, and that a
need exists for perfect performance and adherence to
grade standards. He further noted that it is claimed
in some reports that nonpromotion is not so tragic as
is supposed, and that pupils in a majority of cases do
profit from repeating a grade to the extent that they
develop new confidence, they become more stable
emotionally, their attitudes toward school activities

are brightened, and they are much happier as a result

 

lo"Ten Criticisms of Public Education,” National
Education Association Research Bulletin, XXXV (December,

1957), 139-

18

of readjustment.ll

Sandin has also pointed up that in contrast, other
writers are confident that nonpromotion is an undesirable
experience for a child since it is claimed that it is
often accompanied by an imposed change of school assoc-
iates, by a change from favorable to unfavorable attitudes
toward the school, and by humiliation and resentfulness
that leads to undesirable behaviors.12

Further evidence of the inconsistency of beliefs
which surround the promotion-nonpromotion question has
been brought out by E. R. Steadman in a 1948 questionnaire
study of ninety-three school systems. A mixed response
to the question of a continuous progress policy was
received from the teachers returning the questionnaire.
Steadman found that in support of the policy, teachers
expressed the opinion that keeping a child with his own
age group made for the soundest emotional, mental,
physical, and social growth and adjustment. They
believed that a continuous progress policy reduced
behavior problems, helped develop good work habits, and
gave the child an opportunity to work according to his
ability. In addition, the teachers found more satisfaction
in the policy of no failures. For, under the old

promotion plan, the teachers felt they had to press the

 

llSandin, Adolph, Social and Emotional Adjustments
of Regularly Promoted and Nonpromoted Pupils (New York:
Columbia University, I944), pp. 13-14.

12Ibid.

19

child to try to do what he could not do.13

Steadman found that respondents who argued
against the policy pointed out that it reduced incentive
for superior scholastic achievement; led to problems for
children who found the work beyond their capacity;
created problems for the teacher who had to work with
classes that had a wide range in achievement; caused
problems for parents; created problems in high school;
and produced administrative problems.14

It can be seen from the foregoing that a great
variance in philosophy and belief exists in our society
with respect to the form of promotion policy to follow in
our schools. Many people believe in a strong nonpromotion
policy, while others believe that a continuous progress
policy is best.

It is hoped that the later chapters of this study
will bring criteria and data to light which will help to

resolve some of the promotion—nonpromotion dilemma.

The Promotion and Nonpromotion Practices

 

The promotion and nonpromotion practices being
followed in most school systems of our nation are not
uniform. Goodlad and Anderson have indicated that

studies conducted over several decades have revealed

 

13E. R. Steadman, "Fifteen Who Were Not Promoted,"
Elementary School Journal, LIX (February, 1959), 272.

 

lulbid.

20
nonpromotion rates varying from zero in some school
districts to 34 per cent in others.15

Leonard P. Ayres, in his 1909 study, Laggards in

 

Our Schools, reported that the average rate of nonpromotion

 

for all grades of a kindergarten through twelfth grade
school system was 16 per cent.16 Caswell, writing twenty—
four years later in 1933, reported a nonpromotion rate
for all grades of 10 per cent.17 Sandin, in his 1943 book,

Progress in the Elementary School, listed the available

 

statistics on the cumulative or yearly rates of non-
promotion published by cities and by state education
departments from 1935-1941. Cumulative or yearly rates
of nonpromotion by the state education departments in
1935-1941 are presented in table 2.1. Table 2.2 presents
the cumulative or yearly rates of nonpromotion by cities
in 1935-1940.18
Saunder reported in 1941 that from the 1920's to
the late 1930's the average rate of nonpromotion in

19

large cities dropped from 8.7 per cent to 4.0 per cent.

 

l5Goodlad and Anderson, op. cit. p. 30.

16Leonard P. Ayres, Laggards in Our Schools (New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1909); pp. 141:158.

 

17Hollis L. Caswell, Nonpromotion in Elementary
Schools (Nashville, Tennessee: George Peabody ColIege for
Teachers, Division of Surveys and Field Studies, 1933), p. 24.

 

18Sandin, op. cit., pp. 10-11.

19Carlton M. Saunder, Promotion or Failure for the
Elementary School Pupil? (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1941), p. 44.

 

 

21
Table 2.1

Cumulative or Yearly Rates of Nonpromotion
State Education Departments 1935—1941.

 

States School Elementary School
Year Progress Percentages
Alabama 1934—35 60. cumulative nonpromotion rural
37. " " urban

 

Arizona* 1938-39 6. nonpromoted

Delaware 1940—41 9. nonpromoted (white)
ll

 

17. Negro
Florida 1937-38 36. cumulative nonpromotion white
56. " " Negro
Maryland 1938-39 11. cumulative nonpromotion white
18. " " Negro
North 1934—35 37. overage for grade white **
Carolina 46. " " ” Negro

Oklahoma 1935-36 54.

cumulative slow progress (white)
I! I! I!

74- Negro
South 1939-40 10. cumulative slow progress white
Carolina* 8. " " " Negro

Tennessee 1937-38 12.

nonpromoted (white)
1'

O|—' MCI) (DO \0-1: \]\1 UWN'J -IZ‘l-—' \OUl CDCD fl LUKO

15. Negro
Texas 1937-38 43. cumulative nonpromotion white
66. ” " Negro
Virginia* 1940—41 10. nonpromoted white
15. " Negro

 

*Progress percentages for these states have been
computed from statistics in printed reports.

**0verage for grade may be owing to nonpromotion
and other factors such as late school entrance or
prolonged periods of sickness.

Note: See Bibliography for sources of statistics.

22
Table 2.2

Cumulative or Yearly Rates of Nonpromotion
By Cities 1935—1940

 

Cities School Elementary School
Year Progress Percentages
Boston, Mass. 1936-37 8.9 nonpromoted

Bethlehem, Pa.* 1935-36 14.8 nonpromoted

Evansville, Ind. 1935—36 50.0 cumulative nonpromotion
in one third of the
elementary schools

Hartford, Conn. 1935-36 37.2 cumulative nonpromotion
New York, N. Y. 1936-37 2 .0 cumulative nonpromotion
Newark, N. J. 1939-40 30.6 cumulative nonpromotion
Pittsburgh, Pa.* 1939-40 35.4 overage for grade**
Rutherford, N. J. 1935—36 12.0 overage in the elementary
schools**
33.0 cumulative nonpromotion

in the junior high school

 

*Progress percentages for these cities have been
computed from statistics in printed reports.

**0verage for grade may be owing to nonpromotion
and other factors such as late school entrance or
prolonged periods of sickness.

23

Thus it appeared that the average rate of nonpromotion had
dropped considerably from the 16 per cent rate of 1909.

From the 1955 work of Lennon and Mitchell one can
interpret a similar trend to that which was found by
Saunder as they found an indication of a decline in the
average age of children grade by grade. For example, in
1918 the mean chronological age of children in the fifth
grade was eleven years and six months; it was eleven
years and one month in 1926; ten years and eight months
in 1940; ten years and seven months in 1946; and ten
years and five months in 1952.20

There are more recent indications that the trend
in nonpromotion rates may again be on the rise, for in
1956 Jones found that an average of about 10 per cent of
the public school pupils were held back in a grade at
least once.21 Also, a 1958 Newsweek article reported that
the New York City Board of Education announced that it
had eliminated such "Boondoggling" courses as "Science

in the Home."22 The article further noted that:

Showing it really meant business, the board
had earlier disclosed that the promotion rate

 

2ORoger T. Lennon and Blythe C. Mitchell, ”Trends
in Age-Grade Relationship: A 35-Year Review," School
and Society, LXXXII (October 15, 1955), 123—125.

 

2lJames J. Jones, "Recent Trends in Promotional
Theory,” Progressive Education, XXXIII (January, 1956),

5’63 15°

22"Johnny Beware, "Newsweek, LX (September 1,
1958). 55. —_—_

 

24

among its 565,000 grade school children last June

had been cut to 95.6 per cent, lowest in 23 years.

In Chicago, simultaneously, the public schools

flunked 6.44 per cent of the pupils. Washington

D.C., reported that failures were at an all-time

high: 12.7 this year and 12.8 last year, compared

with 3.9 in 1953. 3

Added evidence that the trend is toward more non-
promotion was found by Johnson in a 1966 survey of an
urban Middlewest school system. He found that 11 per
cent of the 400 students who had attended the system
kindergarten through the seventh grade had been non-
promoted at least once during their school careers.24

It has been demonstrated that there is likely to
be as great a variation from grade to grade within a
school and from school to school within a system as
between school systems in nonpromotion policies. This
inconsistency was documented in a Nashville, Tennessee
study where it was discovered that there was a reported
variation among schools in nonpromotion rates for the
first grade ranging from zero to 50 per cent. In one
county school there were no first grade nonpromotions
while in another, twenty-eight of fifty-six first grade

children were nonpromoted, yet the range in ability

levels among the nonpromoted children county wide came

 

231bid.

2”Axel A. Johnson, ”Promotion and Nonpromotion in
An Urban Middlewest School System" (Unpublished research
study, 1966), p. 16.

25
close to approximating the overall ability range in

many classrooms.25

Caswell has noted that the Annual Report of the

 

Superintendent of Schools in New York Cityyfor the School

 

Year 1939—1940 stated that the rate of slow progress of

 

children in the various districts of the city varied from
12.14 per cent in one district to 36.61 per cent in
another school district.26 He further stated that in
Salt Lake City for the school year 1935-1936, the rate
of nonpromotion in the first grade varied from 3.9 per
cent in one school to 28.6 per cent in another school.27
Among the twelve grades within the school system,
it appears that the first grade has the highest non—
promotion rate. This was demonstrated in an Ohio State
University survey when it was found that in Montclair,
New Jersey, in the school year 1947—1948, the nonpromotion
rate for all elementary grades was 4.3 per cent, but for
the first grade it was 9.5 per cent. This same trend
was confirmed in Seattle in 1938-1939, where the rate

for all grades was 2.9 per cent and for the first grade

 

25Public Schools of Nashville, Tennessee; A Survey
Re ort. (Nashville: George Peabody College for Teachers,
1931), p. 22.

 

26Forty-Second Annual Repprt of the Superintendent
of Schools, City of New York, School Year 1939—40 (Board
of Education, City of New York, 1940), p. 148.

 

27Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Salt Lake City
Board of Education, School Year 1935-36 (Board of
Education, Salt Lake City, 1936), p. 43.

 

 

26
6.8 per cent. In Chicago it was found that rates varied
from 20 per cent in the first grade to 3 per cent in
various other grades.

Johnson, in his 1966 study, found that 34 per cent
of the total number of nonpromotions kindergarten through
seventh grade occurred in the first grade. Second grade
followed closely behind with 32 per cent, with third
grade next with 14 per cent of the total nonpromoted.29

It appears from the literature that the percentage
of boys nonpromoted each year far surpasses that of
girls. In 1959 the National Education Association
research staff sent questionnaires to all urban school
districts of 100,000 or more population, to more than
400 urban districts between 2,500 and 100,000 population,
and to a selected group of county and suburban school
systems. There was an 83 per cent return of the four-
fifths of this number who answered a question on differ-
ences between boys and girls in rate of promotion from
grade one to grade two, 73.2 per cent reported a higher
promotion rate for girls; 3.2 per cent reported a higher
rate for boys; and 23.6 per cent, no difference.30

In a study of seven elementary schools which

 

28Hollis Caswell and Arthur Foshay, Education in
the E1ementarnychool (New York: American Book Co.,

1957), p- 369-
29Johnson, op. cit.

 

 

30"School Admission and Promotion", National
Education Association Research Bulletin, XXXVII
(February, 1959), 15.

 

27
employed nonpromotion quite freely, it was found by
Caswell and Foshay that in Grade 5A in these schools,
23 per cent of the boys and 7.4 per cent of the girls
were not promoted.31 Johnson found similar results in
the school system which he studied, for three boys were
nonpromoted to each girl nonpromoted when the total
number of nonpromotions were considered kindergarten
through seventh grade.32 Caswell and Foshay found in
their study that the achievement level of nonpromoted
boys, as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test, was
eleven years two months, and of the promoted girls,
eleven years three months.33 They concluded, as did the

authors of the National Education Association on Research

 

Bulletin, that the nonpromotion of boys is sometimes based
upon factors other than academic achievement. The National

Education Association has written that:

 

The fact that boys fail more often than girls,
despite insignificant differences in scores on
intelligence and achievement tests, indicates that
promotion is based to some extent on factors other
than academic achievement such as deportment and
neatness of written work.32Jr

Goodlad and Anderson stated their feelings about

the apparent inconsistencies in promotion practices

 

31Caswell and Foshay, op. cit., p. 373.
32Johnson, op. cit.

33Caswell and Foshay, op. cit.

34”Pupil Failure and Nonpromotion", National

Education Research Bulletin, XXXVII (February, 1959),
16-17.

 

when they wrote:

Whether or not a child is promoted appears to
depend more upon biological, economic and social
chance than upon sound educational design or how
hard he works. In fact, whether or not a child is
promoted depends on where he happens to go to
school.

In summary, it can be concluded that there are
no consistent criteria for nonpromotion, and factors
other than academic achievement often are influential
in the very important decision. The apparent impact of
nonpromotion upon the academic progress of children will
be discussed in the next section.

Nonpromotion: Its Apparent Impact on
the Academic Progress of Children

 

 

The reason most often given by educators for non-
promotion is that the child who is being nonpromoted will
gain in academic achievement and be prepared for the
academic work of the next grade. The universality of
this assumption was demonstrated by the National Office
of Education in a nation wide survey. It was found that
over 70 per cent of the urban schools in the nation
reported that their promotion practices are based on the
philosophy that children should be promoted only if their
academic achievement is at a "satisfactory" level. Less
than 12 per cent of the schools reported that factors of
group progress are considered in their promotion policies,

with less than 1 per cent reporting that the ”social

 

35Goodlad and Anderson, op. cit., p. 31.

29

promotion” principle was the decisive factor.36

Evidence was brought to light on this subject prior
to the 1960 study, for in 1935 a study was conducted by
Otto in which he found that out of 1702 elementary school
classroom teachers questioned on their promotion—
nonpromotion practices, that 10.5 per cent failed only
those who, they believed, were sure to profit by non-
promotion. There were 7.5 per cent of the teachers who
used chronological age as a major factor in promotion,
and only 1.6 per cent of the teachers practiced 100 per
cent promotion.37

The question of the impact of nonpromotion upon
the academic progress of children has long been debated.
In one of the earliest studies on the subject, Keyes
reported that only 21 per cent of a large group of
repeaters did better after repeating a grade than before,
and 39 per cent actually did worse.38

Hall and Demarest, in a study on the impact of a
promotion policy on a pupil's achievement in reading,
concluded that keeping children with their own age group

does not result in a lowering of academic achievement.

 

36Stuart Dean, ”Pass or Fail,” Elementary School
Journal, LXI (November, 1960), 86-90.

37Henry Otto, Promotion Policies and Practices in
Elementary_Schools (Minneapolis: EducatiOnal Test
Bureau, 1935), p. 25.

 

 

 

38Charles H. Keyes, Progress Through the Grades of
City Schools (New York: Columbia University Press, 1911),

p. 17.

 

 

30

They found that after switching to a continuous
promotional policy in the Phoenix Elementary Schools
in 1948, the average reading score on the Iowa Every
Pupil Achievement Test for the fourth and sixth grades
demonstrated no marked difference. At the same time the
average chronological ages of children in the grades was
lowered. For example, in the sixth grade the average age
in 1946-47 was twelve years and one month, while in
1955-56 it was eleven years two months. They found that
a promotion policy encouraging continuous progress
actually cut down the number of retarded readers in their
schools.39

Worth and Shores conducted a research project to
determine if nonpromotion would improve achievement in
the language arts. Sixty-six low achievers who had been
nonpromoted and repeated the third grade were matched
case—for—case with a like number of low achievers who
had been promoted to the fourth grade. The matching was
done on the basis of sex, IQ, chronological age, and
achievement test data. The achievement of the pupils in
eight aspects of the language arts was measured before the
promotion decision and at the end of the experimental
year. The tests used were the California Achievement
Test (Primary Battery), and the Gates Advanced Primary

Tests, Type 1 and 2. They found that where a relatively

 

39Wi11iam F. Hall and Ruth Demarest, "Effect on
Achievement Scores of a Change in Promotional Policy
Elementary School Journal, LVIII (January, 1958), 204-207.

H

 

31
rigid system of grade placement of both pupils and
content existed, low achievers in the language arts
were likely to do as well when they were promoted as
when they were nonpromoted.

Coffield, in a 1954 study, attempted to determine
the impact of nonpromotion on educational achievement in
the elementary school. Identification was made of 190
pupils who were in grade seven, and who had been non-
promoted between grades three and seven. The subjects
were matched with a promoted pupil who was in the same
grade the year the failure occurred. Performance on
the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills served as the criterion
measure. Coffield arrived at the following conclusions
after tabulating the data he received:

1. Failed pupils typically gain approximately

only six months in educational progress

during the repeat year and still fail to

achieve the norm for the grade involved.

Failed pupils typically gain approximately one

year and three months in educational progress

during the two years following failure and
still fail to achieve the norm for the grade
involved.

3. During the year following failure, the
educational progress of failed pupils is
typically about four to six months less than
that of matching promoted pupils.

4. The educational progress of failed pupils
during the two years following failure is not
significantly greater (perhaps of the order
of one to three months) than that made by
promoted matches during the single year spent
in the next higher grade.

5. The educational progress of seventh grade pupils
who have experienced failure once is typically

[\J

 

uoWalter Worth and J. Harlan Shores, "Does
Nonpromotion Improve Achievement in the Language Arts?"
Elementary English, XXXVII (January, 1960), 49-52.

 

32

on a par with that of matched promoted seventh
grade pupils who have spent one year less in
school.

6. The educational progress of seventh grade pupils
who have experienced failure once is typically
eight months less than that of matched promoted
seventh grade pupils who have spent one year
less in school.

7. The educational progress of seventh grade pupils
who have experienced failure once is typically
not affected by the grade in which the failure
was experienced.

8. The general level of achievement of a school's
seventh grade class is not significantly
affected by the rigidity or leniency of its
promotion policy.

9. The variability of pupil achievement is a school's
seventh grade class is not affected by the
rigidity or leniency of its promotion policy.

10. The per cent of overage seventh grade pupils
is significantly greater (perhaps of the order
of ten per cent) in the case of schools having
rigid promotion policies than in the case of
schools having lenient promotion policies. 1

In an extensive study of the achievement of sixty
grade one nonpromoted children as compared with that of
continuously promoted children of the same mental age,
Grace Arthur found that the nonpromoted children achieved
99.3 per cent as much as the continuously promoted children
in the next grade. From her data she concluded that it
appeared as though the average nonpromoted child of the
group studied learned no more in two years than did the
average continuously promoted child of the same mental

, m
age in one year.uc

 

41w. H. Coffield and Paul Blommers, ”Effects of
Nonpromotion in Educational Achievement in the Elementary
School," Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVII

(April, 1956). 235-250.

ugGrace Arthur, ”A Study of the Achievement of
Sixty Grade One Repeaters as Compared with that of Non-
Repeaters of the Same Mental Age," Journal of Experimental
Education, V (December, 1936), 203-206.

 

 

 

33

Kowitz and Armstrong, in a study on the impact of
a promotion policy on academic achievement, utilized the
records of the Research Offices of the New York State
Education Department to locate two school districts that
had contrasting promotion policies and a reasonable amount
of recorded data. They concluded after comparing the
two districts that academic achievement apparently responds
to school policy. A policy of ”achieve or fail" seems
to cause more change among pupils who are promoted than
among pupils who are being nonpromoted. While there
was a trend toward increased achievement in the school
with an "achieve or fail” policy, the increase was
limited largely to pupils who were in no real danger
of being nonpromoted.“3

Klene and Branson attempted to resolve the
difficulties of a possible cause and effect relationship
by matching children, each of whom was to repeat a grade,
on the basis of chronological age, mental age, and sex.
Half were then promoted and half nonpromoted. The authors
concluded that the potential repeaters profited more
from promotion than did the repeaters from nonpromotion
with respect to achievement.uu

Kamii and Weikart conducted a study of marks,

 

“3G. T. Kowitz and C. M. Armstrong, "The Effect
of Promotion Policy on Academic Achievement," Elementary
School Journal, LXI (May, 1961). 435-443.

 

 

uuVivian Klene and Ernest Branson, "Trial Promotion
versus Failure," Educational Research Bulletin, VIII
(January, 1929), 6-11.

 

34
achievement, and intelligence of seventh graders who
were nonpromoted once in two junior high schools in
Ypsilanti, Michigan. The general procedure was to
describe a group of pupils who were nonpromoted once in
elementary school and compare them with a sample of pupils
who have never been nonpromoted. The sample size was
twenty-two boys and nine girls in each group. The authors
concluded that the pupils who were nonpromoted once were
found to have the following characteristics:

1. Their marks in academic subjects are
significantly below the average of the
regularly-promoted seventh graders, and the
majority of their academic marks are D's and F's.

2. Their achievement levels in reading and
arithmetic are significantly lower than those
of the regularly—promoted,pupils.

3. Their IQ's are significantly lower than those
of the regularly—promoted pupils, but more
than half of the retained pupils have at least
average IQ's as measured by the California
Test of Mental Maturity.‘

4. The reason for getting D's and F's can be
attributed neither to low intelligefice nor to
poor basic skills, such as reading. 5

The authors noted that the differences between the

nonpromoted pupils and the regularly promoted ones would
have been even more dramatic if those who had been non-
promoted more than once had been included in the non-
promoted group.

In an earlier study Burdette Buckingham reported

that after consideration of experiments dealing with the

 

M5Constance Kamii and David P. Weikart, "Marks,
Achievement and Intelligence of Seventh Graders Who were
Retained (Nonpromoted) Once in Elementary School,"
Journal of Educational Research, LVI (May-June, 1963),
452-459.

 

35

progress of several thousand Illinois school children,
approximately one—third of the children did better work
after repeating the grade, while the other two-thirds

showed no improvement and in many cases did worse than

46

before.

The National Education Association when researching
pupil failure and nonpromotion came to many of the same
conclusions as did the foregoing researchers. They
stated that:

One study based on records covering a number
of years showed that third-graders (in a number
of different school systems) who were repeating
the grade averaged only three months ahead of
their achievement in grade three a full year
earlier. An equal number of their classmates,
who had matched them in test scores a year
earlier, but had been promoted instead of being
failed, had made six month's greater progress
than those who failed. Although they did not
fail again, the once—failed group was still
behind the promoted group by the time each
reached the seventh grade, even though the failed
group had taken a year longer to reach grade
seven. 7

 

M6Burdette Buckingham, Research for Teachers
(New York: Silver, Burdett and Co., 1926), p. 303.

 

“7"Pupil Failure and Non-Promotion," National
Education Research Bulletin, XXXVII (February, I959),
16-17. For further studies in this area which have
produced findings that demonstrate a greater gain in
academic achievement by children who are socially promoted
as compared with those who are nonpromoted, see Eugene
Farley, Albin J. Frey, and Gertrude Garland, "Factors
Related to Grade Progress of Pupils," Elementary School
Journal, XXXIV (November, 1933), 186—193; Adolph Sandin,
”SociaI and Emotional Adjustments of Regularly Promoted
and Nonpromoted Pupils" (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1942); Walter H.
Worth, ”Promotion or Nonpromotion?" Educational
Administration and Supervision, XLVI (January, 1960),
16426; E. T. McKinney, Promotion of Pupils: A Problem
of Educational Administration (Urbana: University of

 

 

 

 

 

36

Not all the literature has been favorable to a
continuous promotion policy over a nonpromotion policy
for Newlun has suggested that 100 per cent promotion has
an adverse impact on pupils of normal intelligence. He
contends that these pupils discover that they will be
promoted whether they learn anything or not and, there-
fore, learn to get by without doing their best work.“8

In a follow up study of children experiencing
nonpromotion, Francis concluded that a child's skills
can be improved and his confidence increased by a year's
repetition of a grade.“9

Russell found that:

. Although pupils and parents of pupils who
have been retarded in a grade show more negative
attitudes toward school than do pupils who have
been regularly promoted and their parents, the
differences are not great in most instances. .
In families in which pupils had failed in school

the parents seemed to attach less value to

grade repetition than parents who had had no
experience with the problem.50

 

Illinois, 1928); Walker W. Cheyney and Philip A. Boyer,
Extracts quoted in Elementary School Journal, XXXIII

(May, 1933), 647-651; Report of the DiviSion of Educational
Research and Results for the Year Ended June 30A 1933
(Board of Education, School District of Philadelphia,
1933); Annual Report of the Superintendent of Instruction
of the Commonwealth of Virginia with Accompanying
Documents for the Year 1937-38 (Board of Education, City

of Richmond, 19387} p. 16.

248Chester 0. Newlun, ”Who Fails in Your Schools?"
American School Board Journal, CXXIII (August; 1951), 13-14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M9Ercel B. Francis, "A Follow-Up of Nonpromotions,"
Journal of Education, CXXII (June, 193 ), 187-188.

 

5ODavid H. Russell, "The Influence of Repetition
of a Grade and of Regular Promotion on the Attitudes of
Parents and Children Toward School," California Journal
of Elementary Education, XXI (August, 19527, 29:41.

 

 

37

Relying primarily on teacher judgment of the value
of repetition, Templin found that 253 pupils who were
repeating their grades appeared to profit from their
experience. The teachers responded 70.9 per cent in
favor of the repetition, as it appeared to them that the
children were improved.51

The evidence presented appears to lend greater
support to those who do not favor a policy of nonpromotion
yet disagreement over the question still remains.

Nonpromotion: Its Impact on the Social and
Emotional Development of Children

 

 

Caswell and Foshay, in an analysis of research on
this topic, concluded that failure is a deterrent to the
development of sound attitudes. They have reported that
nonpromotion often results in emotional depression and
discouragement, in the student's distrust of his own
abilities, and in the expectation of future failures.
Caught up in a situation where he doesn't succeed and
where continued striving does not lead to accomplishment
and satisfaction, the child tends to rationalize his
failure and to build up explanatory defense mechanisms.52

Robinson has agreed with this point of view, as he
has noted that the nonpromotion of children tends to

replace their interest in learning with feelings of

 

51R. S. W. Templin, ”A Check—Up of Nonpromotions,"
Journal of Education, CXXIII (November, 1940), 259-260.

 

520aswell and Foshay, pp: cit., pp. 387—395.

38
resentment, that may very well be expressed in some
form of aggression.53
Hartsig and Langenbach, in studies of three
children who had been nonpromoted, have come to similar
conclusions. The summary of one of their three case
studies illustrates the way in which one child was
affected:
Retardation in the fifth grade had provided
Andy with little or nothing to compensate for
the observable harm that had been done him. He
had become discouraged with lack of success, lost
confidence in himself, and became more careless
and less interested in school work. These are
the obvious effects--the effects that he and
others can recognize. The adjustment factors are of
vital importance but cannot be observed by him.
Neither in the classroom nor on the school grounds
had Andy been successful with his peers. Aggression
and attention-getting have become his pattern of
behavior. These actions brought about non-
acceptance on the part of his classmates, which in

turn, caused Andy's social relationships to become
poorer.5

Adolph Sandin, in a study of the social and
emotional adjustments of regularly promoted and non-
promoted pupils, found by means of sociometric tests,
rating scales, check lists, observations and interviews,
that the typical pupil who had experienced grade failure
as compared with his regularly promoted classmates was

to a statistically greater extent more likely to:

 

53B. B. Robinson, "Failure Is Too Costly for the
School Child," Parents Magazine, XI (January, 1936),
22-23, 55-57.

5“Barbara Hartsig and Louise Langenbach, "Studies
of Three Children Who Have Been Retained a Grade in
School,” California Journal of Elementary Education,
XXI (August, 1952), 51-63.

 

 

39

(1) indicate that his companions were in upper grades,
(2) wish to be in upper grades partly out of a desire
to be with friends, and to (3) be pointed out by his
classmates as one who associates with older children.
Sandin concluded that the nonpromoted students did not
consider their regularly promoted classmates as appropriate
companions, which may in part account for the fact that
repeaters often exhibited antisocial behavior in the
company of their younger regularly promoted classmates.55
The nonpromoted students were mentioned by children
reliably more often as being unhappy and grouchy, quarrel-
some and disagreeable, rude and impolite, inconsiderate,
selfish, and boastful. Teachers also found the non-
promoted children to be more troublesome and aggravating
during school hours than were their regularly promoted
classmates of the same sex.56

Sandin found the nonpromoted children to be lacking
in self-confidence, self-respect, and general feelings of
well-being.57

McElwee, in a research study on the impact of
nonpromotion upon the behavior of children, concluded
that the incidence of behavior considered by teachers

and administrators to be troublesome was more prevalent

 

55Adolph Sandin, op. cit., p. 127.
561bid., p. 130

571bid , pp. 131-136.

40

among nonpromoted than among the regularly promoted
children.58
Goodlad, noting that Sandin did not attempt to
match a nonpromoted group of children with a promoted
group, did so and compared their progress over a period
of one year. He equated a group of fifty—five promoted
second grade pupils with a group containing a like number
of nonpromoted first grade pupils on the basis of chrono-
logical age, mental age, and achievement. Considerable
preliminary research was done in order to secure
equivalent conditions in regard to such matters as
enrollment, urban-rural location of schools, physical
normality of the selected children, and socio-economic
status of the families. Goodlad utilized several
instruments to enable him to determine the effect of
nonpromotion upon the children. The California Test
of Personality (Primary Series), sociometric "best-
friend" questions, and administration of the Haggerty-
Olson-Wickman Behavior Rating Schedules.59 He found
a year of experience as nonpromoted members of first

grade classes had devastating results on the social

 

58E. W. McElwee, "A Comparison of Personality
Traits of 300 Accelerated, Normal, and Retarded Children,"
Journal of Educational Research, XXVI (September, 1932),

31-34.

59John I. Goodlad, ”Research and Theory Regarding
Promotion and Nonpromotion,” Elementary School Journal,
LIII (November, 1952), 150-155. See also John I. Goodlad,
"Some Effects of Promotions and Nonpromotion Upon the
Social and Personal Adjustment of Children" (Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1949).

 

 

41

acceptance of the children involved. The rejection by
their peers increased the feelings of inadequacy in the
nonpromoted children. More consistently than promoted
children, they rated themselves as unwanted and unliked
by their peers, and as the unhappy victims of quarrels
and fights. Goodlad and Anderson further found that the
nonpromoted children seemed, in many instances, to have
resigned themselves to lack of success in school and
expressed little fear of failure in school work.60 They
have concluded that the promoted children felt much better
about themselves as people than did those who were non-
promoted. Goodlad and Anderson posed the following
question concerning the apparent lack of fear of failure
in school work by the nonpromoted children: "Could
it be that school failure of their children the previous
June prompted the parents to confer with the teacher,
with the consequence that they expected less of their
children?"61

Stryker, in a case study on undergrading as a
cause of delinquency, concluded that nonpromotion can
be causal factor in the delinquency process. She studied
one bOy of twelve who was committed to a New Jersey reform
school for truancy. She found that the boy was very

dissatisfied with school as a result of demotion and

 

60Goodlad and Anderson, The Nongraded Elementary
School, pp. 38-39.

 

61Ibid., p. 39.

42

consequent "undergrading,"

and that this was a very
significant factor in his truancy. By the use of double
promotion and the promise of early parole, the boy was
motivated into doing excellent work and his entire
attitude toward school and society was changed. Stryker
concluded that pride in achievement, and success replacing
failure, gave the boy a different outlook on life.62

Evidence that the impact of nonpromotion on the
social and emotional development of children may not be
as negative as is indicated by many of the foregoing
studies has been made available by the studies of
Anfinson and of Worth.

Anfinson conducted a study in an effort to deter—
mine the relationship between nonpromotion and personality
adjustment as measured by the Symonds-Bloce Student
Questionnaire and the Bell School Inventories. The
author matched 116 pairs of students of junior high
level on the basis of chronological age, school attendence,
sex, socio-economic status, and intelligence, with one
member of each pair having been promoted regularly and
the other having been nonpromoted in some previous grade.
Although the findings indicated slight but not significant
differences between the groups, with more unfavorable
personality characteristics reflected by the repeaters,
the author concluded:

This investigation has served as a step in

 

62Sue B. Stryker, "Undergrading as a Cause of Delinquency,"

School and Society, XXVI (December 24, 1927), 821-822.

 

43
procuring evidence which renders questionable
validity of the present-day policy of reducing
or eliminating nonpromotion in the schools. The
statement has often been made that failure is
extremely destructive in the case of a given child
because of the irreparable damage to his
personality and because of the development of
undesirable attitudes and inferiority complexes.
The findings of this study indicate that, because
of the apparently variable effects of nonpromotion
on different individuals, sweeping statements of
this kind should be modified; for, as will be
recalled, poorly adjusted and well adjusted pupils
were fognd in both the non-repeater and the repeater
groups. 3
Worth conducted a study in which he sought to
determine the impact of promotion and nonpromotion on the
school achievement and social-personal development of
matched groups of third and fourth grade pupils ordinarily
categorized as low achievers in a large urban school
system. He matched two groups of sixty—six children with
respect to IQ, sex, chronological age, and total achieve—
ment. One group conSisted of low achievers who had been
promoted to the fourth grade, the other group composed
of low achievers who were nonpromoted and repeated the
third grade. Each group consisted of forty-six boys and
twenty girls. Information was secured by means of a
questionnaire completed by each pupil's teacher about
selected environmental and instructional factors judged

to be influential in determining school progress. Teacher

ratings on seven personality traits were collected, as

 

63R. D. Anfinson, "School Progress and Pupil
Adjustment," Elementary School Journal, XLI (March, 1941),
507-51 .

 

44
64

well as choice by classmates on a sociometric test.
Worth concluded that:

The findings of this study concerning the
impact of promotion and nonpromotion on social-
personal development seem to run counter to those
reported in the bulk of previous research on this
problem. Nonpromotion does not appear to have an
adverse effect on the social-personal development
of low achievers. On the contrary, low achievers
who are nonpromoted tend to be rated as high or
higher on personality traits, and be accorded the
same, and sometimes better, sociometric status
than those who are promoted. This suggests the
possibility that the greater gain in achievement
made by the promoted pupils may have been at éhe
expense of their social-personal development. 5

Jablow believes that the difficulty which children
who are socially promoted into the next year's grade
encounter is due to the frustration of not being able to
do the academic work of that grade. Because of this
inability to do the work, the child becomes a disciplinary

66

problem.

Nonpromotion: Its Possible Contribution
to the School Dropout Problem

 

 

The negative attitudes toward school and learning
which appear to accompany nonpromotion may contribute to
the yearly school dropout rate. Kelley contends that

the dropout is not strictly a secondary school problem,

 

624Walter H. Worth, "Promotion or Nonpromotion"
Educational Administration and Supervision, XLVI
(January, 1960), 16-26.

 

651bid., p. 23.

66Lillian Jablow, "Deferred Promotions in Grade
022,"uBaltimore Bulletin of Education, XXV (December, 1947),
l -l 7.

 

45
but one which also concerns the elementary school. He
postulates that perhaps different and better treatment
in the elementary school might be one of the most fruitful
ways of reducing the number of youths who leave school
before graduation.67 He concludes that the future dropout
is overage for his grade, at least by the time he gets
to the third grade. This means that he has already been
told he is a failure-- he feels rejected and alienated.68
Livingston, in a study on dropouts.and the elementary
schools, found that children who dropped out of school
left voluntarily for a variety of stated reasons. He
concluded that the most significant fact about the pupils
who withdrew before they entered ninth grade was that
each child was retarded at least one grade. It was also
found that 84 per cent of the dropouts were retarded at
least two grades. Livingston also noted that about
1 per cent of those who graduated were retarded one grade,
and none was retarded more than one grade.69
Sandin found that those children who were non-
promoted or were making Slow progress frequently revealed
their feelings when they stated what they were going to

do when they quit school, or what they were going to do

 

67Earl C. Kelley, "Seeds of Dropouts," Childhood
Education, XXXIX (May, 1963), p. 420.

 

 

68Ibid.

69A. H. Livingston, "Key to Dropout Problem in
Elementary Schools,” Elementary School Journal, IL
(February, 1959), 268. ‘

 

46
when they entered high school. Sandin used the following
statement as an example that either quitting school or going
into high school would, in the understanding of the
children, solve many of the difficulties which they feared
in the elementary school: "If I ever get out of school
I'm never going to another schoolhouse again. I'll get a
job and do what I like to do and I'll bet nobody will make
me spend a lot of time on a bunch of dry books."70
Livingston concludes that the high association between
grade failures in the elementary school and later
withdrawal indicates that the failure of a grade may be
an immediately recognizable sign of the dropout. He
believes that after a careful look at its promotion policy,
the elementary school faculty should attempt to set up a
program to help overcome the problem of early withdrawal
and yet not set these children and young people apart
from other pupils.71

Nonpromotion: The Cost to the Taxpayer
in Dollars and Cents

 

 

Woodrow Wilson Brown conducted a study in 1955 on
the incidence and cost of nonpromotion in the public
schools of York, Pennsylvania. The cost of nonpromotion
was based on per pupil cost of current expenses and
expenses of instruction for the period, in grades one

through nine, and on per pupil-subject costs in grades

 

7OSandin, o . cit., p. 69.

71Livingston, op. cit., p. 370

47
ten through twelve. He found the mean annual cost of
nonpromotion was 5.5 per cent of the current expenses
and expenses of instruction for the York School System
or $95,809.24 and $68,512.35, respectively.72 Thus it
appears that nonpromotion is quite an expensive policy

to follow

Summary of Promotion - Nonpromotion Dilemma

 

It can be concluded from the foregoing summary of
the literature on promotion and nonpromotion that the
policy of nonpromotion is widespread; varies greatly from
school system to school system; varies within school
systems and individual schools; and is more prevalent in
the lower grades of the school organizational structure.
It can also be concluded that a policy of nonpromotion is
expensive in terms of dollars and cents.

The literature lends evidence to the conclusion
that the policy of nonpromotion is more detrimental to
the academic, social, and emotional growth of children
than is a policy of nonfailure. There is no, however,
complete agreement on this conclusion, for studies have
been done which have offered evidence which is not in
agreement with the majority of the findings.

The next section will be concerned with the

 

72Woodrow Wilson Brown, "An Application of
Selected Related Factor to the Incidence and Cost of
Nonpromotion in the Public Schools of York, Pennsylvania,"
Dissertation Abstracts, XV (December, 1955), 2437.

 

48
self—concept, a possible vehicle to answering some of
the questions centering on the promotion—nonpromotion
dilemma.

The Self-Concept:
Its Relationship to the Problem

 

 

This section of the related literature to the
topic of promotion and nonpromotion is being written in
an effort to point up the utility of the concept of the
self-concept and its development to the understanding
of the impact of the promotion-nonpromotion policies of
the schools of our nation upon our children. The uses
which have been made of the self-concept in education
and related areas will be reviewed, as well as how this
conceptual framework can help answer some of the questions
presented earlier in the study.

It should first be noted that there are many
definitions given to the word self, and although each
has a long and interesting history, this study is
primarily concerned with the psychological uses of the
term.73 In the psychological literature two chief
meanings have evolved: the self as an individual who is
known to himself, and the self as a subject or agent.7M

As Wylie has noted, the words ”self-concept" have come

 

73C. T. Onions, The Oxford Universal Dictionary
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 1834—1836.

 

IMH. B. English and Ava C. English, A Comprehensive
Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms
(New York: Longmans, Green, 1958), pp. 484-485.

 

 

49

into common use to refer to the first meaning.75 The
self was given an important place in psychological
literature in the late nineteenth century by William
James, but it wasn't until nearly the late 1940's that
the literature began to show the rising interest in the
concept.76 Through the years various groups of psycho-
logical thought have found the self a useful tool in
explaining and understanding behavior. The phenomeno-
logical theorists, neo-Freudians, gestaltists, and
others, have all incorporated the self into their
"theoretical” framework. Adler, Allport, Freud, Horney,
Lecky, Maslow, Rogers, Snygg and Combs, and Brookover
all have been concerned with some aspect and the self
as subject or agent.7u

Disagreement over what constitutes the self, and

whether it is and/or should be considered as unconscious

 

75Ruth Wylie, The Self-Concept (Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press, 1961), p. 1.

 

76Ibid.

 

77A. Adler, The Practice and Theory of Individual
Psychology (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1924); S. Freud,
The Ego and the Id (London: Hogarth Press, 1950);
K. Horney, The Neurotic Personality of Our Times (New
York: W. W. Norton, 1937); P. Lecky, Self-Consistency:
Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper, 19543;
C. Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy (Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1951); D. Snygg and A. W. Combs Individual
Behavior (2nd Ed.: New York: Harper, 19497; Wilbur B.
Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sgciology of Education
(New York: American Book Co., 1964).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50
or conscious phenomena is debated in the literature.78
The definitions and propositions which will be
used frequently in this section of the study are those
arrived at by Wilbur B. Brookover and associates in
their six year longitudinal study of the self-concept
of academic ability and the impact of significant others

upon this concept.79

 

780on E. Hamachek, The Self in Growth, Teaching
and Learning: A Book of Readings (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.) has presented several articles
which illustrate the variance in point of view as to the
position which self-concept should hold in psychological
and sociological theory. See especially the following
articles: Camilla M. Anderson, "The Self—Image: A Theory
of the Dynamics of Behavior," Mental Hygiene, XXXVI
(April, 1952), 227-244; Peter A. Bertocci, "The Psycho-
logical Self, the Ego and the Personality," Psychological
Review, LII (March, 1945), 91-99; Bartlett H. Stoodley,
”The Dynamics of the Conscious and Unconscious," The Concepts
of Sigmund Freud, (New York: The Free Press, a Corporation,
1959); Clark E. Moustakas, "True Experience and the Self,"
The Self: pExplorationS in Personal Growth (New York: Harper,
1956); M. Brewster Smith, "The Need for a Phenomenological
Approach in Personality Theory: Some Criticai Remarks,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLV (November,
1950), 516-522; Donald Snygg, "The Need for a Phenomenological
System of Psychology," Psychological Review, XLVIII (September,
1941), 404-424; Donald Snygg and Arthur W. Combs, ”The
Phenomenological Approach and the Problem of "Unconscious"
Behavior: A Reply to Dr. Smith,” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XLV (November, 1950), 523-528; A. H.
Maslow, "Existential Psychology - What's In It for Us?"
ed. Rollo May, Existential Psychology (New York: Random
House Inc., 1961); and Carl R. Rogers and B. F. Skinner,
"Some Issues Concerning the Control of Human Behavior,"
Science, CXIV (November 30, 1956), 1057-1066.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79Wilbur B. Brookover, Self-Concept of Ability
and School Achievement III, Report of Cooperative Research
Project No. 2831, U.S. Office of Education (East Lansing,
Michigan: Educational Publication Services, College of
Education, Michigan State University, 1967), p.

 

 

51
The work of Brookover will be discussed in more
detail in a later section of this chapter. The
theoretical base from which the concepts used by
Brookover has stemmed from the earlier work of Charles

81

H. Cooley80 and George H. Mead. A recent book by

John W. Kinch has stated this self—concept framework in
a very concise form.82

The first sections of this chapter will present
factors which appear to be important in the development
and evolution of the self-concept of children.

The last section will describe the theoretical
position taken by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover and associates
which it is hoped will help provide the theoretical
framework from which to answer some of the questions
which surround the promotion—nonpromotion dilemma.

Several different terms are used by various authors
that are quoted and referred to in the following sections.
Self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-regard, self—image,
and self-assurance are terms which may vary somewhat in
definition, but all refer to the general framework of

the self-concept.

 

80Charles H. Cooley, Human Nature and the Social
Order (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902).

 

81George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1934).

 

82John W. Kinch, ”A Formalized Theory of the
Self—Concept,” The American Journal of Sociology,
LXVIII (March, 1963),I481-486.

 

52
The Development of the Self—Concept

 

The self-concept is thought by many in the
literature to be an integral part of the human being
from early in his psychosexual and social development
until the time of his death.83 Through his interactions
with others the child comes to see himself much as he
perceives those who are important to him see him. The
self-concept appears to be very dependent upon significant
others, and is affected by changes in these important

people.8u

Thus, although the self—concept becomes an
integral part of the individual, such factors as the

stage of psychosexual development, group and peer
affiliation, and significant others are influential in

the development and alteration of that self-concept.

Parents as Significant Others and Their
Impact Upon the Self—Concept
Several studies have provided evidence to the concept

that the significant others who are most important to

‘the development of the self—concept in children are

parents. Medinnus and Curtis have studied the relationship

 

83L. B. Ames, "The Sense of Self of Nursery School
Children as Manifested by their Verbal Behavior,” Journal
of Genetic Psychology, LXXXI (February, 1962), 193-232.
Ames estimates that the child becomes aware of himself
as a distinct individual sometime during his first year.

 

8“For a more detailed description of the
theoretical foundation upon which the "significant other"
is based, see Mead, op. cit.

53

between self-accaptance and child acceptance in a non-
clinical group of mothers of young children. The authors
made use of two measures of self—acceptance and one
measure of child acceptance that were given to fifty—six
mothers in a parent participating cooperative nursery
school. They hypothesized that a significant positive
relationship existed between maternal self-acceptance
and child acceptance, and found that it was supported
by their data.85

The relationship of parental interest to the child's
level of self—esteem has been investigated by Morris
Rosenberg in a study of high school juniors and seniors.
By use of a questionnaire which was answered by a
stratified sample of children from ten New York State
high schools, the author was able to determine that
rather extreme indifference of the part of the parent
is associated with peer self-esteem, but that whether the
interest in the child is strong or mild appears to make

less difference. Rosenberg also found that students

 

85Gene R. Medinnus and Floyd J. Curtis, "The
Relation Between Maternal Self-Acceptance and Child
Acceptance," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXVII
(December, 1963), 542-544. The self-acceptance measures
were the Bills Index of Adjustment and Values (Bills,
Vance, and McLean, 1951), and a semantic differential
scale of 20 bipolar adjectives in which the distance
between the mother's ratings of "me (as I am)" and "me
(as I would like to be)" was defined operationally as the
extent of self-acceptance. The child acceptance measure
consisted of the same set of bipolar adjective with the
distance between the mother's ratings of "my child (as
he is)" and ”my child (as I would like him to be)" defined
as the extent of maternal acceptance of the child.

 

54
who report only punitive responses tend to have lower
self-esteem than those who report only supportive
responses, but students who report indifferent responses
have lower self-esteem than either of these groups. An
illustration was given in which students who said their
mothers were dissatisfied with their poor marks had
higher self-esteem than those who said their mothers
seldom commented on their marks.86 The old cliche'
that one would rather have negative attention than have
no attention at all appears to be supported by Rosenberg's
findings. Rosenberg concluded his study by writing that:
Of course, it is probably not simply interest

which accounts for the observed relationships.

Very likely such lack of interest in the child goes

along with lack of love, a failure to treat the

child with respect, a failure to give him

encouragement, a tendency to consider the child

something of a nuisance and to treat him with

irritation, impatience, and anger. But whatever

other kinds of parental behavior may be reflected

in these indicators, they probably at least reflect

the idea that the child is important to someone

else, that others consider him of worth, of value,

of concern. The feeling that one is important

to a significant other is probably essentiaé to

the development of a feeling of self-worth. 7

Thus it would appear that it is very important to

the development of the self-concept of children that

parents be able to accept themselves, as well as to be

 

86Morris Rosenberg, ”Parental Interest and
Children's Self-Conception,” Sociometry, XXVI (March,
1963),.35-49. Rosenberg measured self-esteem by means
of a ten-item Guttman scale which has a satisfactory
level of reproducibility and scalability.

 

871bid., p. 49.

55

interested in their children.88

Further evidence of the importance of parents as
significant others was found by Brookover in the area
of self-concept of ability and school achievement.
Since this study will be dealt with in considerable
detail later in this chapter the author will not go into
detail to describe the procedures and methodogy at this
point. Generally, Brookover found that the significant
others who were by far most significantly responsible for
a change in the self—concept of academic ability of
children to be the child's parents. Teachers and friends
had much less impact upon this aspect of the self-concept
when compared to parents, although teachers and friends
did appear to be important.89

The importance of the teacher to the self-concept
of children and academic achievement is illustrated in
the following section.

The Teacher as Significant Other
and Academic Achievement
The importance of the perception of children of

their teacher's feelings toward them as related to

 

88For further discussion on this topic, see for
instance: Beatrice Simcox Reiner and Irving Kaufman,
Character Disorders in Parents of Delinquents (New York:
Family Service Association of America, 1959). The volume
presents a very clear picture of what can happen to
children of parents who are not truly capable of being
interested in their children.

 

89Brookover, Self-Concept of Ability and School
Achievement, III, pp. 69—79.

 

 

56

self—perception, school achievement and behavior has
been studied by Davidson and Lang. A check list of
trait names, cpnsisting of 35 descriptive terms was
administered to 89 boys and 114 girls in grades four,
five, and six, in a New York City public school. The
subjects were rated by their teachers for achievement
and on several behavioral characteristics. The major
findings of the study were: (1) the children's
perception of their teacher's feelings toward them
correlated positively and significantly with self-
perception-- the child with the more favorable self
image was the one who more likely than not perceived
his teacher's feelings toward him more favorably; and
(2) the more positive the children's perception of their
teacher's feelings, the better was their academic
achievement, and the more desirable their classroom
behavior as rated by the teachers.90

Staines has made note of the importance of the
enhancement of the self-concept for academic achievement.
He has stated that:

Its presence should be recognized and
its importance stressed by all teachers, and its
controlled development made a major teaching aim.
But since the psychology of the self has been
little emphasized in courses on educational

psychology and not at all by traditional practice
in schools, it is certain that few teachers are

 

90Helen H. Davidson and Gerhard Lang, ”Children's
Perceptions of Their Teacher's Feelings Toward Them
Related to Self-Perception, School Achievement and
Behavior," Journal of Experimental Education, XXXIX
(December, 1960), 107-118.

 

57

aware of its importance. The implications for

pre-service and in—service training are clear,

but much more research must be done in the field.91

Not only are the parents, teachers and friends of
a child important to the development of his self-concept
of academic ability, but research demonstrates that the
organizational climate of the school, grouping procedures,
and situational significant others are also important.
Since these factors do not appear to be as important as
the other topics with which this study is concerned,
they will not be dealt with in detail. See the bibliography
of this study for relevant articles on the before mentioned
topics.

The topic of failure and its impact upon the self-

concept of ability of children is considered in the next

section.

Failure: Its Impact Upon the Self—Concept

 

There have been many studies which have shown that
stress and pressure over fear of failure do not enhance
the self—concept, but rather they tend to lower it
significantly. This finding is relevant to education,
for nonpromotion can very easily be interpreted as
failure by a child.

In a study on the levels of aspiration, behavior,

and feelings of adequacy and self acceptance, Cohen used

 

91J. N. Staines, "Self—Picture as a Factor in the
Classroom," British Journal of Educational Psychology,
XXVIII (June, 1958), 111.

 

58
analysis by college students of incidents of their own
lives to obtain the following generalizations:

1. Success generally leads to a rising of the
level of aspiration, and failure to a
lowering.

2. The stronger the success, the greater is the
probability of a rise in level of aspiration;
the stronger the failure, the greater is the
probability of a lowering.

3. Shifts in level of aspiration are in part a
function of changes in the subject's 92
confidence in his ability to attain goals.

Suinn and Hill have also been interested in the

prediction that anxiety, which may be caused by fear of
failure, significantly influences the relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptance of others. In an
effort to measure the degree of correlation between self
acceptance and other acceptance the authors used the
Phillips Self-Other Questionnaire. To gain a measurement
of anxiety, they made use of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale and the Sarason General Anxiety Questionnaire as
measures for generalized anxiety, and the Sarason Test
Anxiety Questionnaire as a measure for specific test
anxiety. The tests were then administered to ninety-two
students enrolled in summer and fall general psychology
classes at two colleges. The results of the study
indicate that: (l) anxiety is significantly associated

with both lowered self-acceptance and lowered acceptance

of others; and (2) anxiety disrupts the self—acceptance

 

92L. D. Cohen, ”Levels-of—Aspiration, Behavior,
and Feelings of Adequacy and Self-Acceptance," Journal
of Abnormal and Social Ppychology, XLIV (July, 1949),
314.

 

59

at a greater rate than acceptance of others; and (3) when
it is low, anxiety permits the usual self-acceptance and
acceptance of others correlation to exist.93

Horowitz, in an effort to determine the relationship
of anxiety, self-concept, and sociometric status,
administered the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale, the
Children's Self—Concept Scale, and a ranking sociometric
to 111 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children. The
author's results indicated that the more anxious children
tended to hold poorer self-concepts and tended to be less
popular than less anxious children.9l‘l These findings
are similar to those of McCandless, Castaneda and Palermo,
who found by means of the Children's Manifest Anxiety
Scale, a negative correlation between anxiety and socio-
metric status among fourth and fifth graders such that

the more anxious children tended to be less popular.95

 

93Richard M. Suinn and Hunter Hill, "Influence of
Anxiety on the Relationship Between Self-Acceptance and
Acceptance of Others,” Journal of Consulting Psychology,
XXVIII (April, 1964), 116-119.

 

94Frances D. Horowitz, "The Relationship of Anxiety
Self-Concept, and Sociometric Status Among Fourth, Fifth,
and Sixth Grade Children," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, LXV (September, 1962), 212-214.

 

 

95B. R. McCandless, A. Castaneda, and D. S.
Palermo, "Anxiety in Children and Social Status," Child
Development, XXVII (September, 1956), 385-392. See also
R. D. Trent, ”The Relationship of Anxiety to Popularity
and Rejection Among Institutionalized Delinquent Boys,"
Child Development, XXVIII (September, 1957), 379-38 ;

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 (December, 1958),
463-472; and S. Coopersmith, ”A method for Determining
Types of Self—Esteem," Journal of Abnormal and Social

 

 

 

 

60

Greenberg and Tannenbaum, members of the relatively
new behavioral science of communications, attempted to
determine the effect of cognitive stress upon communicator
performance. They divided fifty-five Journalism students
into three groups, each group receiving a different
message and asked to write a story from the message. One
of the groups received a message which was counter to
their beliefs and therefore stressful; another group
received a supportive message; and a third group received
no message. The students were then judged on the
effectiveness with which they wrote the story from the
message, both from the structural characteristics of
the message and a five step adjective scale filled in by
judges to access the mood of the student. The authors
found that the messages of the stress produced group
contained more errors, were shorter, took a longer time
to write, and were less readable than the other groups.
The judges ratings also gave this indication.96

The fact that identification of variables that lead

 

Psychology, LIX (July, 1959), 87—94; E. Stotland and

A. Zander, "Effects of Public and Private Failure on
Self—Evaluations," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, LVI (March, 1958), 223, 229; Stanley
Coopersmith, "Relationship Between Self-Esteem and
Sensory (Perceptual Constancy)” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, LXVIII (February, 1964), 217-221;

0. J. Harvey, H. H. Kelly, and M. M. Shapiro, "Reactions
to Unfavorable Evaluations of the Self Made By Other
Persons," Journal of Personality, XXV (December, 1957),
398-411.

 

 

 

 

 

 

96Bradley Greenberg and Percy Tannenbaum,
"Communicator Performance Under Cognitive Stress,"
Journalism Quarterly, XXXIX (Spring, 1962), 169-178.

 

61
to a change in self-concept is a difficult task is
noted by Brookover:

It is important to note that the research
literature indicates that change in self-concept
as a response to failure is influenced not by one,
but by several variables, although the nature of
the association are not usually specified beyond
indicating correlation.97
Lafferty has written with respect to the effects of

stress and anxiety due to a threat of failure:
A free and responsible citizen is not produced
by failure but by success, not by rejection,
isolation, and prejudice, but by feeling as if he
belonged, by a belief in the possibility of altering
his own life pattern, by an expectancy that he can
succeed and by the belief in his own intrinsic
worth.98
It can be concluded from the foregoing that stress
and anxiety, which can be produced by threat of failure,
can bring about a lowering of self-concept and self-
concept of ability. Thus it may be possible that
nonpromotion in a grade could lead to a loss in self-
concept of ability.

Threat of failure can be closely associated with

school achievement and self-concept of academic ability.

The next section deals with this topic.

 

97Brookover, Self-Concept of Ability and School
Achievement, II, 23.

 

98J. Clayton Lafferty, Values That Defeat Learning
(Proceedings of the Eighth Inter-Institutional Seminar
in Child Development held in 1962), p. 18.

62

School Achievement and the Self-Concept

 

The available research appears to indicate that
self—concept and school achievement are positively
related. Evidence in support of this position has been
found by Bruck and Bodwin in their study on the relation-
ship of the self-concept and scholastic underachievement.
The authors utilized the Self-Concept Scale of the
Machover Draw—A—Person Tests and correlated the scores
with the presence or absence of underachievement for
thirty children with learning difficulties and thirty
underachievers. They obtained a significant correlation
of .60, indicating a positive relationship between
underachievers and a low self-concept.99 Silverman
found similar results with college students.100

Stevens, using a group of college students as
subjects, compared a group of fifty-two sophomores who
were on the honor roll with a group of forty-nine
sophomores who had been on probation because of poor
grades. He controlled for intelligence by only
considering subjects who scored on or above the 75th
percentile of the Hemmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability.

The Guilford—Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the

 

99Max Bruck and R. F. Bodwin, "The Relationship
Between Self-Concept and the Presence and Absence of
Scholastic Underachievement," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, XVIII (April, 1962), 181-182.

 

 

lOOIrwin Silverman, "Self—Esteem and Differential
Responsiveness to Success and Failure,” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXIX (July, 1964), 115-119.

 

 

63
American Council on Education Psychological Examination
were used to measure self insight for all subjects. The
students were requested to rate themselves on ten
personality traits on a five-step ”Acceptance-Rejection"
scale which was specifically designed for the study
to measure self—acceptance. As a final task the
students were asked to rank the ten personality traits
of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey in the order
in which they appeared most salient to them in their own
personalities.lOl The author received the following
results:

1. Academically successful or achieving students
showed better self-insight into their
intellectual abilities than unsuccessful or
failing students. It was suggested that the
poorer self-evaluation of the academically
unsuccessful students which was reflected in
a distorted self-picture of their intellectual
abilities had been due to defense mechanisms
used to compensate for academic failure.

When the subjects were asked to estimate
their own test performances on ten personality
traits of the G-Z as a measure of self-insight
the two groups could not be differentiated
consistently.

2. When academically successful students were
compared to unsuccessful students with
reference to the degree to which they accepted
or rejected themselves on the ten personality
traits of the G-Z it was found that the group
which was high in achievement showed a much
greater degree of self—acceptance than non-
achieving students who tended to reject them-
selves. While previous studies had mainly
stressed external rejection of authority as
the cause of academic failure the present

 

101P. H. Stevens, "An Investigation of the Relationship
Between Certain Aspects of Self-Concept Behavior and
Students' Academic Achievement," Dissertation Abstract,
XVI (December, 1956), 2531-2532.

 

64

findings suggested that such external attitudes
of rejection may become internalized.

3. The hypothesis that academically successful
students differ from those who are successful
with regard to the salience that they attach to
the personality traits which were here under
investigation was confirmed by the results of
this experiment. The results also showed that
successful college students conceive of their
achievement-related personality characteristics
as more salient than students who underachieve.

The conclusion was drawn that the three
dimensions of the self-concept (self-insight,
self—acceptance, salience of personality traits)
which were investigated in this study are
related to academic achievement.102

Martin Fink, becoming aware in the clinical practice

of school psychology of the relationship between academic
achievement and the self-concept, conducted a study to
document his perceptions. Pairs of achievers and under-
achievers were formed, based on grade-point average and
matched for sex and IQ. The Groups consisted of eighty-
eight students from the freshman class of a rural
California high school, twenty matched pairs of boys and
twenty-four matched pairs of girls. The psychological
data collected from these students was submitted to three
judges, composed of two school psychologists and a
clinical psychologist working with children. They were
asked to make a clinical judgment as to the adequacy or
inadequacy of the self-concept of each student. The
results of Fink's study appears to confirm the hypothesis

that a relationship does exist between adequacy of self-

concept and level of academic achievement. The results

 

102Ibid., p. 2532.

65
were especially clear for males, but not so for girls.103

Studies by Renzaglia and Reeder, using general
personality traits to determine self-concept have also
found that a positive general self—concept is significantly
related to high academic achievement.lou

Sopis has conducted a study of the self-concept of
ability of a specific area-- that of reading. Pupils
were screened from grades two through five with the
Colvin Silhouette Test and rated high, average, or low
self image as a reader, as a physical education student,
as a music student, and as a smart or independent child.
The author assigned pupils to motivational states using
the foregoing ratings as variables.

Thirty boys who had high, average, and low self—
concept as a reader and high self—concept as a physical
education student were told that they were to do a reading
task, whereas thirty boys with high, average, and low
self—concept as a reader and high self-concept as a
physical education student were instructed that they were

to do a gym task. Thirty boys with high, average, and

low self-concept as a reader and high self-concept in

 

103Martin B. Fink, "Self-Concept as It Relates
to Academic Underachievement," California Journal of
Educational Research, x111 (March, 1962), 57-62.

 

 

104G. A. Renzaglia, "Some Correlates of the Self
Structure as Measured by an Index of Adjustment and
Values,” (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Minnesota, 1952); Thelma A. Reeder, "A Study of
Some Relationships Between Level of Self-Concept,
Academic Achievement and Classroom Adjustment,"
Dissertation Abstracts, XV (December, 1955), 2472.

 

66
"smartness or independence" were told that the task they
were to do was easy for a boy who was smart or able to
take care of himself. This same procedure was followed
for girls with the exception that music motivation and
music self-concept was substituted for physical education
motivation and self-concept.

A supplementary design was made possible from the
number of subjects for boys. Consequently, thirty boys
with high, average, and low self-concepts as a reader
and low self—concepts as a physical education student were
told they were to do a reading task. Also, thirty
additional boys with the same variables were told they
were to do a gym task. Within the boy's and girl's
designs, cells were comparable on IQ scores earned on
the Lorge—Thorndike Intelligence Test. Rows were
comparable in reading ability measured on the Stanford
Achievement Reading Subtest. All pupils were administered
the disguised reading task which differed in level of
difficulty and decorative motifs.

Sopis concluded from her data that there is a
variable called self—concept as a reader, and that for
boys, this variable does effect reading achievement.

She also found that: (1) boys with a high self-concept
as a reader have better reading achievement than boys
with average or low self-concept; (2) for boys, a poor
self-concept in an academic area depresses performance
to a greater degree than a good self-concept in the

same area improves performance; and (3) the reading

67

achievement of girls in grades two through five is
comparable to the achievement of boys in these groups.105

From the foregoing it can be concluded that the
evidence now available indicates a positive relationship
between self—concept of academic ability and academic
achievement. It is in this specific area that Dr. Wilbur
B. Brookover has centered his research. The next section
will include a discussion of the work of Brookover and
associates.

Self-Concept of Academic Ability:
The Wilbur B. Brookover Studies

 

 

As can be readily seen from the foregoing studies,
the self-concept has been defined and measured in many
different ways. Ruth Wylie, in her 1961 extensive
review of the literature of the self-concept, has been
critical of the work being done in the area of self-
concept theory. Wylie has noted that the empirical
evidence supporting the theories is limited when compared
to the amount of work expended. She believes this to be
due in part to four main factors:

1. The lack of proper scientific characteristics

of the theories themselves;

2. The inevitable difficulties encountered in
formulating relevant, well-controlled research
in a new area;

3. The understandable fact that individual
researchers in a new area are not part of a

planned research program, and therefore
cannot be easily synthesized;

 

105Josephine F. Sopis, "The Relationship of Self-
Image as a Reader to Reading Achievement," Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI (May, 1966), 6518.

 

 

68
4. Avoidable methodological flaws.106
Wylie noted that the general study of the past
has attempted to cover too large an area of ground,
recommending that future research be concerned with
more specific aspects of the self—concept. She also
recommended that more limited and well-analyzed
measuring instruments be developed to aid in collecting
the data from the more narrower area.107
Brookover, in a series of studies on expressed
self—concept of academic ability and school achievement,
has met many of the criteria and criticisms of Wylie.108
Brookover's work has centered around three main
projects sponsored jointly by the Cooperative Research
Program of the United States Office of Education and
Michigan State University. The projects represent
continuous phases of a six-year longitudinal study of
the relation of self-concept of academic ability to
school achievement among students in one school class
while in the seventh through the twelfth grade.109

The research has been based on the symbolic interactionist

theory of behavior, which has been developed by

 

106Wylie, op. cit.

1071bid., pp. 322-323.

 

108Brookover, op. cit.

109Brookover, Self-Concept of Ability and School
Achievement, III, iii.

 

 

69
George H. MeadllO and C. H. Cooley.lll

The basic theory of the research of Brookover
postulates that human behavior is a function of the
expectations and evaluations of others who are
significant to the actor as perceived by him and as
internalized in a self-conception of what is appropriate
and proper for him to do and what he is able to do. The
author defined self-concept of ability as referring to
"the evaluating definitions an individual holds of his

ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with

others in his school class."112

The basic propositions of the theory of self-
concept of ability assert that:

. A student's self- -concept of academic
ability results from his perceptions of the
evaluations significant other 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 expect-
ations and evaluations of significant others and
evaluations of significant others and school
achievement. The relationship of perceived
evaluations of significant others is conceptualized
as necessary and sufficient condition, i.e., a
change in the perceived evaluations of others will
be reflected in a change in self-concept. The
relationship 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 occurence of a particular level
of academic performance.11

 

110George H. Mead, op. cit.
111C. H. Cooley, op. cit.
112Brookover, op. cit., p. 139-
ll3lplg., p. 140.

7O

Brookover found that parents were the most
important significant others over the six year period.
Friends, who were at no point as important Significant
others as were parents to the self-concept of academic
ability, tended to become more important to the subjects
as time passed. Thus, in the later years of adolescence
the peer group became more important than it had
previously.llu From the Brookover data, teachers were
not seen by children as being as important significant
others as their parents or friends, but yet had some
influence.

The findings indicated that a change in self-
concept of academic ability over two year periods was
significantly related to parallel change in grade—point
average.115

Brookover has written that:

The relationships supporting the social
psychological theory of school learning presented
here are not therefore greatly affected by
variation in either measured intelligence or
socio-economic status. Rather, the evidence
indicates that much of the correlation between
these variables and school achievement is
accounted for by variation in self-concept
of ability.11
The instrument which was used by Brookover to

measure self-concept of ability was developed especially

for the study. The evidence accumulated from research

 

11“Ibid., p. 141.
ll51bid., p. 143.
116Ibid., p. 145.

71
employing the Michigan State University Self-Concept
of Academic Ability Scale suggests that it is able
to predict accurately theoretically-derived relationships
suggested by the symbolic interactionist framework.117
Paterson has noted that:
Guttman scalogram analysis, factor analysis
and individual item analysis all affirm the
basic homogeneity of the Scale with respect to
content, although a minor time dimension was
found in factor analysis which distinguished
present-oriented from future oriented items.118
Paterson has also noted that there is some evidence
that the Scale can be utilized effectively across
different IQ and social class levels, although detailed
analysis by sub-group has not been made.119 Paterson
has also noted that there is "ample evidence to suggest

that all analysis using the Scale should be done

separate1y for males and females."120

Summary of Review of the Literature

 

This chapter has been devoted to the dilemma
surrounding the educational practice of nonpromotion is

a grade. The available evidence has indicated that

 

117Ann Paterson, "Reliability and Validity of
Self-Concept of Ability Scale," Self-Concepp of Ability
and School Achievement III, ed. Wilbur B. Brookover.
(East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Publication
Services, College of Education, Michigan State University,

1967).
118Ibid., p. 169.

 

 

1191bid., p. 171.

120Ibid., pp. 171-172.

72
nonpromotion of boys appears to negatively affect their
academic achievement and their social and emotional states
of being.

The self-concept, which has been defined in many
ways, was defined in this section as the symbolic behavior
in which the individual articulates a program of action
for himself as an object in relation to others. It was
stated that the self-concept is not a static phenomenon,
but is ever changing and complex. It appears to be
affected by the child's stage of psychosexual development,
parent, friend, and teacher association, as well as by
anxiety and stress brought about by fear of failure,
which may be connected to one of many educational practices
or policies-

The significant others of a child appear to be very
important in the development and evolution of his or her
self-concept of academic ability. It appears that the
parents of a child are the most important significant
others, although friends and teachers are also important
as significant others, and that how a child perceives
his parents as seeing his academic ability will often
determine how well he performs.

Since nonpromotion in a grade could have an impact
upon the self-concept of academic ability of a child
because of the impact of failure upon himself and upon
how he visualizes those who are significant to him
seeing him, an attempt will be made in this study to

answer the questions put forth in chapter I by finding

73

if a relationship does exist between nonpromotion and
self-concept of academic ability.
The next chapter will include the instrumentation

and research procedures used in this study.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY

The research procedures of this study will be
discussed under five general headings: (1) Identifi-
cation of the problem; (2) Hypotheses to be tested;
(3) Sampling procedures; (4) Instrumentation, and (5)

Procedures for treatment of the data.

Identification of the Population

 

Information about the students was obtained from
their cumulative school records at each of the three
junior high schools in which the students were enrolled.

The total population used for this study was
composed of 350 male seventh grade students who had
attended the urban Middlewest school system throughout
their school careers. This was from a total of 550
seventh grade boys in the school system. The other
200 had either left the school system and returned,
or had entered the system after the kindergarten year.

’ This was done because of the vastly different promotional
practices in various school systems which could have
affected the results of the study. Only the students

who had been in the regular classroom program of the

system were included. The nonpromoted population was

74

75

composed of fifty-three males who had been nonpromoted

once in their school careers. The continuously promoted

population consisted of 297 male students who had not

undergone the experience of being nonpromoted.

Hypotheses to be Tested

 

The following null hypotheses have been derived

in an effort to determine if a relationship exists

between nonpromotion and the variables concerned.

Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis II:

Hypothesis III:

There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male
students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to self-
concept of academic ability
(SCA).

There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male
students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to per-
ceived parental evaluations of
their academic ability (PPEV).
There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male
students and nonpromoted male

students with respect to

76
perceived teachers' evaluations
of their academic ability (PTEV).
Hypothesis IV: There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male
students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to per-
ceived friends' evaluations of
their academic ability (PFEV).
Hypothesis V: There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male
students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to sixth

grade grade-point average (GPA).

Sampling Procedures

 

The entire population of 350 male students, as
has been defined in previous sections of this study, was
used to arrive at mean scores for the children on the
variables of academic ability, socio-economic status,
grade-point average, and race. Since the before mentioned
variables could possibly have an effect upon the variables
of self—concept of academic ability, perceived parental
evaluations of the student's academic ability, perceived
teachers' evaluations of the students academic ability,
and perceived friends' evaluations of the student's

academic ability, as was noted in chapter two of this

study,

77

the variables were partialled out. This was done

by comparison of matched groups.

Matched groups were arrived at by randomly

selecting continuously promoted students to match the

nonpromoted sample of students in each cell of the

appropriate characteristics. Table 3.1 contains the

composition of the matched groups. A table of random

numbers was used for the selection of the groups.1

Instrumentation

 

The following instruments were given to the

students during the third week of September, 1967.

1.

R)

The Michigan State University Self-Concept
of Academic Ability Scale (SCA) (Appendix A)
The Michigan State University Perceived
Parental Evaluations of Ability Scale (PPEV)
(Appendix B)

The Michigan State University Perceived
Friends' Evaluations of Ability Scale (PFEV)
(Appendix C)

The Michigan State University Perceived
Teachers' Evaluation of Ability Scale (PTEV)

(Appendix D)

The Michigan State University General Self-Concept

of Academic Ability Scale (SCA) was developed by

 

lHubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960), pp. 437-440.

 

78
Table 3.1

Distribution of Promoted and Nonpromoted
Males Scoring Either High (H) or Low (L)
With Respect to IQ, Socio-Economic
Status, (SES) and GPA

 

Variables Groups Matched
Totals

IQ SES RACE GPA* Promoted Nonpromoted

H H Cauc H 64 l 2

H H Negro H 0 0 O

H H Cauc .L 42 1 2

H H Negro L 0 O 0

H L Cauc H 33 O O

H L Negro H 5 O 0

H L Cauc L 28 2 4

H L Negro L 3 l 2

L H Cauc H 2 0 O

L H Negro H l O 0

L H Cauc L 29 11 22

L H Negro L 3 1 2

L L Cauc H 7 O O

L L Negro H 3 0 0

L L Cauc L 55 31 62

L L Negro L 22 5 10
Totals 297 53 106

 

*GPA for grade in which nonpromoted child was
retained.

79

Dr. Wilbur Brookover and associates at Michigan State
University under U. S. O. E. Cooperative Research Project
Number 845. Each item on it and the other measuring
instruments is scored from five to one, with the higher
self-concept alternatives receiving the higher values.
On the SCA each item asks the student to compare
himself with others in his social system on the
dimension of academic competency. The three other
scales ask the student to rate himself as he would
perceive others (parents, teachers, friends) as seeing
him in comparison with others in his social system on

the dimension of academic competency.
Reliability of the Instruments

The reliability coefficients for the self-concept
of academic ability scale (SCA) are higher than those
typically reported for attitude tests. Hoyt's Analysis
of Variance Reliability Coefficients for 513 male
seventh graders was found by Brookover to be .820. For
eighth graders, Brookover found Hoyt's Analysis of
Variance scores for the perceived parental evaluations
of ability, perceived teachers' evaluations, and per-
ceived friends' evaluations of ability to be .838, .918,
and .755 respectively.

All of the foregoing are adequate for group
comparisons. The scores for the latter three scales

are, as for the former scale, higher than those typically

80

reported for attitude measures.2
Other Data Used

Data which was essential to the study was obtained
from the cumulative school records of the students. The
data obtained was:

1. The two most recent Lorge-Thorndike

Intelligence Tests given the student.
These were used because of a change in
intelligence tests used during the school
careers of the students.

2. The promotional record of each child.

3. The race of each child.

4. Academic grades for each year in which the

child attended school for spelling, reading,
social studies, and arithmetic.

The occupation of the father or mother of

Ul

each student, which is kept up to date in

the cumulative folder.

Procedures for Treatment of the Data

 

The five hypotheses were tested using the matched
groups of promoted and nonpromoted seventh grade males.
Chi—square analysis was used to determine the relation-

ships of the variables to nonpromotion. Two by two

 

2Brookover, op. cit., pp. 60-61.

81

contingency tables were used. The formula used was:

N( lAD-BCI y)2
2
(A+B) (C+D) (A+C) (B+D)

x2: d.f. =1

 

Siegel notes that the formula has the advantage
of incorporating a correction for continuity which
markedly improves the approximation of the distribution

of the computed X2 by the chi-square distribution.3
Dichotomization of Variables

Chi—square analysis requires the classification
of data into two discrete categories. For each of the
variables in which it was appropriate, a mean score was
computed, and the scores were placed in either a high
or low category. For the variables of academic ability,
socio-economic status, grade-point average, and race,
the entire population was used in the computation. For
the dichotomization of self-concept of academic ability,
perceived parental evaluations of academic ability,
perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability, and
perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability scores,
the mean score was arrived at from a random sample of 100
male seventh grade students. This was done because of
the logistical difficulties which would have been
encountered in testing the entire population. All of the

nonpromoted students and the matched population were tested.

 

3Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956), pp. 107-108.

 

82
The mean scores, ranges, race composition, and
number of students involved in the study is presented

in table 3.2

Table 3.2

Mean Scores of Variables and Ranges of Scores
for High and Low Categories for
Dichotomization of Variables

 

Variable Mean Low High Number
Academic 101.8 101 or 102 or 350
Ability (IQ) Below Above
Socio-economic 38.09 1—38 38-100 350
Status
*Grade Point 2.6 0-2.5 3.0-4.0 350
Average
Self-Concept 28.47 0-28 29—40 100
Academic
Ability ,

PPEV 19.08 0-18 19-25 100
PTEV 18.65 0—18 19—25 100
PFEV 18.99 0—18 19-25 100

 

*Grade—point average was computed for each grade,
and was within .02 of a point of 2.6 for each grade, so
the average used was 2.6.

Summary

Chapter three has included a description of the
research procedures employed in this study. Identifi-
cation of the population, the hypotheses to be tested,
and the sampling procedures were covered in detail. The

instrumentation and the statistical procedures for

83
treatment of the data were discussed in the latter
sections of the chapter. Chapter four will contain
an analysis of data using the statistical procedures

described in the foregoing.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The purpose of this chapter is to present an
analysis of the data which was theoretically derived
and supported from the previous chapters of this study.
It will contain an analysis of the relationship of the
educational practice of nonpromotion and the variables
of self-concept of academic ability, perceived parental
evaluations of academic ability, perceived teachers'
evaluations of academic ability, perceived friends'
evaluations of academic ability, and sixth grade grade-

point average.

Analysis of the Relationships

 

The level of academic ability, socio-economic
status of the family, grade-point average, and race were
the variables upon which the nonpromoted males and
continuously promoted males were matched. The comparison
of the seventh grade continuously promoted males and
nonpromoted males was made to test the following null
hypotheses that no significant differences existed between
the two sub—populations on the stated criteria.

Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differ-

ences between matched groups of

84

85

continuously promoted male
students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to self-
concept of academic ability.

The population mean score for self-concept of
academic ability (SCA), presented in table 3.2 was 28.47
of a possible 40. Of the 53 continuously promoted male
students, 17 (32%) were classified as having high scores
of 29 or above, while 8 (15%) of the 53 nonpromoted
students were placed in the high category.

Chi-square analysis was used to test hypothesis
one. A rejection limit of .05 was established. The
results of this analysis are presented in table 4.1.
Examination of the table indicates that continuously
promoted male students and nonpromoted male students
differed significantly with respect to self-concept of
academic ability, even when the academic ability, socio-
economic status, race, and grade-point average differences
had been partialled out. This difference was significant
at the .02 level of confidence. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that no significant differences exist between
matched groups of continuously promoted male students
and nonpromoted male students with respect to level of

self-concept of academic ability was rejected.

Hypothesis II: There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of

continuously promoted male

86
Table 4.1
Chi—Square Analysis of Association Between

Matched Groups of Continuously Promoted Males and
Level of Self-Concept of Academic Ability

 

Self-Concept of Ability

 

Groups Totals
High Low
Promoted l7 36 53
Nonpromoted 8 45 53
Totals 25 81 106
x2 = 5.23 1 d.f. Significant Beyond the

.02 Level of Confidence

students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to per-
ceived parental evaluations of
their academic ability (PPEV).
The population mean score for perceived parental
evaluations of academic ability, presented in table 3.2
was 19.08 of a possible 25. Of the 53 continuously
promoted male students 23 were classified as having
high scores of 19 or above, while 17 of the 53 non-
promoted male students scored in the high category.
Chi-square analysis was used to test hypothesis
two. A rejection limit of .05 was established. The
results of this analysis are presented in table 4.2.
Examination of the table indicates that continuously

promoted male students and nonpromoted male students

87
did not differ significantly with respect to perceived
parental evaluations of their academic ability, even
when academic ability, socio-economic status, race, and
grade—point average differences had been partialled out.
This difference was significant at the .16 level of
confidence. Therefore, the null hypothesis that no
.significant differences exist between matched groups of
continuously promoted male students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to level of perceived parental

evaluations of their academic ability was accepted.

Table 4.2

Chi—Square Analysis of Association Between
Matched Groups of Continuously Promoted Males and
Nonpromoted Males and Level of Perceived Parental

Evaluations of Their Academic Ability

 

Perceived Parental Evaluations

 

Groups Totals
High Low
Nonpromoted 17 36 53
Promoted 23 3O 53
Totals 40 66 106
x‘ : 1.96 1 d.f. Significant Beyond

the .16 Level

Hypothesis 111: There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male

students and nonpromoted male

88

students with respect to per-

ceived teacher evaluations of

their academic ability (PTEV).

The population mean score for perceived teachers'
evaluations of academic ability, presented in table 3.2
was 18.65 of a possible 25. 0f the 53 continuously
promoted male students 18 were classified as having high
scores of 19 or above, while 16 of the 53 nonpromoted
male students were placed in the high category.
Chi-square analysis was used to test hypothesis

three. A rejection limit of .05 was established. The
results of this analysis are presented in table 4.3
Examination of the table indicates that continuously
promoted male students and nonpromoted male students
did not differ significantly with respect to perceived
teacher evaluations of their academic ability, even
when academic ability, socio—economic status, race, and
grade—point average differences had been partialled out.
This difference was significant at the .60 level of
confidence. Therefore, the null hypothesis that no
significant differences exist between matched groups of
continuously promoted male students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to level of perceived teachers'

evaluation of their academic ability was accepted.

Hypothesis IV: There are no significant differ-
ences between matched groups of

continuously promoted male

89
Table 4.3

Chi-Square Analysis of Association Between
Matched Groups of Continuously Promoted and
Nonpromoted Males and Level of Perceived
Teachers' Evaluations of Their Academic Ability

 

Self—Concept of Ability

 

Groups Totals
High Low
Nonpromoted 16 37 53
Promoted 18 35 53
Totals 34 72 106
x2 : .309 Significant Beyond

the .60 Level

students and nonpromoted male
students with respect to per-
ceived friends' evaluations of
their academic ability (PFEV).

The population mean score for perceived friends'
evaluations of academic ability, presented in table 3.2
was 18.99 of a possible 25. Of the 53 continuously
promoted male students 16 were classified as having high
scores of 19 or above, while 16 of the nonpromoted male
students were placed in the high category.

Chi-square analysis was used to test hypothesis
four. A rejection limit of .05 was established. The
results of this analysis are presented in table 4.4
Examination of the table indicates that continuously

promoted male students and nonpromoted male students did

90
not differ significantly with respect to perceived
friends' evaluations of their academic ability, even
when academic ability, socio-economic status, race, and
grade-point average differences had been partialled out.
This difference was significant at the .85 level of
confidence. Therefore, the null hypothesis that no
significant differences exist between matched groups
of continuously promoted male students with respect to
level of perceived friends' evaluations of their

academic ability was accepted.

Table 4.4

Chi-Square Analysis of Association Between
Matched Groups of Continuously Promoted Males and
Nonpromoted Males and Level of Perceived Friends'

Evaluations of Their Academic Ability

 

Perceived Friends' Evaluations

 

Groups Totals
High Low
Nonpromoted 16 37 53
Promoted 16 37 53
Totals 32 74 106
X2 2 .044 1 d.f. Significant Beyond
.85 Level
Hypothesis V: There are no significant differ-

ences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male

students and nonpromoted male

91
students with respect to sixth
grade grade-point averages.

The population mean score for sixth grade grade-
point average, presented in table 3.2 was 2.6 of a
possible 4.0. Of the 53 continuously promoted male
students in the matched groups, 8 (15%) were classified
as having high scores of 3.0 or above, while 11 (20%) of
the 53 nonpromoted male students were classified as
having high scores.

Chi-square analysis was used for the test of
significance to measure hypothesis five. A rejection
limit of .05 was established. Table 4.5 contains the
results of this analysis. Examination of the table
indicated that there was no Significant difference
between the two sub—populations on sixth grade grade-
point average. Therefore, the null hypothesis that no
significant differences between matched groups of
continuously promoted male students and nonpromoted
male students with respect to sixth grade grade-point

average was accepted.
Summary

This chapter has presented an analysis of the
data derived from the previous chapters of the study.

For examining whether there was a relationship
between nonpromotion and the variables of self-concept
of academic ability, perceived parents' evaluations of

academic ability, perceived teachers' evaluations of

92
Table 4.5
Chi-Square Analysis of Association Between

Matched Groups of Continuously Promoted Males and
Nonpromoted Males and Sixth Grade Grade-Point Average

 

Grade-Point Average

 

Groups Totals
High Low
Nonpromoted ll 42 53
Promoted 8 45 53
Totals 19 87 106

2 . . .

X = .26 l d.f. Signlficant Beyond
.65 Level

academic ability, perceived friends' evaluations of
academic ability, sixth grade grade-point average,
matched groups were formed by partialling out the
variables of academic ability, socio-economic status,
race, and grade-point average in the grade in which

the nonpromoted student was nonpromoted. Chi-square
analysis was used to determine the relationships among
the variables for the hypotheses. A 2 x 2 contingency
table was used and null hypotheses were rejected when a
significance level of .05 or beyond was attained.

There was a significant difference found between
the promoted and nonpromoted matched groups with respect
to self-concept of academic ability, but no significant
difference in perceived parents' evaluations of academic

ability, even though a definite trend was obtained, no

93

significant difference in perceived teachers' evaluations
of academic ability, perceived friends' evaluations of
academic ability, and eventual sixth grade grade-point
average.

It was found in the process of group selection
when the entire population was studied that the non-
promoted population differed significantly from the
promoted population with respect to academic ability,
socio—economic background, and in eventual sixth grade
grade-point average. There was no significant difference
found in the percentage of male Negro or male Caucasian

students nonpromoted.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This chapter summarizes the purposes and findings
of the previous chapters, as well as the conclusions of
the investigation, followed by recommendations for
curriculum development and suggestions for future
research.

The basic purpose of this study was to determine
whether a relationship existed between the practice of
nonpromoting male students and the variables of:

1. The student's expressed self-concept of

academic ability.

2. The student's expressed perception of his

parents' evaluations of his academic ability.

3. The student's expressed perception of his

teachers' evaluations of his academic ability.

4. The student's expressed perception of his

friends' evaluations of his academic ability.

5. The sixth grade grade-point averages of the

children.

In order to investigate the foregoing variables
it was necessary to compare matched groups of nonpromoted

and promoted students. The matching was done on the

94

95

variables of race, socio-economic status, academic
ability, and grade-point average in the grade in which
the nonpromoted child was nonpromoted, which are noted
in numerous studies as contributing significantly to the
self-concept of children and their academic achievement
in school.

Academic ability was considered to be represented
by the mean score of the two most recent scores received
by all the students of the population on the Lorge-
Thorndike Test of Intelligence. Socio-economic status
was determined by a score assigned to the student's
fathers or in some instances, mothers, occupation.

This score was arrived at by using the scale developed
by Otis Duncan.

Grade-point averages were computed by assigning
number scores to the letter grades received by the male
students in spelling, reading, social studies, and,
arithmetic in each of the grades one through six.

The total population selected was composed of
350 seventh grade male students who had spent their
entire school careers in an urban Middlewest public school
system. Only the students who had been in the regular
classroom program were included. The nonpromoted
population was composed of fifty-three males who had
been nonpromoted in a grade once in their school careers.
The continuously promoted population consisted of 297
male students who had not been nonpromoted in a grade and

who met all of the before mentioned criteria.

96

Data for the self-concept of academic ability,
perceived parental evaluations of academic ability,
perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability,
and perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability,
was collected by administration of the questionnaires
developed by Wilbur B. Brookover to 206 seventh grade
male students in the fall of 1967.

Chi-square analysis was used to determine the
significance of the relationships explored. In all
comparisons a 2 x 2 contingency table design was used,
and the null hypotheses developed were rejected at the
.05 significance level.

In order to make use of the chi-square analysis it
was necessary to dichotomize the scores received by the
students into high and low categories on academic ability,
socio—economic status, grade—point average, self-concept
of academic ability, and perceived parental, teachers',
and friends' evaluations of their academic ability.

Mean scores were computed for each variable, and all
scores falling below the mean were classified as low
scores, while those scores exceeding the mean were
classified as high scores

It was then possible to do a chi-square analysis
on each variable. A summary of the findings is discussed

in the next section.

Summary of Findings

 

The findings of this project are summarized below

97

in accordance with the results obtained by testing the

null hypotheses stated in chapter four.

1.

There was a significant difference found
between matched groups of continuously
promoted male seventh grade students and
male seventh grade students who had been
nonpromoted with respect to self-concept
of academic ability. The difference was
significant at the .02 level of the
confidence.

There was no significant difference found
between matched groups of continuously
promoted male seventh grade students and
male seventh grade students who had been
nonpromoted with respect to perceived
parental evaluations of academic ability.
The difference was significant at the .16
level of confidence.

There was no significant difference found
between matched groups of continuously
promoted male seventh grade students and
male seventh grade students who had been
nonpromoted with respect to perceived
teachers' evaluations of academic ability.
The difference was significant at the .60
level of confidence.

There was no significant difference found

between matched groups of continuously

98
promoted male seventh grade students and
male seventh grade students who had been
nonpromoted with respect to perceived
friends' evaluation of academic ability.
The difference was significant at the .85
level of confidence.

5. There was no significant difference found
between matched groups of continuously
promoted male seventh grade students and
male seventh grade students who had been
nonpromoted with respect to sixth grade
grade-point average. The difference was

significant at the .65 level of confidence.

Conclusions

 

It is concluded that when the variables of
academic ability, socio-economic status, race, and grade-
point average in the grade in which the nonpromoted child
was nonpromoted were partialled out, the nonpromoted male,
when compared with his matched counterpart, is character-
ized by: (l) a significantly lower self-concept of
academic ability; (2) a definite, but not significant
trend toward lower perceived parental evaluations of
academic ability; (3) a similar rating on perceived
teachers' evaluations and perceived friends' evaluations
of academic ability as the matched counterpart; and
(4) a sixth grade grade-point average not significantly

different from his matched counterpart.

99

It appears therefore that a relationship does
exist between nonpromotion and self—concept of academic
ability. It cannot be concluded from this study, however,
that the nonpromotion brought about the low self—concept
of academic ability. Therefore, it is possible that the
nonpromotion was a result of a low self—concept. However,
the matching of point averages in the grade in which the
nonpromoted child was nonpromoted should have minimized
this possibility. The matching, coupled with the current
theoretical knowledge concerning the impact of failure
upon children, would tend to support the former position.

If nonpromotion does cause a lowering of a
child's self-concept of academic ability, and therefore
lower his achievement level, then an alteration in
promotional policies would seem in order. The basic
concept behind nonpromotion, that of helping the child
to develop academic skills so that he can progress
normally in the academic sphere, does not appear to be
valid. Through examination of the total population the
nonpromoted population scored significantly lower on
the eventual Sixth grade grade-point average than did
the entire population, and was not significantly
different from the eventual sixth grade grade-point
average of the matched population. It would appear that
the expected academic gain from the nonpromotion did not
occur. There is a possibility that the nonpromoted
population could have received a significantly lower

point average had they been promoted, but because of

100
the matched groups this does not appear to be the case.
Yet the possibility can not be ruled out because of the
basic design of the study.

If the child who is nonpromoted has a significantly
lower self-concept of academic ability prior to a non-
promotion, then it would appear that educators could
identify this early in the child's school career and
plan curricular activities which would help the child
feel successful and could help the child develop a more

positive self-concept.

Recommendations for Curriculum Development

Based upon the data obtained in this study and
the information acquired from reviewing the literature,
the following recommendations are made to educators at
all levels:

1. It is recommended that children be
continuously promoted rather than non-
promoted if the reason given for the
nonpromotion is an expectation of future
academic gain. It was found in this study
that there was no significant difference
between matched groups of continuously
promoted and nonpromoted male students with
respect to grade—point average in the sixth
grade. This was in agreement with the large
majority of findings in the literature. The

belief that a second year in a grade will

101
help a child to acquire the gains necessary
for later academic achievement appears to
be fallacious.
It is recommended that a testing or observation
program for determining the self-concept of
academic ability of preschool children be
developed. When children who have a low
self-concept of academic ability are identified,
efforts can be made to overcome their apparent
handicap. It was found in this study that
nonpromoted male students, as compared with
matched groups of continuously promoted male
students, have a significantly lower self-
concept of academic ability. There are
undoubtedly many children who come to school
with a low self-concept of academic ability.
Brookover has found that there is a high
correlation between self-concept of academic
ability and school achievement. Therefore,
early identification of a child with a low
self—concept of academic achievement could
help prevent his having future academic
difficulties.
It is recommended from the results of this
study and previous research that when children
are identified who have a low self-concept
of academic ability, programs be designed

which permit more communication between the

102
school and parents of the children. Included
within the program should be a counseling
service to help parents to see their child
in a more positive light.

4. It is recommended that whenever a child is
identified as having a low self-concept of
academic ability that the school mental health
worker, whether school psychologist, psychiatrist
or social worker, be consulted.

A poor self-concept of academic ability
can give an indication that an individual will
not do well in school academically. This
has great implications for the mental health
of the child, as there is a close inter-
relationship between learning and emotional
problems. Ginzberg has noted that a disturbed
childhood is likely to be reflected in
learning difficulties; whereas, children
who do poorly in school are likely to develop
emotional problems.1
Therefore close coordination between the
teacher, mental health worker, community
agencies, and the family is necessary to

help the child.

5. It is recommended that a flexible organizational

 

1E. Ginzberg, The Ineffective Soldier (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1959):I, 118.

 

103
structure be adopted. A philosophical change
would necessarily accompany the organizational
change to be effective. Such a structure and
philosophy would eliminate the problem of
nonpromoting children, and would facilitate
devising constructive individualized programs
for children who come to school with a low

self-concept of academic ability.

Suggestions for Future Research

 

There appears to be a relationship between self-
concept of academic ability and nonpromotion. To
determine whether nonpromotion caused a lowered self-
concept, or a lower self—concept led to nonpromotion,
or some combination of the two is involved, a longitudianl
study is necessary. By means of such a study, some more
light could be spread upon the question of what variables
cause what effects.

By making use of a measuring device or an
Observation and inference technique, the self-concept
of academic ability of boys and girls could be determined
prior to attending any formalized school program. By
doing this, the impact of the school and its programs
upon the self-concepts of academic ability of the
children could be determined.

By carefully noting the events which occur during
the lives of the children, and by correlating these

with their academic progress and self-concept of academic

104
.ability, a better understanding of promotional policies
and the impact of the school curriculum and organizational
structure upon children could be developed.

Another area of possible future research could be
that of determining if the children who are nonpromoted
tend to score significantly lower on intelligence tests
after they are nonpromoted as compared to their test
scores before they were nonpromoted.

The self-concept of academic ability is associated
with academic skill development, and since reading is
the primary skill that is developed, a study to determine
the correlation between reading skill development and
self-concept of academic ability could be useful. How
the children at the elementary level View their reading
skills could be an indicator to their self—concept of
academic ability and future academic success.

Future research could also be aimed at determining
how events within the student's family, such as a divorce

or death, could alter his self-concept of ability.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SELF-CONCEPT

OF ABILITY - GENERAL*

Circle the letter in front of the statement which best

 

answers each question.

 

1.

How do you rate
with your close

am
am
am
am
am

QCLOCIW
BthdkiH

How do you rate

yourself in school ability compared
friends?

the best
above average
average

below average
the poorest

yourself in school ability compared

with those in your class at school?

am
am
am
am
am

(DQO C793
HHHHH

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

Where do you think you would rank in your class in

high school?

mCLoch

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

Do you think you have the ability to complete college?

yes:
yes:

(DCLocrm

1'10

definitely
probably

not sure either way
probably not

105

106

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

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

(DQOU‘W

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

(DQOO‘Q?

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

-my‘work'fs excellent
my work is good
my work is average
my work is below average
my work is much below average

(DQOO‘QJ

What kind of grades do you think you are capable of
getting?

a. mostly A's
b. mostly B's
c. mostly C's
d. mostly D's
e. mostly E's

*Copyright, Bureau of Educational Research
Michigan State University, 1962

APPENDIX B

PERCEIVED EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT'S
ACADEMIC ABILITY BY PARENTS

 

 

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.

 

 

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

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

(DQOO’W

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

D)

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

(DQOCTW

3. Do you think that your PARENTS would say you have the
ability to complete college?

yes, definitely
yes, probably

not sure either way
probably not
definitely not

mc10cjm

107

108

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?

very likely
somewhat likely

not sure either way
somewhat unlikely
very unlikely

(DQJOCJ'SD

What kind of grades do you think your PARENTS would
say you are capable of getting in general?

a. mostly A's
b. mostly B's
c. mostly C's
d. mostly D's
e. mostly E's

APPENDIX C

PERCEIVED EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT'S

 

ACADEMIC ABILITY BY FRIENDS

 

Think about your closest friend at school. Now answer
the following questions as you think this FRIEND would

answer them.

Circle the letter in front of the statement that best

 

answers each question.

 

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

(DQOO'SD

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

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

(DQOO‘SD

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

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

mCLOCIm

yes, definitely
yes, probably

not sure eith way
probably not
definitely not

109

110

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?

very likely
somewhat likely

not sure either way
somewhat unlikely
very unlikely

(DQOU‘SD

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

a. mostly A's
b. mostly B's
c. mostly C's
d. mostly D's
e. mostly E's

APPENDIX D

PERCEIVED EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT'S
ACADEMIC ABILITY BY TEACHERS

 

 

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? '

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

mCLocjm

2. Where do you think this TEACHER would say you would
rank in your high school graduating class?

among the best
above average
average

below average
among the poorest

(DQ106513

3. Do you think that this TEACHER would say you have
the ability to complete college?

yes, definitely
yes, probably

not sure either way
probably not
definitely not

(0010693

111

112

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?

very likely
somewhat likely

not sure either way
somewhat unlikely
very unlikely

malocrm

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

a. mostly A's
b. mostly B's
c. mostly C's
d. mostly D's
e. mostly E's

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PROMOTION-NONPROMOTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ayres, Leonard P. Laggards in Our Schools. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1909.

 

Buckingham, Burdette. Research for Teachers. New York:
Silver, Burdett and Company, 1926.

 

Caswell, Hollis L. Nonpromotion in Elementary Schools.
Nashville, Tennessee: George Peabody College
for Teachers Division of Surveys and Field
Studies, 1933.

 

Caswell, Hollis and Foshay, Arthur. Education in the
Elementary School. New York: American Book

Co., 1957.

Drake, William E. The American School in Transition.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

Inc., 1955.

Elsbree, Willard S. Pupil Progress in the Elementary
School. New York: Columbia University, 1943.

 

 

 

 

Goodlad, John I. and Anderson, Robert H. The Nongraded
ElementarygSchool. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inc., 1963.

 

 

Keyes, Charles H. Progress Through the Grades of City
Schools. New York: Columbia University Press,

 

McKinney, B. T. Promotion of Pupils - A Problem of
Education Administration. Urbana: UniverSity
of Illinois, 1928.

 

 

Otto, Henry. Promotion Policies and Practices in
Elementary Schools. Minneapolis: Educational
Test Bureau, 1935.

 

 

113

114

Philbrick, John D. City School Systems in the United
States. Washington D.C.: United States
Printing Office, 1885.

 

Sandin, Adolph. Social and Emotional Adjustments of
Regularly Promoted and Nonpromoted Pupils. New
York: Columbia UhiVersity Press, 1944.

 

 

Saunders, Carleton M. Promotion or Failure for the
Elementary School Pupil? New York: Columbia
University Press, 1941.

 

 

Shearer, William J. The Gradinggof Schools. New York:
H. P. Smith Publishing Company, 1947.

 

Articles

Anfinson, R. D. "School Progress and Pupil Adjustment."
Elementary School Journal, XLI (March, 1941),

507-514.

Arthur, Grace. "A Study of the Achievement of Sixty
Grade I Repeaters As Compared With That of
Nonrepeaters of the Same Mental Age." Journal
of Experimental Education, V (December,—I936):
203-200.

 

 

Brown, Woodrow Wilson. "An Application of Selected
Related Factors to the Incidence and Cost of
Nonpromotion in the Public Schools of York,
Pennsylvania.” Dissertation Abstracts, XV
(December, 1955), 2437.

 

Cheyney, Walker W. and Boyer, Philip A. ExtraCts quoted
in Elementary School Journal, XXXIII (May, 1933),
647-651.

 

Coffield, W. H. and Bloommers, Paul. "Effects of
Nonpromotion on Educational Achievement in the
Elementary School." Journal of Educational
Psychology, XLVII (April, 1956), 235-250.

 

Dean, Stuart. "Pass or Fail." Elementary School Journal,
LXI (November, 1960), 86-90.

Farley, Eugene, Frey, Albin J., and Garland, Gertrude.
"Factors Related to Grade Progress of Pupils."
Elementary School Journal, XXXIV (November, 1933),
186-193.

 

115

Francis, Ercel B. "A Follow-Up of Nonpromotions." Journal
of Education, CXXII (June, 1939), 187-188.

 

Goodlad, John I. "Research and Theory Regarding Promotion
and Nonpromotion." Elementary School Journal,
LIII (November, 1952), 150-155.

 

"Some Effects of Promotion and Nonpromotion
Upon the Social and Personal Adjustment of Children."
Journal of Experimental Education, XXII (June, 1954),
301-328.

 

 

Hall, William F., and DeMarest, Ruth. "Effects on Achieve—
ment Scores of a Change in Promotional Policy."
Elementary School Journal, LVIII (January, 1958),
204-207.

 

Hartsig, Barbara, and Langenbach, Louise, "Studies of
Three Children Who Have Been Retained a Grade in
School." California Journal of Elementary
Education XXI (August, 1952), 51-63.

 

 

Jablow, Lillian. "Deferred Promotions in Grade One."
Baltimore Bulletin of Education, XXV (December,
1947), 146-147.

 

"Johnny Beware." Newsweek, LX (September, 1956), 55.

 

 

Jones, James J. "Recent Trends in Promotional Theory."
Prpgressive Education, XXXIII (January, 1956),
5'6: 15-

Kamii, Constance and Weikart, David P. ”Marks, Achieve-

ment and Intelligence of Seventh Graders Who Were
Retained (Nonpromoted) Once in Elementary School."
Journal of Education Research, LVI (May-June,

1963), 452-459-

Kelley, Earl C. "Seeds of Drop-Outs." Childhood
Education, XXXIX (May, 1963), 420-422.

 

 

 

Klene, Vivian, and Branson, Ernest. "Trial Promotion
Versus Failure." Educational Research Bulletin,
VIII (January, 19 9), 6-11.

 

Kowitz, G. T. and Armstrong, C. M. "The Effects of
Promotion Policy on Academic Achievement."
Elementary School Journal, LXI (May, 1961),
435-443.

 

Lennon, Roger T. and Mitchell, Blythe C. "Trends in Age-
Grade Relationship: A 35-Year Review.” School
and Society, LXXXII (October 15, 1955), 123-I25.

 

116

Livingston, A. H. "Key to Dropout Problem in Elementary
Schools." Elementary School Journal, IL
(February, 1959), 268.

 

McElwee, E. W. "A Comparison of Personality Traits of
300 Accelerated, Normal, and Retarded Children."
Journal of Educational Research, XXVI (September,

1932), 31-34.

Newlun, Chester 0. "Who Fails in Your Schools?" American
School Board Journal, CXXIII (August, 1951), 13-14.

 

 

"Pupil Failure and Nonpromotion." National Education
Research Bulletin, XXXVII (February, 1959), 16—17.

 

 

Robinson, B. B. "Failure Is Too Costly for the School
Child." Parents Magazine, XI (January, 1936),

22-23, 55-57-

Russell, David H. "The Influence of Repetition of a Grade
and of Regular Promotion on the Attitudes of Parents
and Children Toward School." California Journal of
Elementary Education, XXI (August, 1952), 29-41.

 

 

 

 

"School Admission and Promotion." National Education
Association Research Bulletin, XXXVII (February,
1959), 15-

Steadman, E. R. "Fifteen Who Were Not Promoted."
Elementary School Journal, LIX (February, 1959),

 

 

272.

Stryker, Sue B. "Undergrading as a Cause of Delinquency."
School and Society, XXVI (December 24, 1927),
821-822.

Templin, R. S. W. "A Check-Up of Nonpromotions." Journal
of Education, CXXIII (November, 1940), 259-2607““‘

 

 

 

"Ten Criticisms of Public Education." National Education
Association Research Bulletin, XXXV (December,
1957), 149-

Worth, Walter R. "Promotion or Nonpromotion?" Educational

 

Administration and Supervision, XLVI (January,
1960), 16-26.

 

Worth, Walter, and Shores, J. Harlan. "Does Nonpromotion
Improve Achievement in the Language Arts?"
Elementary English, XXXVII

117

Unpublished Materials and Reports

Annual Report of the Superintendent of Instruction of the
Commonwealth of Virginia with Accompanying
3D0cuments for the Year 1937-38. Board of Education
City of Richmond, 1938.

 

 

 

Forty-Second Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools,
City of New YorkypSchool Year 1939:40. Board of
Education, City of New York, 1940.

 

 

Forty:Sixth Annual Report of the Salt Lake City Board of
Education, School Year 1935-36. Board of Education,
Salt Lake City, 1936.

 

 

Goodlad, John I. "Some Effects of Promotion and Non-
promotion Upon the Social and Personal Adjustment
of Children." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

University of Chicago, 1949.

Johnson, Axel A. "Promotion and Nonpromotion in An Urban
Middlewest School System." Unpublished Research
Study, 1966.

Public Schools of Nashville, Tennessee: A Survey Report.
Nashville: George Peabody College for Teachers,
1931.

Report of the Division of Educational Research and Results
for the Year Ended June 30, 1933. Board of
Education, School District of Philadelphia, 1933.

 

 

 

Sandin, Adolph. ”Social and Emotional Adjustments of
Regularly Promoted and Nonpromoted Pupils."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1942.

SELF-CONCEPT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adler, A. The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology.
New York: Harcourt Brace.II924.

 

Balint, Michael. "New Beginning and the Paranoid and the
Depressive Syndromes.” Primary Love and Psycho-
Analytic Technique. New York: Liverright, 1953.

 

 

Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc, 1960.

 

Bleuler. Conception of Schizophrenia Within the Last
Fifty Years and Today. New York: The Inter—
national Science Press, Inc., 1966.

 

 

Borg, Walter R. Ability Grouping in the Public Schools.
Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar Educational Research
Services, Inc., 1966.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Gottlieb, David. A Sociology of
Education. New York: American Book Co., 1964.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur B. Self-Concept of Ability and School
Achievement. Report of Cooperative Research
Project No. 2831, Vol. 111. United States Office
of Education. East Lansing, Michigan: Educational
Publication Services, College of Education,
Michigan State University, 1967.

 

 

Butler, John M. and Haigh, Gerald V. ”Changes in the
Relationship Between Self-Concepts and Ideal Concepts
Consequent Upon Client-Centered Counseling."
Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Edited by
Carl R. Rogers and Rosalind Dymond. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1954.

 

Cameron, N. ”Paranoid Conditions and Paranoia." American
Handooox of Psychiatry. Vol. I. Edited by Silvano
Arieti. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

 

 

118

119

Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and the Social Order.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902.

 

Dymond, Rosalind F. "Adjustment Changes Over Therapy
from Self-Corts." Psychotherapy and Personality
Change. Edited by Carl R. Rogers and Rosalind
Dymind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
195 .

”Adjustment Changes Over Therapy
from Thematic Apperception Test Ratings."
Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Edited by
C. R. Rogers and R. Dymond. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1954.

 

English, H. B. and English, Ava C. A Comprehensive
Dictionary of Psychoanalytical Terms. New York:
Longmans, Green, 1958.

Feldman, Shel. Cognitive Consistency. New York:
Academic Press, Inc., 1966.

 

Freud, S. The Ego and the Id. London: Hogarth
Press, 1950.

 

Ginzberg, E. The Ineffective Soldier: Lessons for
Management and the Nation. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959.

 

Hamachek, Don E. The Self in Growth, Teaching and
Learning: A Book of Readings. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Horney, K. The Neurotic Personality of Our Times.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1937.

Lafferty, J. Clayton. Values That Defeat Learning.
Proceedings of the Eight Inter-Institutional
Seminar in Child Development held in 1962.

Lecky, P. Self-Consistency: Motivation and Personality.
New York: Harper, 1954.

Maslow, A. H. ”Existential PsycholOgy - What's In It
for Us?” Existential Psychology. Edited by
Rollo May. New York: Random House, Inc., 1961.

 

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self and Society.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1934.

Moustakas, Clark E. The Self: Explorations in Personal
Growth. New York: Harper, 1956.

Onion, C. T. The Oxford Universal Dictionary. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1955.

120

Paterson, Ann. "Reliability and Validity of Self-Concept
of Ability Scale.” Self—Concept of Ability and
School Achievement. Vol. III. Edited by Wilbur
Brookover. East Lansing, Michigan: Educational
Publication Services, College of Education,
Michigan State University, 1967.

 

 

Reiner, B. S and Kaufman, 1. Character Disorders in
Parents of Delinquents. New York: Family
Service Association of America, 1959.

 

 

Rogers, C. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton—
Mifflin, 1951.

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics. New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956.

 

Snygg, D. and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior: A New
Frame of Reference for Psychology. New York:
Harper, 1949.

 

 

Stoodley, Bartlett H. "The Dynamics of the Conscious
and Unconscious.” The Concepts of Sigmund Freud.
New York: The Free Press, a Corporation, 1959.

 

Wylie, Ruth. The Self—Concepp. Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

 

Articles

Ames, L. B. ”The Sense of Self of Nursery School
Children as Manifested by Their Verbal Behavior."
Journal of Genetic Psychology, LXXXI (September,

1952), 193-232.

 

Anderson, Camilla M. ”The Self as a Frame of Reference,"
Mental Hygiene, XXXVI (April, 1952), 227-244. -

 

Austin, C. Grey. ”Self-Identity and Role-Identity in the
Selection of College Teaching as a Career."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXXVI (November, 1965),
2555-2559-

 

Backman, Carl W., Secord, Paul F., and Pierce, Jerry R.
"Resistance to Change in the Self-Concept as a
Function of Concensus among Significant Others."
Sociometry, XXVI (March, 1963), 102—111.

 

Bennett, Virginia D. C. "Does Size of Figure Drawing
Reflect Self-Concept?” Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XXVIII (June, 1964):)285-.86.

 

 

121

Bertocci, Peter A. "The Psychological Self, the Ego,
and the Personality." Psychological Review, LII

(March, 1945), 91-99.

Bills, R. E., Vance, E. L., and McLeon, 0. S. ”An Index
of Adjustment and Values.” Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XV (June, 1951), 257—281.

 

 

 

Block, J. and Thomas H. "Is Satisfaction with Self a
Measure of Adjustment?” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, LI (March, 1955), 254-259.

 

 

Bodwin, Raymond F. and Bruck, Max. "The Adoption and
Validation of the Draw—A—Person Test as a Measure
of Self—Concept.” Journal of Clinical Psychology,

 

XVI (October, 1960), 427-428.

Brownfain, John J. ”Stability of the Self-Concept As a
Dimension of Personality.” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XLVII (October, 1952), 600.

 

 

Bruck, Max and Bodwin, R. F. ”The Relationship Between
Self-Concept and the Presence and Absence of
Scholastic Underachievement." Journal of Clinical

 

Psychology, XVIII (April, 1962), 181-182.

 

Bruck, Max. ”The Relationships Between Student Anxiety,
Self-Awareness, and Self-Concept and the Student
Competence in Casework.” Social Casework, XLIV

 

(March, 1963), 125-131.

Cartwright, Rosalind. "The Effects of Psychotherapy on
Self-Consistency.” ,Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XXV (October, 1961), 376-382.

 

 

Chase, P. H. "Self-Concept in Adjusted and Maladjusted
HOSpital Patients.” Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XXI (December, 1957), 495-497.

 

 

Chodorkoff, Bernard. "Self-Perception, Perceptual
Defense, and Adjustment." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, IL (October, 1954), 508-512.

 

 

Clarke, Carl T. "Changes in Self-Concept as a Function
of Dissonant Role Playing.” Dissertation Abstracts
XXVI (September, 1965), 1771.

Cohen, L. D. "Levels-of-Aspiration Behavior and Feelings
of Adequacy and Self-Acceptance.” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLIV (July, 1949),

303-314.

Coopersmith, Stanley. ”A Method for Determining Types
of Self-Esteem.” Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, LIX (July, 1959), 87—94.

 

 

 

 

122

"Relationship Between Self—Esteem
and Sensory (Perceptual) Constancy." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXVIII (February,
1964), 217-221.

 

 

 

Davidson, Helen H. and Lang, Gerhard. "Children's
Perceptions of Their Teachers' Feelings Toward
Them Related to Self-Perception, School Achievement
and Behavior." Journal of Experimental Education,
XXIX (December, 1960), 107-118.

Dittes, James E. ”Attractiveness of Group As Function
of Self—Esteem and Acceptance By Group." The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX

TUUly: 1959): 77‘820

Dyson, Ernest. "A Study of the Relationships Between
Acceptance of Self, Academic Self-Concept, and
Two Types of Grouping Procedures Used With
Seventh Grade Pupils." Dissertation Abstracts,
(September, 1965), 1475-1476.

 

 

Engel, Mary. "The Stability of the Self-Concept in
Adolesence.” qurnal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, LVIII (September, 1959), 211-215.

 

 

Epstein, S. ”Unconscious Self Evaluation in a Normal
and a Schizophrenic Group." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, L (January, l955),v65-70.

 

 

Fey, William F. "Acceptance by Others and Its Relation
to Acceptance of Self and Others: A Revaluation."
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L
(March, 1955), 274-276.

Fink, Martin B. ”Self-Concept As It Relates to Academic
Underachievement.” California Journal of
Educational Research, XIII (March, 1962), 57—62.

 

 

Friedman, I. ”Phenomenal, Ideal, and Projected
Conceptions of Self.” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, LI (November, 1955), 611—615.

 

Gray, David M. "Effect of Self—Esteem on Drawings of
the Human Figure." ’Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XXVIII (October, 1964), 452-455.

 

 

Greenberg, Bradley and Tannenbaum, Percy. "Communicator
Performance Under Cognitive Stress." Journalism
Quarterly, XXXIX (Spring, 1962), 169-178.

 

 

Hall, Peter M. "The Self-Conception of Juvenile
Delinquents: A Symbolic lnteractionist Approach."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXV (October, 1964), 2650.

 

123

Hamachek, Don E. and Mori, Takako. "Need Structure,
Personal Adjustment, and Academic Self-Concept of
Beginning Education Students." The Journal of
Educational Research, LVII (December, 1964),
158—162.

 

 

I

Harvey, O. J., Kelly, R. H. and Shapiro, M. M. "Reactions
to Unfavorable Evaluations of the Self Made By '
Other Persons." Journal of Personality, XXV
(December, 1957), 398-411.

 

Hatfield, Agnes B. "The Experimental Study of the Self-
Concept of Student Teachers." The Journal of
Educational Research, LV (October, 1961), 87-89.

 

 

Havinghurst, Robert J., Robinson, Myra Z., Dorr, Mildred.
"The Development of the Ideal Self in Childhood
and Adolescence.” Journal of Educational Research,
XL (December, 1946), 257.

 

Hillson, J. S. and Worchel, P. "Self-Concept and
Defensive Behavior in the Maladjusted.” Journal

of Consulting Psychology, XXI (February, 1957),
83-88.

 

Hobson, R. F. ”Prognostic Factors in Electro—Convulsive
Therapy." Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery,
Psychiatry, XVI (November, 1953), 275—281.

 

 

Hoenig, J. and Crotty, I. "Psychiatric Inpatients in
General Hospitals." égppgp, lI (August 15, 1959),
122.

Horowitz, Frances Degen. ”The Relationship of Anxiety,
Self—Concept, and Sociometric Status Among Fourth,
Fifth, and Sixth Grade Children." Journal of

 

Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXV (September,
1962), 212-214.

 

Jones, Mary C. and Mussen, Paul H. ”Self-Conceptions,
Motivations, and Interpersonal Attitudes of Early
and Late Maturing Girls." Child Development,
XXIX (December, 1958), 491-501.

 

Jones, Mary C. ”The Later Careers of Boys Who Were
Early or Late Maturin .” Child Development, XXVIII
(March, 1957), 113-12 .

 

Keefer, Karl Elton. "Self-Prediction of Academic
Achievement by College Students." Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI (February, 1966), 4337.

 

 

Kinch, John W. "A Formalized Theory of the Self-Concept."
The American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII (March,
1963), 481—486.

 

124

Laxer, Robert M. "Self—Concept Changes of Depressive
Patients in General Hospital Treatment.” Journal
of Consulting Psychology, XXVIII (June, 1964),
214-219.

 

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 (December, 1958), 463-472.

 

Maehr, Martin L., Mensing, Josef, and Nafzer, Samuel.
"Concept of Self and the Reaction of Others.”
Sociometry, XXV (December, 1962), 353-357.

 

McCandless, B. R., Castaneda, A., and Palermo, D. S.
"Anxiety in Children and Social Status." Child
Development, XXVII (September, 1956), 385-392.

 

Medinnus, Gene R. and Curtis, Floyd J. ”The Relation
Between Maternal Self-Acceptance and Child
Acceptance.” Journal of Consulting Psychology,

 

XXVII (December, 1963), 542-544.

Moll, A. E. "Psychiatric Services in a General HOSpital
With Special Reference to a Day Treatment Unit."
American Journal of Psychiatry, CIX (April, 1953),
744-776.

 

Mussen, Paul H. and Jones, iary C. "Self—Conceptions,
Motivations, and Interpersonal Attitudes of Late
and Early Maturing Boys.” Child Development,
XXVIII (June, 1957), 243-258}

 

Perkins, Hugh V. "Changing Perceptions of Self." Child-
hood Education, XXXIV (October, 1957), 82-84.

 

Piers, Ellen V. and Harris, Dale B. "Age and Other
Correlates of Self-Concept in Children.” Jopppgl
of Educational Psychology, LV (April, 1964): 91-95.

 

Reeder, T. A. "A Study of Some Relationships Between
Level of Self-Concept, Academic Achievement, and
Classroom Adjustment.” Dissertation Abstracts,

 

XV (December, 1955), 2472.
Renzoglia, G. A. "Some Correlates of the Self Structure
as Measured by an Index of Adjustment and Values."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1952.
Rogers, A. H. "The Self-Concept in Paranoid Schizophrenia."
Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIV (October, 1958),
365-366.

 

125

Rosenberg, Morris. ”Parental Interest and Children's
Self-Conception." Sociometry, XXVI (March, 1963),
35-49-

Rogers, Carl R. and Skinner, B. F. "Some Issues
Concerning the Control of Human Behavior.” Science,
CXXIV (November 30, 1956), 1057-1066.

 

Silverman, Irwin. "Self-Esteem and Differential Responsive-
ness to Success and Failure." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, LXIX (July, 1964), 115-119.

 

 

Smith, M. Brewster. "The Need for a Phenomenological
Approach in Personality Theory: Some Critical
Remarks.” Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XLV (November, 1950), 516—522.

 

 

Snygg, Donald and Combs, Arthur W. "The Phenomenological
Approach and the Problem of 'Unconscious' Behavior:
A Reply to Dr. Smith." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XLV (November, 1950), 523-528.

 

 

Snygg, Donald. "The Need for a Phenomenological System
of Psychology.” Psychological Review, XLVIII
(September, 1941), 404—424.

 

Sopis, Josephine F. ”The Relationship of Self-Image as
a Reader to Reading Achievement." Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI (May, 1966), 6518.

 

 

Staines, J. w. "The Self-Picture as a Factor in the
Classroom." British Journal of Educational
Psychology, XXVIII (June, 1958), 97—111.

 

 

Stevens, P. H. "An Investigation of the Relationship
Between Certain Aspects of Self-Concept Behavior
and Students' Academic Achievement." Dissertation
Abstracts, XVI (December, 1956), 2531-2532.

 

 

Stotland, Ezra and Hillner, M. L. "Identification,
Authoritarian Defensiveness, and Self-Esteem."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXIV

(May, 1962), 334-342.

Stotland, E. and Zander, A. "Effects of Public and
Private Failure on Self Evaluations.” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVI (March, 1958),
223-229.

 

 

 

Suinn, Richard M. and Hill, Hunter. ”Influence of
Anxiety 0n the Relationship Between Self-Acceptance
and Acceptance of Others." Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XXVIII (April, 1964), 116-119.

 

 

126

Suinn, R. M. "The Relationship Between Self-Acceptance

Tidd,

Trent,

and Acceptance of Others: A Learning Theory
Analysis." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, LXIII (July, 1961), 37-42.

 

 

C., Stoller, R., and Shwartz, D. ”Psychiatric
Unit in a General Hospital.” Journal of the American
Medical Association, CLXIX (February, 1959), 582.

 

 

R. D. "The Relationship of Anxiety to Popularity
and Rejection Among Institutionalized Delinquent
Boys." Child Deve10pment, XXVIII (September, 1957),
379-384-

 

Videbeck, Richard. ”Self-Conception and the Reaction of

Others.” Sociometry, XXII (December, 1960), 351—
359.

 

Wiesen, Henry H. "An Investigation of Relationships

Will,

Among Intelligence, Organizational Climate in the
Classroom and Self—Concept as a Learner Among Ten
and Eleven Year Olds.” Dissertation Abstracts,
XXVI, (May, 1966), 6520-6521.

 

Otto A. Jr. "Paranoid Development and the Concept
of Self: Psychotherapeutic Intervention.”
Psychiatry, XXIV (May, 1961), Supplement to No. 2,

 

74486.