(\flqg/ 6/7? WM) F15 ¢ Z, 51/ m/ngg ABSTRACT THE AMERICAN INDIAN AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: TOWARD A PROCESSUAL MODEL By Donna J Hess The problem considered in this study is the level of academic achievement generally observed among American Indian children. While many researchers and educators have been concerned with this problem, several general short-comings are found in the research literature: (I) frequent absence of a theoretical basis to explain the problem in terms of suggested causes; (2) almost total neglect in assessing appro- priateness of assumptions underlying the investigation and its conclu- sions; (3) confounding of empirical findings with conjecture; and (4) lack of coherence in conclusions resulting in many unanswered questions and isolated findings. Such factors as self-concept, sense of control, peer group norms, and teacher expectations have been related to differen- tial achievement by minority children, but a definition of the process by which these and other factors operate and result in differential achievement is lacking in the literature. This study suggests a tentative processual model to explain the 'level of academic achievement observed among American Indian children and provides a first test of that model. The model is based upon a Donna J. Hess reading of the Indian education literature and employs a symbolic interactionist perspective. In particular, theoretical considerations from role theory, social psychological learning theory, and status expectation theory, all considered within the symbolic interactionist perspective, are employed. The model suggests that the dependent, minority status of the American Indian in the United States serves as a focus in a "hale" of academically relevant attributes, and this is ultimately related to differential academic performance via the per- ceived expectations and evaluations of others, academically relevant self-attitudes, and self-investment processes. In this first test of the proposed model, attention is focused on several assumptions underlying the model and several central assertions made in the model. Assumptions examined include the following: that the self-orientations utilized in studies of non-Indian children are appro- priate for the sample of American Indian children in this study; that the competitive-orientation implicit in the concept of achievement is not totally alien to these children; and that the student role is one which is valued and one from which these children derive self-esteem. Results of data-analysis as well as observation in classrooms suggest to us that these assumptions are apprOpriate for this sample of American Indian children. The assertions examined in this study focus on the relationship of perceived expectations and evaluations of others with the child's self-concept of academic ability and the child's actual academic per- formance; and the relationship of self-investment in the student role, sense of control/sense of futility, perceived academic norms of peers, and perceived achievement orientations of teachers with actual academic Donna J. Hess performance These relationships were examined primarily with data obtained from student questionnaires. Significant, positive correla- tions were found for perceived expectations and evaluations of others with self-concept of academic ability and academic achievement. However, self-concept of academic ability was not found to intervene between perceived expectations and evaluations of parents and of teachers as had been anticipated. Field observations suggest that the relationship of these perceived expectations and evaluations may be more direct as children attempt to comply with the perceived wishes of these others. Self-concept did function very well, however, as a threshold variable for academic achievement. This pattern was observed when academic achievement was measured by standardized tests and by grade point average. While sense of control/sense of futility did relate to academic achievement in the expected manner (i.e., direct relationship between sense of control and academic achievement), self-investment in the student role did not relate to either sense of control/sense of futility or academic achievement as it had been expected to relate. A curvilinear relationship was observed, however, between self-invest- ment in the student role and sense of control/sense of futility suggest- ing that those children who have made the greatest investments in the student role not only eXperience greatest control but also greatest futility. It is further suggested that the measure of self-investment employed here may be inadequate and that future studies need to con- sider the self—investment process in greater detail. In addition to self—esteem, other elements which are suSpected to enter into the self-investment process are such pragmatic considerations as the Donna J. Hess expectation that "a good job" will follow from investment in the student role and the child's assessment of his ability or inability to influence his life chances through his own efforts. Although perceived peer orientations to achievement were generally observed to be positive, these did not relate in any significant way to academic achievement. Several possible reasons for this finding are suggested including the possibility that action Opportunities are so limited that high achievement on standardized measures of achievement are not likely. Of the perceived teacher orientations examined, per- ceived teacher concern for achievement and teacher demand for achieve- ment show some relationship to academic achievement. These observations add to the conviction that teachers' expectations and evaluations and the action opportunities made available as a result of these expecta- tions and evaluations are important elements in the process under study here. Finally, field observations suggest that there is reason to believe that ”Indianness" does function as a diffuse status characteristic and that academically relevant attributes are associated with this charac- teristic. Perception of the status characteristic, Indian, seems to result in inference about the child's family and home life. Adjust- ments in expectations and action Opportunities are seen as following from these inferences. THE AMERICAN INDIAN AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: TOWARD A PROCESSUAL MODEL By Donna Jean Hess A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1974 ii For the children and their dreams -- may they live. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would esPecially like to express my gratitude to my parents who, through their encouragement and support, helped me reach this point in my academic career. I know that they worked hard so that I might have the education which they did not have. I would also like to thank Professor Frederick Waisanen, the chair- man of my guidance committee, and the other committee members -- Pro- fessors Bo Anderson, Wilbur Brookover, William Faunce, and Ruth Useem -- who provided advice, criticism, and suggestions in my studies and for my dissertation. I have gained a great deal from their guidance and insights. I am also indebted to the people who ”participated" in this study: the mission director who arranged my stay on the reservation; the school administrators and teachers who permitted me to enter their schools and classrooms; the children who were so generous in sharing their thoughts, ideas, and aspirations with a graduate student-researcher; and the people of the reservation from whom I learned the deeper meanings of generosity, reSpect, and wisdom. I thank them all for without them this study would not be. Finally, I wish to express my thanks to the secretaries in the Sociology Department. They helped in so many little ways -- reSponding to unending questions, helping with typewriter ribbons, helping with the copying machine, etc. I am grateful to them. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem . Purpose of the Study Delimitations of the Study Chapter II. LITERATURE AND THEORY Introduction . Indian Education Literature Research Literature on Academic Achievement and Self-Concept as Student Theoretical Foundations Symbolic Interactionism . Role Theory . Social Psychological Learning Theory Status Expectation Theory . Summary of the Literature and Theoretical Foundations Tentatively Proposed Model Chapter III. PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Hypotheses and Questions Studied Research Design Sample Instrumentation iv 11 3O 39 39 41 44 49 54 57 61 67 68 69 Definition and Operationalization of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O Self-Concept of Academic Ability . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Self-Investment in the Student Role . . . . . . . . . . 72 Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Perceived Academic Norms of the School . . . . . . . . 75 Sense of Control/Sense of Futility . . . . . . . . . . 75 Perceived Future Relevance of School . . . . . . . . . 76 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Assumptions Questioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Self-Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOl Self-Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Comparison of Major Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Tentative Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 vi Chapter V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of Findings Discussion and Limitations Conclusions Implications Contribution of This Study Recommendations LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix of Major Study . Appendix Appendix A -- Student Questionnaire B -- Inventory of Variables C -- Indices Constructed in this Study . D -- Intercorrelation Matrices E -- Comparison of Intercorrelation Matrices Constructs, Henderson Study (1972) and Hess F -- Supplementary Tables and Figures G -- Education (Problems of the Indians) 160 163 174 175 178 178 184 . 212 . 215 232 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Academic Achievement by Ethnicity Grade Point Average by Ethnicity Composite Achievement by Grade in School Reading Achievement by Grade in School Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Perceived Teacher Expectation and Evaluation . Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (Composite) by Self-Concept of Academic Ability Academic Achievement (Reading) by Self-Concept of Academic Ability Academic Achievement (Grade Point Average) by Self-Concept of Academic Ability . Self-Investment in the Student Role by Sense of Control/Sense of Futility . Self-Investment in the Student Role by Perceived Future Relevance of School Academic Achievement (Composite) by Sense of Control/Sense of Futility . vii 86 87 88 89 118 118 119 120 120 121 124 126 128 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 14. 15. 16. 17. El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9. E10. E11. viii Academic Achievement (Reading) by Sense of Control/Sense of Futility Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Competitiveness of Peers Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Indifference Academic Achievement (Grade Point Average) by Perceived Teacher Indifference Academic Achievement (Composite) by Sex of Respondent Academic Achievement (Reading) by Sex of Reapondent Academic Achievement (Grade Point Average) by Sex of Respondent Composite Achievement by School Reading Achievement by School Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Ethnicity Self-Investment in the Student Role by Ethnicity Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations.. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations 128 132 134 134 215 215 215 216 216 216 217 217 217 218 218 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table E12. E13. E14. E15. E16. E17. E18. E19. E20. E21. E22. E23. E24. ix Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations Academic Achievement (Composite) by Self- Investment in Student Role Academic Achievement (Reading) by Self- Investment in Student Role Academic Achievement (GPA) by Self-Investment in Student Role Academic Achievement (GPA) by Sense of Control/ Sense of Futility . Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Future Relevance of School Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Future Relevance of School Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Future Relevance of School Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Academic Norms of School 218 219 219 220 220 221 221 222 222 223 223 223 224 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table E25. E26. E27. E28. E29. E30. E31. E32. E33. E35. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Academic Norms of School Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Academic Norms of School Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Competitiveness of Peers Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Competitiveness of Peers Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Push for Achievement Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Push for Achievement Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Teacher Push for Achievement Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Indifference Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement 224 225 225 226 226 227 227 228 228 229 229 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES Tentatively Proposed Model: Status- Expectation-Performance Percentage of Students within One Grade of Appropriate Level or Advanced by School Distribution of Reapondents by Grade and by School Comparison of Intercorrelation Matrices for Self-Investment in the Student Role and Self- Concept of Academic Ability, Hess and Henderson Studies Zero-Order Correlation of Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others with Self-Concept of Academic Ability and of Self-Concept of Academic Ability with Academic Achievement Correlations of Perceived Expectations and Evalua- tions of Others with Academic Achievement Controlling for Self-Concept of Academic Ability and of Self- Concept of Academic Ability with Academic Achieve- ment Controlling for Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others xi 58 92 95 110 113 114 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure E1. E2. E3. E4. E5. xii Responses of Indian Subjects of Academic Ability Items Responses of Indian Subjects ness" Items Responses of Indian Subjects Investment Items Responses of Indian Subjects Items Responses of Indian Subjects Evaluation by Others to to to t0 t0 Self-Concept "Competitive- Self- Significant Other Items on 230 230 230 231 231 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The problem with which this study is ultimately concerned is the level of academic achievement observed among American Indian children. While it is recognized that there are individual exceptions to the general picture, the predominant pattern of American Indian academic performance is a rather dismal one. No matter what indicator of academic performance is used (e.g., achievement test scores, drop-out rates, level of education attained, etc.), the American Indian as a group is found to be far behind national norms. The present study focuses in particular upon the academic achieve- ment of American Indian children in the elementary grades and upon social psychological variables suspected of influencing that achieve- ment Since the publication of the Meriam report in 1928, many researchers have been concerned with measuring the academic achievement of Indian children. In many of these studies (cf., Peterson, 1948; Coombs, 1958; Branchard, 1953; Peters, 1963; and Bryde, 1965), a pattern of achieve- ment has emerged and has come to be referred to as the "cross-over phenomenon." The data gathered by these researchers and others show American Indian children achieving at or above national norms in the early elementary grades and then "crossing over" to achievement below national norms later in the elementary grades. Most researchers place this cross-over period around grade four. Bryde, however, places it at grade seven or eight, a period which roughly corresponds to the onset of adolescence. Other researchers (cf., Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964; and Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972), however, dispute the findings on the cross-over phenomenon, suggesting that the evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon is inconclusive (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972: 128) and that higher achievement scores in the lower grades might be an arti- fact of students retained in those grades and thus being exposed to primary grade work for a period of time longer than the normal number of years (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 88). This controversy aside, however, all researchers seem to agree, at least for the later school years, that there are serious deficiencies in the academic achievement of most American Indian children. Berry's review of the literature on Indian education (Berry, 1968) clearly indicates that many researchers have been interested in identi- fying the "causes" of the observed low level of achievement. Such factors as self-concept (Hobart, 1963; Bryde, 1965), sense of control (Coleman, 1966; Tefft, 1967), alienation (Bryde, 1965; Spilka, 1970), peer group norms (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964; R. Wax, 1967; Wolcott, 1967), and teachers' attitudes (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964; Miller and Caulkins, 1964; Parmee, 1968) have been suggested to relate to low academic achievement by Indian children. Similarly, Coleman (1966), Brookover (1969), Rosenberg (1971), and Rosenthal (1968) have found many of these same factors to be related to the academic achievement of other minority children. This suggests the possibility of a theory to explain more generally the differential academic achievement of minority children. In spite of the many studies on Indian education, most intervention efforts have met with little success. Observing this situation, Berry comments: "Millions of dollars have been spent, and continue to be Spent each year, on Indian education; the results are disappointing. ...there is widespread agreement that the Indian has not profited satisfactorily from this vast expenditure of money and effort" (Berry, 1968: 1). What appears to be lacking in the literature is a definition 2i the process which leads to low academic achievement. Such a defini- tion of process would relate the identified factors to one another in a logical model showing how they ultimately affect achievement. It is the contention of this researcher that neither an understanding of poor academic achievement nor identification of appropriate points of intervention can be reached until such a processual model has been defined. If manipulable variables are identified in the model, such a definition of process could facilitate the identification of alterna- tive points of intervention and could also assist in the assessment of the probable effectiveness of intervention at each point by tracing the consequences through the model. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the present study is to take the initial steps required in the development of a processual model to eXplain the poor academic achievement of American Indian children. Based on the Indian education literature and sociological theory, a tentative model is suggested and a first test of the model is undertaken. In this first test of the model, attention is directed to the child's perception of himself as student, his own expectations for his academic performance, and his perceptions of others' expections and evaluations of him in the student role. It is deemed important to begin work on the model with these considerations because of their central importance to the model and because of the lack of clear evidence in the literature indicating how these factors relate to the achievement (or lack thereof) of American Indian children. Indeed, the sociological literature indicates that self- concept as student does not relate to academic achievement in the same way for all students (cf., Rosenberg and Simmons, 1971; Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972). One might question whether it is even a valid assump- tion that self-concept as student is an important concern of Indian students. That is, is there really self-investment in the student role? Beyond this, one might further question whether concepts such as self-concept which have been deve10ped and used in one segment of the pOpulation can validly be applied to a culturally different segment of the pOpulation. For example, some items included in self-concept of academic ability ask the child to evaluate his academic capabilities in comparison to others. While such comparisons may be valid in those contexts wherein individual achievement and competitiveness are valued, there is some indication in the literature that such comparisons may be illegitimate for the traditional (Sioux) Indian child (cf., Macgregor, 1946: 132). These are some of the issues which need to be explored and resolved before further work can be done in developing the pro- cessual model. The research task undertaken here, then, is the first phase of an effort to develOp a processual model explaining the low academic achievement generally observed among American Indian children. In this first phase, the focus is primarily directed to the child's self-concept as student, his own assessment of his ability and the likelihood of his success, his perceptions of others' evaluations and expectations of him and the relationship of these perceived evaulations and expectations to his self-assessment and achievement, his evaluation of his ability to influence and control his environment and hence the worthwhileness of investment in the student role, and the importance which he places on the favorable or Unfavorable judgments which others (teachers, family members, and peers) make of him in the student role. While these factors are the primary foci of the study, other factors (e g., teachers' expectations, school climate, interaction patterns in the classroom, etc ) have also been observed for purposes of placing the study in its situational context and also to provide direction for continued work on the development of the model. Delimitations of the Study While the ultimate objective of the research endeavor of which the present study is a first phase is to develOp a processual model of American Indian academic achievement, the present study is limited to a subpopulation of American Indian children. Namely, data and ob- servations for the present study have been drawn from American Indian children in grades three through eight who were in attendance in five elementary schools located on a large Plains reservation during the fall and winter of 1973. Consequently, it remains for further research to determine whether the findings and conclusions reported here are also applicable to non-reservation Indian children as well as to Indian children who are members of other tribes which have different traditions. The five schools from which the subjects for the present study were drawn represent three different types of schools attended by reservation Indian children -- mission schools (two schools), Bureau Of Indian Affairs day schools (two schools), and public, in this case county, schools (one school). The five schools are a non-random sample of such schools and were selected on the basis of their type (i.e., mission, BIA, and public), location (nearness to or location in a small reservation town and ruralness), and accessability (access within time limits from the researcher's base of Operation and along readily passable roads). Because the selection of the schools is non-random, it is possible that a broader sample of schools from the reservation may produce still further differences. Given the nature of the ques- tions explored in the present study, however, this does not seem to be a grave concern. The sample of Indian children drawn from these schools is fairly large, 481, and it is expected that their responses will pro- vide some fairly good indications as to the meaningfulness of the self- concept as student concept for Indian children, investment in the student role, and the significance of perceived expectations and evaluations of others for the Indian child's academic achievement. Achievement data for the present study were derived from measures provided to the researcher from school records. These measures consist of scores, composite and reading, from standardized achievement tests and school grades. One of the five schools does not routinely administer achievement tests to its students However, the guidance counselor at this particular school, had given achievement tests to fourth grade students in the school, and a reading teacher in the upper elementary grades had administered standardized reading achievement tests to students in grades six through eight Because this researcher had agreed, prior to arrival at the research site, to make use of whatever test scores were available and not administer additional "tests” to the children, the standardized achievement data for this one school is limited. Examination of the correlation between composite academic achievement (a summarizing score on achievement tests) and reading achievement reveals a high correlation (.934), suggesting that one might utilize the reading achievement measure to assess standardized academic achievement and thereby reduce the number of missing cases. Data on students' perceptions, expectations, and attitudes were gathered by means of a questionnaire administered to all students in grades three through eight. The questionnaire utilized was essentially the same as an instrument developed by Wilbur B. Brookover and R. J. Gigliotti (1969) for use in their School Social Environment Study. Use of this instrument has several advantages: (1) it has been utilized extensively and has proven suitable for children in grades four through six (roughly the grade range of interest in this study); (2) it has been found to provide both valid and reliable measures of variables which are of interest to the present study; and (3) it allows for com- parisons of students' responses on several centrally important factors (i.e., self-concept, self-investment, sense of control/sense of futility, etc.). This researcher administered all questionnaires and, to make provisions for any reading difficulties among the younger children (grades three and four), the entire questionnaire was read to the respondents, allowing time for response selection. CHAPTER II LITERATURE AND THEORY Introduction The present study focuses upon American Indian children in the elementary grades. In particular, we are interested in their self- concepts of academic ability, their self-investment in the student role, their perceptions Of the expectations and evaluations which "significant others" have of them as students, their sense of control/ sense of futility with respect to their life chances and, particularly, with reapect to their academic endeavors, their perceptions of the academic climate of the schools which they attend, and the relationship of these variables to academic achievement. The decision to focus on elementary school children follows from the fact that the elementary grades are viewed, by this researcher, as critical for the success or failure which children are likely to eXperience in their subsequent years of schooling. When a child has not acquired adequate reading skills, for example, in the early grades, the chances of mastering increasingly complex materials presented in written form in later years seem to be diminished. A further reason for electing to focus on elementary school children is that much of the previous research in this area focuses on high school or college students, a pOpulation quite unlike the present subjects in many ways. Hence the generalizability 10 of findings from those studies to elementary school children is called into question. Before proceeding to review the theoretical foundations upon which the present research rests, I will briefly review: (1) that portion of the Indian education literature which attempts to "explain" the poor academic achievement record of American Indian children; and (2) the research literature dealing with the central concerns of the present study, namely self—concept of academic ability, self-investment, expecta- tions and evaluations from significant others, sense of control/sense of futility, academic climate, and the relationship of these to academic achievement. In discussing the theoretical foundations for the present research and the processual model advanced here, four theoretical areas are seen as most relevant These four are: (l) symbolic interactionism, which provides the broad general framework for the study; (2) role theory, which focuses our attention on children in their student roles; (3) social psychological learning theory, which draws upon both symbolic interactionism and role theory and which then applies basic concepts and propositions from these to the social context of the school; and (4) status expectation theory, which is seen as particularly useful in studying differential academic achievement by minority children. We will deal briefly with each of these areas, indicating its relevance to the problem under study. Indian Education Literature There is a vast literature on Indian education. This literature contains a wide variety of material, ranging from memoirs to empirical 11 studies of varying quality. Brewton Berry (1968) provides an excellent survey of this literature and serves as our guide in dealing with that portion of the Indian education literature most directly concerned with the "causes" of the poor academic performance observed among Indian students. He organizes and discusses the suggested causes in terms of eight categories -- two of which are internal to the Indian student, namely intelligence and self-concept; two of which are external to the Indian student and related to others who are generally assumed to be significant for children's academic performance, namely teachers and parents; three of which are related to the culture of the American Indian and differences with the dominant culture, namely cultural depriva- tion, cultural barriers, and language barriers; and one of which is concerned with the school itself, its facilities, curriculum, and social environment. Berry gives little credence to the notion that the poor academic performance of Indian children is attributable to inferior inherent ability. He points out that as early as 1928 (cf., Jamieson and Sandiford, 1928; Klineberg, 1928), researchers began to question the validity of intelligence tests, particularly when it was observed that Indian children often performed well on some kinds (generally nonverbal types) of intelligence tests (cf., Rohrer, 1942; Telford, 1932; Fuchs and Havighurst, 1973). Berry contends that: "Since 1940 no responsible scholar has maintained that Indians are intellectually inferior" (Berry, 1968: 33). However, the debate concerning inherited intellectual ability seems far from over when one observes the controversy so recently stirred by the writings of Arthur Jensen (1969). Although the evidence 12 in support of the contention that intellectual ability is primarily inherited is judged to be inconclusive (see Silberman, 1970), Berry suggests, without indicating any empirical basis for his conjecture, that ".. many white peOple with whom Indians come into contact, includ- ing teachers, are not aware of what psychologists and social scientists have concluded regarding Indian intelligence. Or, if they are aware of it, they have refused to accept it" (Berry, 1968: 34). If this Opinion were indeed true of the teachers of Indian children, it would be very important to the proposed model which suggests that (1) teachers provide action opportunities for learning which are consistent with their expectations concerning their students' capabilities and (2) children form self-concepts of ability which are consistent with those they perceive teachers, as "significant others," to hold for them and that they act in accordance with these expectations. While Berry presents no evidence to convince us that teachers do hold Opinions of this nature, recent empirical research by Fuchs and Havighurst (1973) suggests that the contrary may be the case. Although they do not Specifically refer to teachers' evaluations of the inherent ability of Indian children, they describe teachers' overall attitudes toward both the teaching of Indian children and the Indian children themselves as "favorable" (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1973: 193-196, 309). In order to maintain cognitive consistency, one would expect that «- teachers would also evaluate their students' academic ability favorably. It is possible, however, that teachers may anticipate some upper limit to what Indian children can achieve and still maintain a generally favorable attitude toward the teaching of Indian children and toward 13 Indian children themselves. This, then, appears to be an unanswered empirical question in the literature. Although teachers represent a potential group of "significant others" for children in their student roles, little research has been directed to teachers specifically. Wax and Wax provide a clue to this omission when they observe that "most investigators have managed to avoid looking at what actually occurs within schools" (Wax and Wax, 1971: 8). They argue that researchers often utilize students as subjects in admin- istering batteries of tests and questionnaires, but they infrequently look at the school and the classroom as an on-going social system. If this is indeed the case, it is little wonder that this set of prominent actors in that social system is often overlooked. We should not take this to mean, however, that no researchers have concerned themselves with the teachers of Indian children. Berry points out: "Teachers, to be sure, are mentioned and discussed throughout the literature, usually with emphasis upon their shortcomings and inadequacies” (Berry, 1968: 36). One of the concerns expressed in the literature is that the teachers of Indian children are often of limited background and have narrow horizons (cf., Miller and Caulkins, 1964; Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964). The reference of "limited backgrounds" here seems not to be so much educational preparation as social origins. For example, Wax, Wax, and Dumont provide the following description of teachers on the reservation where they conducted their study: "The teachers in the elementary grades are predominantly married women or widows, middle aged or older. Most of them are whites raised in the communities of the western plains" (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 71). It is difficult, however, to say 14 how generally observations such as this apply to the population of teachers of Indian children and even more difficult to attribute poor academic achievement to this "cause" since it is unclear that these teachers really differ in their social backgrounds from teachers of dominant children who live in similar localities. Most studies, including that of Wax, Wax, and Dumont, have been carried out in a single locality, often rural, and have not examined a cross-section of teachers of Indian children. Recent pOpulation figures indicate that nearly one-half of the Indian pOpulation in the United States now lives in urban areas, and most of these are concentrated in a few large metropolitan centers (Wax, 1971). One would certainly expect teachers in such places to possess very different social background characteristics from those reported in the more limited studies. Findings from the recently com- pleted National Study of American Indian Education (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1973) indicate that there is little difference in the general characteris- tics (e.g , sex, age, level of education, teaching experience, etc.) of a sample of Bureau of Indian Affairs teachers and a national sample of public school teachers. If teachers of Indian children possess back- ground characteristics (such as level of education, teaching experience, etc.) similar to those possessed by teachers of dominant (white) children, then differences in achievement cannot be attributed to these character- istics. That is, there is no evidence that teachers of Indian children are less prepared for teaching than are teachers of non-Indian children. Probably more attention in the literature has been directed to teacher attitudes than to any other attributes of teachers. Berry reports that "it is apparent that many of them do not hold their Indian 15 pupils in high regard" (Berry, 1968: 38). Negative attitudes Of teachers toward Indian pupils reported in the literature most generally regard characteristics other than intelligence. One finds Indian students characterized as "hostile," "mean," "lazy," and "dumb" (Parmee, 1968) at one extreme, and by "lack of interest and incentive for education" (Kennedy, 1955) at the other, less severe, extreme. Wax, Wax, and Dumont summarize the prevalent attitude among teachers in their study with the following comment: "The most common attitude is condescension, sometimes kindly, often well-meant, but always critical" (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 73). In contrast, to some extent, to these observations, Fuchs and Havighurst (1973) report that their results, from surveys and interviews with 979 teachers of Indian children, indicate that most teachers have generally favorable attitudes toward their students. However, they also indicate that "the typical teacher feels that Indian children are well behaved but that most are shy in class and not eager to learn" (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1973: 194). These attitudes, like teachers' opinions of their students' inherent ability, are viewed as important concerns in relation to the prOposed model. As we shall discuss later, the expectations and evaluations which teachers have of their students are seen as significant not only to the self-concept which children develop through interaction with the teachers and others, but also to the action Opportunities which teachers are likely to provide and subsequent evaluations which they are likely to make of the child's performance. Like teachers‘ Opinions of Indian children's inherent ability, teachers' attitudes toward these children in the role of student appears to be an unresolved empirical question in the literature. 16 Other researchers look to the home environment and parents in their efforts to explain the poor academic performance of Indian students. Dean James E. Russell, quoted in the Meriam report (1928: 349), provides the rationale for this particular focus: However important may be the contribution of the school, the atmosphere and condition of the home are, especially in the early years of the child's life, the primary determinant in the develOpment of the child, and, since it is the parents who determine these conditions and create that atmos— phere, it is they who are of necessity the most important educational factors in the lives of their children. In spite of this assertion, Berry finds little systematic research on the parents of Indian children and their role in their children's educa- tion. Furthermore, he adds that what research there is on this tOpic leaves one confused as to Indian parents' attitudes toward the educa- tion of their children. "The word most commonly encountered is 'apathy' or some synonym therefor" (Berry, 1968: 41). It is argued that because of the apathetic attitude of parents toward education, Indian children receive little or no parental encouragement in their academic pursuits. It seems, though, that one should view this description of parents' attitudes toward educa- tion with caution for several reasons: (1) there is little empirical support for this assertion since most researchers have conducted, at best, only limited interviews with parents; and (2) what these researchers term "apathy" may, in fact, not be a lack of concern or interest on the parents' part at all, but rather, a reflection of some sort of inter- actional barrier between Indian parents and those in the school system. 17 In support of the latter thesis, Fuchs and Havighurst (1972: 194) ”...about half of the teachers” (in their sample of teachers report that of Indian children) "had a rather negative picture of Indian parents." Many of the teachers in their survey perceived parents to be indifferent toward the school; some even perceived them to be hostile; and many saw the Indian parents' teachings to conflict with those of the school. Given this kind of attitude on the part of teachers, it would be little wonder if Indian parents were less than eager to become involved in their children's formal education. Wax, Wax, and Dumont (1964), who spent comparatively more time than most researchers interviewing Indian parents, also reject the "apathy" label, charging that "apathy is a convenient label to apply to people who don't happen to agree with the program that a government official or other reformer happens to be pushing." Still others (cf., Wax and Thomas, 1961; Bernardoni, 1963; Wolcott, 1967) suggest that what some researchers interpret as apathy may really be traceable to a traditional Indian norm of non-interference in the affairs of others. Whatever the case, we are again led to the conclusion that there is little empirical support for the varying assertions made about Indian parents' attitudes toward the education of their children. Inasmuch as Russell's reasoning regarding the role of parents in their children's learning appears to be sound, and in light of findings from empirical research on this question with non- Indian parents and children, indicating a strong relationship between various family background characteristics and achievement (cf., Coleman, 1966; Entwisle, 1970; Hyman, 1953; Rosen and D'Andrade, 1959), it appears that this, too, is an area in Indian education which is very much in need of further research. 18 As a final comment on Indian parents' attitudes toward education, Berry observes: Despite the apathy, hostility, and suspicion, which are undoubtedly present, the main im- pression one gains from a reading of the lit- erature, however, is that Indians now place a high value upon schooling and desire it for their children. Almost every writer on Indian education testifies to this fact (Berry, 1968: 43). Wax, Wax, and Dumont (1964) and others also suggest that this attitude most frequently is expressed from the pragmatic position that a good education will lead to a good remunerative job. Thus we are left with the question of whether or not Indian parents encourage academic achievement by their children. On the one hand, we are told that they generally do not actively involve themselves in their children's educa- tion, and, on the other hand, we are told that they highly value educa- tion and desire it for their children. How these seemingly conflicting positions are related to the children and their achievement is not clear. Much of the literature dealing with "cultural deprivation," "cul- tural barriers," and "language barriers" as "causes" of poor academic performance, also looks to the family background of the Indian child. Berry observes (1968: 47): "Throughout the literature there runs the theme that the Indian child comes from a home environment which is any- thing but conducive to academic success." Much of this is not based on an empirically established relationship, but on "...the assumption that the Indian child has little or nothing in his background upon which the schools might build" (ibid). In fact, however, Bailey (1965) raises 19 some doubt about this assumption. In his comparison of good readers and poor readers in a sample of full-blood Utes, he found that "such variables as the number of books in the home, educational level of the parents, number of peOple in the home, number of Square feet in the home, English Speaking ability of the parents, age and condition of the home, the parents' attitudes toward school, are not related to reading ability." Wax, Wax, and Dumont (1964: 67-71) blast the theory of cultural deprivation under the terminology of the "vacuum ideology." They write: By 'Vacuum Ideology' we mean the diSposition of administrators and school officials to support policies and programs (such as the establish- ment of nursery schools) with the assertion that the Indian home and the mind of the Indian child are meager, empty or lacking in pattern (p. 67). However we wish to resolve this comparison between Sioux and 'usual American' homes, the important consideration is that the approach of these educators is negativistic and contrary to basic educational theory, which says it is the task of the school to inquire about where the child Stands now in his development and to pitch its educational efforts accordingly Of what utility then is this Vacuum Ideology with its endless list of traits that Sioux children lack and its lack of interest in the traits that these children do have. So far as we can see, the ideology is a rationalization for the educators' defeat, as given their pathetic image of the Sioux child, then surely it must be a miracle if the school manages to teach him anything. More- over, the Ideology also has the convenient quality that it serves to justify any activity within the school as somehow being 'educational' (p. 70). Leacock (1960) relates the "cultural deprivation" theory to teacher expectations and self-expectations of students, both important concerns 20 in the present research. She observes that the cultural deprivation theory helps to justify a policy of "educational deprivation." Refer- ring to teachers of lower-class Negro children, she observes that the teachers do not expect that they can be taught, and these low expecta- tions are reflected in the children's low expectations for themselves. While the theory of cultural deprivation does not appear to be a defensible thesis, there is little question that most researchers and educators perceive cultural differences between "the Indian way" and the dominant (white, middle-class) way. We use "the Indian way" cautiously here, recognizing the great variations in language and customs among the different tribes. This cultural difference is what Berry refers to when he writes of the cultural barrier. He says: "...the fact that he (the Indian child) begins his formal education with a cultural heritage which differs appreciably from that of the school's administrators, policymakers, and teachers cannot be doubted. This cultural barrier is a difficult one to surmount, and many fail to make it. It is often Stated that this conflict of cultures which develOpS in the school situation is a major obstacle to the Indian child's academic success" (Berry, 1968: 50). What is not at all clear in the literature, either Indian educa- tion literature or other writings and research reports on the American Indians, relates to the question of just what is the culture of the American Indians today, and, related to this, in what ways, Significant to academic achievement, do "Indian ways" and values differ from those of the dominant society? Berry points out the two extremes, basically of Opinion rather than empirically based conclusions, to these questions: 21 There are some who maintain that the Indian today possesses a civilization of great antiquity, to which he is deeply attached, and which he is determined to perpetuate. At the other extreme there are those, including some Indians, who conclude that the old cul- tures have been shattered and can never be revived The culture which the Indian now possesses, they say, bears little resemblance to that of his ancestors, and is instead the pro- duct of centuries of isolation, poverty, exploita- tion, and paternalism (Berry, 1968: 50). Surely one would have to admit that cultural contact, advanced so much in recent years with improved communication via the mass media, improved transportation (including networks of paved roads on reserva- tions), and urban migration, could not but result in changes in the Indians' ways and values. Yet, the relative isolation of the reserva- tions, the return of urban migrants to these enclaves, and the more recent emphasis on maintaining Indian ways by Panelndian movements, also suggest that some ways and values are persistently being passed on to new generations. It would appear, from these conflicting forces, that Indian culture today is probably not totally alien from that of antiquity, but, indeed, changed in some respects. Just what has changed, particularly in terms of values and norms viewed as important to academic achievement (e.g., competitiveness, individual vs. group achievement, individual vs. group identity, cooperativeneSS, particularly among kin, etc.) is not known Any assumption here would appear very hazardous, and it is suggested that this is an area in which research is urgently needed. If we are to attribute any part of poor academic performance to "cultural barriers" or value conflicts, it seems imperative that we 22 have some good idea of that culture and value content. At present, it does not appear that we have this knowledge. The uncertainty is less, however, when we speak of "the language barrier." Berry summarizes the reports on English language usage by Indian students with the following statement: "Many Indian children begin their formal education with little or no skill in the use of the English language" (Berry, 1968: 55). Clearly when the child can neither understand nor be understood by the teacher in the classroom, the chances of learning through direction from or interaction with the teacher are severly limited. Just how severly limited Indian children are in their usage of the English language is uncertain. In many areas of the country, very few Indian people have any knowledge of their traditional language and English is their first and only language. While Deissler (1962) reported that Indian children from English-Speaking homes out- performed those from non-English-speaking homes, Berry reports research which indicates that "even in those Indian communities where English, and English only, is the language, we still find the universal problems of low achievement, high dropout rates, absenteeism, over-agedness, etc. This strongly suggests that we should look for some more basic cause of these academic Shortcomings" (Berry, 1968: 57). A further point should be made, however, on the language barrier. Berry mentions in passing that "even though most Indian children the country over may Speak English, and often English only, it is usually a 'substandard' variety of English" (ibid.). Bernstein (1961; 1964) discusses social class-related differences in language usage and con- sequent advantages and disadvantages in terms of "restricted" and "elaborated" codes. 23 In the case of an elaborated code the Speaker will select from a relatively extensive range of alternatives... If a speaker is using a restricted code then the range of these alternatives is severely limited (Bernstein, 1964: 259). Further, Bernstein (1964: 252-253) says that an elaborated code (referred to as "formal language" in his earlier work) is characterized by accurate grammatical order, concern for logical, temporal and Spatial relationships, impersonal terms, discriminative selection of terms, individual qualification, and expressive symbolism. Restricted code ("public language" in his earlier work) is characterized, generally, by the Opposites of these. Thus, Bernstein suggests that the charac- teristics of restricted code are Short, grammatically simple sentences with poor syntactical form, Simple and repetitive use of conjunctions which Show little concern for logical, temporal and Spatial relation- ships, infrequent use of impersonal terms, rigid and limited use of adjectives and adverbs, frequent use of statements where the reason and conclusion are confounded, frequent use of statements and phrases calling for the previous Speech sequence to be reinforced, and individual quali- fication implicit in the sentence organization. Bernstein sees child- hood learning of elaborated code as facilitating (but not necessarily determining) a high level of achievement. The child who utilizes an elaborated code not only has a speech pattern more highly valued in the school community, but he is also seen as more able to relate to others (teachers, for example) who are not from his immediate social environ- ment and, thus, who do not share the meanings implicit in his pattern of Speech. The child who utilizes a restricted code, on the other 24 hand, not only exhibits a Speech pattern which is leSS valued, but he is also seen as more restricted in his ability to relate to others who do not Share his code. In terms of Bernstein's conceptualization, the "substandard" variety of English attributed to Indian children would be viewed as a restricted code while the language pattern of dominant children who utilize an elaborated code an advantage in verbal exchange in the classroom. The Indian children who utilize a restricted code may be more limited in expressing themselves and may encounter difficulties in understanding the teacher who is assumed to utilize an elaborated code. Also the larger vocabulary characteristic of those who utilize an elaborated code as well as the more accurate grammatical Structure characteristic of this code, theoretically give the dominant children an advantage over the Indian children who utilize a restricted code. The causal relationship between academic achievement and linguistic code utilized is challenged by Morrison and McIntyre (1971) and by Schneider (1973). Morrison and McIntyre indicate that there is a lack of empirical support for such a causal relationship while Schneider points out that Bernstein developed his theory in Great Britain and that there is no certainty that his formulations are valid for the American class structure, and we might add, linguistic patterns. At any rate, inasmuch as language ability is an important Skill in learning as well as in test-taking, a lack of facility with the English language would appear to work to the disadvantage of Indian children. Employing a perspective much like that of Coleman (1966), there are many writers and researchers who look to the schools to explain 25 the poor academic performance of Indian children. They do not necessarily deny that teachers' attitudes leave much to be desired or that parents do not provide sufficient encouragement or that cultural and language barriers exist, but they do accuse the schools of failing to help the child overcome these initial handicaps. Stated in its most direct and clear form, Coleman offered the following as a major conclusion from the Equality of Opportunity Study: That schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school. For equality of educational opportunity through the schools must imply a strong effect of schools that is independent of the child's immediate social environment, and that Strong independent effect is not present in American schools (Coleman, 1966: 325). The search for school factors which may have some relationship to academic failure has led in several directions, including such factors as adequacy of the schools' physical facilities, curriculum, and social environment. Berry reports that: One does not get the impression from reading the recent literature that Indians generally are the victims of discrimination insofar as the physical, tangible accouterments of educa- tion are concerned. Even the most critical and observant students (of Indian education) fail to mention this as a factor in the Indian's poor academic achievement On the contrary, one reads of the adequate and modern physical facilities available (Berry, 1968: 61). 26 This lack of relationship between academic achievement and physical facilities concurs with Coleman's finding that variations in school facilities account for very little of the variation in achievement. Berry reports that "discussions of the curriculum for Indian students do not loom large in the literature" (Berry, 1968: 64). Insofar as one does find Such discussion, it appears to center on either of two questions: (1) whether the emphasis in the curriculum Should be academic or vocational; and (2) what role Native American studies should play in the curriculum. The debate over an academic vs. a voca- tional curriculum has several important implications. First, the dis- cussion and decision is generally by non-Indians indicating the con- tinuing paternalistic attitude and unwillingness of the dominant society to allow the Indian self-determination with respect to his own life and future. Second, the debate also reflects indirectly a concern, at least on the part of some individuals, that Indians may not have the capacity for strictly academic endeavors. Third, the debate does, on the more positive side, indicate a recognition of both language difficulties encountered by Indian Students in academic studies and the employment problems encountered by many Indians when they leave school. Even though recognition of these problems may be commendable, the solution to restrict education to vocational training is viewed as wanting. In terms of the present research and our tentative model, attitudes such as these and the expectations for academic performance which they connote are seen as having serious consequences for the student's self- concept of academic ability and ultimately for academic performance. Similarly, the continuing discussion of the role of Native American studies in the curriculum has its implications. First, it suggests a 27 recognition of the fact that education has been, and still essentially is, oriented toward an assimilationist policy, attempting to ignore or suppress the Indians' cultural heritage and supplant it with the domi— nant society's orientations. Second, it indicates a desire, at least on the part of some, to change this thrust, granting some recognition to the Indians' culture and history. Third, it also suggests that some have come to the conclusion that it is important to cultivate pride in oneself as Indian for the sake of the mental health of Indian youth as well as to facilitate their academic development. Berry reports that "one searches the literature in vain, however, for reports of programs in public schools, where Indians are in attendance, designed to resolve their identity problems and to develop pride in their heritage" (ibid). This neglect of Native American studies may be an indication that there are still many, at least in decision-making positions, who are commit- ted to the "Vacuum Ideology" with its consequent negative image and expectations of Indians. Berry judges the social atmosphere of the school to be a more serious obstacle to the Indian child's academic achievement than any of the other school factors. This is also consistent with Coleman's finding that school environments relate more Strongly to achievement than either facilities or curriculums (Coleman, 1966: 22-23). This conviction, however, does not seem to be Shared by many researchers in Indian education since Berry reports that there are the few Studies of the social environment of the School and the classroom. Wax, Wax, and Dumont (1964) are credited with having carried out one of the most complete studies in this area. Of all the elements in the social environment of the school, they describe the role of the peer group as very crucial. 28 Based largely on their observations of classrooms and their interpreta- tions of those observations, they conclude. Performance of a child within the schoolroom is affected in two different ways by the atti— tudes of his peers. On the one hand, Indians tend to ridicule the person who performs clum- sily: An individual should not attempt an action unless he knows how to do it; and if he does not know, then he Should watch until he has understood. ...If a child may suffer then by performing inadequately before his audience of peers, he also has a problem if he is able to perform correctly or excellently, as this may be interpreted as collaboration with the 'enemy,‘ i.e. the teacher (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 95). There is little evidence, however, that Indian children either inter- pret academic achievement as "collaboration" or perceive the teacher as "the enemy." Nevertheless, the role of the peer group in controlling academic achievement among Indian youth has also been reported by others (cf., Wolcott, 1967; Miller and Caulkins, 1964; R. Wax, 1967) and seems to merit further attention. Throughout the Indian education literature one finds the school described as an alien environment for both the Indian children and their parents (cf., Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964; Wolcott, 1967; Bennett, 1964; Meador, 1965). AS noted earlier, many writers and researchers report that Indian parents are reluctant to become involved in this environment, and it is possible that some of this feeling of "strange-ness" is carried over by their children who are thus inhibited from performing adequately in that environment. Berry concludes from the meager literature on school environment that "...the classrooms in which Indian pupils find themselves are not conducive to their feeling of security 29 and acceptance nor to their scholastic achievement" (Berry, 1968: 65). Once again one must view these conclusions with caution Since they have so little empirical support. We have reserved discussion of the literature on the Indian student's self-concept until the last of this review of the Indian education literature because it is the factor which Berry considers most viable and because it is also most closely related to our own research concerns. Berry indicates that much research still needs to be done on this topic, "but there is evidence that the problem of identity is uppermost, and that he (the Indian youth) is plagued with feelings of alienation, anxiety, and inadequacy" (Berry, 1968: 66). Berry also finds that terms often used in the literature to describe the Indian's feelings about himself include "alienation, hopelessness, powerlessness, rejection, depression, anxiety, estrangement, and frustration" (ibid). Feelings such as these, evidencing a poor self-concept and a low sense of con- trol over one's life, have been found by Coleman (1966: 319) to relate most Strongly to academic achievement. Coleman reports: "Taken alone, these attitudinal variables account for more of the variation in achieve- ment than any other set of variables. ...When added to any other set of variables, they increase the accounted for variation more than does any other set of variables" (ibid). If Indian children do, indeed, have such negative self-attitudéS\\ (a question raised owing to the lack of evidence in the literature ' establishing the validity of this concept for Indian subjects), Berry inquires what the source of these attitudes might be. He finds little research in this area, but he suggests that: "In the last analysis his self-concept will reflect the attitudes and Opinions of the dominant 3O non-Indian majority with which he interacts either directly or indirectly" (Berry, 1968: 67). The literature, however, does not give us any clear indications, as we have already seen with reSpect to teachers' attitudes, as to the dominant society's attitudes toward Indians or the degree and extent of prejudice and discrimination to which Indians are subjected. Neither do we have evidence supporting the assumed relationship between perceptions of significant others' attitudes and self-attitudes for Indian children. If Berry's suggestion is correct that the Indian's self-concept reflects the attitudes and opinions of the dominant non- Indian majority, the literature also provides us with few clues suggest- ing how these attitudes and Opinions are transmitted to Indian children and transformed into their own self—attitudes. Thus we are forced to conclude this review of the Indian education literature with the impres- sion that there is very little that we know with any degree of certainty about the factors contributing to the poor academic record of most American Indian students. Much needs to be done, particularly, it seems, in the area of examining carefully many blindly accepted assumptions and in the area of constructing a coherent picture of what is happening in the schools attended by Indian children. Research Literature on Academic Achievement and Self-Concept as Student A brief definition and discussion of "self-concept" seems warranted at the outset in this review of research literature. An individual's self'concept is seen as many-faceted. It has been defined as "that organization of qualities that the individual attributes to himself" 31 (Kinch, 1967: 233). It is a composite of the adjectives by which the individual describes himself and the roles in which he sees himself. The attributes most salient to the individuals' reflection on himself at any given time is seen as dependent, in part at least, upon the social situation in which the actor finds himself at a given time -- the scenario here understood to include other actors to whom the indivi- dual relates. Thus, not all attributes of an individual's self-concept are meaningful in all Situations. This is an important point because not all research on academic achievement and self-concept take this into account, and such oversight is seen as leading to erroneous conclusion. The Indian education literature (see Berry, 1968: 66-70) provides many examples of this. Most studies of academic achievement and self- concept involving Indian students seem to equate "self-concept" with "self-concept as Indian" and assume that both of these can be equated with "self-concept as student." While "self-concept as Indian" may be related to a particular "self-concept as student" (a possibility eXplored later under Status Expectation Theory), there is no apparent basis, either logical or evidential, to assume that these concepts are equivalent. Following Brookover's lead (Brookover, et.al., 1967: 7-8), we utilize self-concept of academic ability in this research, viewing attributes which a child assigns to himself in the student role as most relevant to his academic performance. Brookover defines self-concept as a behavioral process: Self-concept is defined as symbolic behavior in which the individual articulates a program of action for himself as an object in relation to others (Brookover, et.al., 1967: 8). 32 Deriving the specific self-concept of academic ability from this global concept, he goes on to define self-concept of academic ability: Self-concept of academic ability refers to behavior in which one indicates to himself (publicly or privately) his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others engaged in the same task (ibid). We must proceed with caution, however, in employing this concept with our sample of American Indian children for reasons noted earlier, namely: (1) the self-concept construct is of uncertain validity with a culturally different group such as the American Indians; (2) ethnographic reports indicate less emphasis on the individual (self) and greater emphasis on the group, generally kin, among many Indian groups (see Macgregor, 1946; Erikson, 1950; Bryde, 1965); and (3) competitiveness which seems to be suggested by "comparisons with others' has been reported to be unacceptable behavior in some Indian traditions (see sources cited above). If self-concept of academic ability does prove to be a valid con- struct for American Indian students as it has for others, we must then inquire how it functions in relation to academic achievement. Brookover and Erickson (1969) suggest that self-concept of academic ability func- tions as a "threshold" variable which sets limits on achievement. They argue that if a child does not believe that he is able to learn an acti- vity or successfully perform a task, he will not invest time and energy in the attempt to do so. On the other hand, even if the child does believe that he is capable of learning an activity or performing a task, he may still choose to direct his attention elsewhere and not attempt the activity or task. Thus, self-concept of academic ability is seen as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for academic achievement. 33 Perhaps Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964) provide some clue to Suggest why an individual who believes himself capable of a task may not actually engage in the task. They suggest that acceptance of a value, preference for a value, and commitment to a value are separate dimensions. Thus the child who accepts academic achievement as a positive value and one which he believes is possible for him, may prefer some other value more (peer acceptance, for example) or may not be committed to self-investment in the value Brookover (1967) suggests that such commitment may be absent because others important to the individual do not expect such commitment from him. It may also be suggested, following Coleman's observation of the relationship between academic achievement and sense of control, that commitment may be absent because the individual per- ceives that in the long run such self-investment is not worth his while. Research by Brookover and Erickson (1969) and others (cf., Brookover, et al., 1967; Coleman, 1966; Johnson, 1970) Show a strong relationship between academic achievement and self-concept of academic ability. "Self-concept accounts for a significant portion of achievement indepen- dent of measured intelligence, socio-economic status, education aspira- tions, and the expectations of family, friends, and teachers" (Brookover and Erickson, 1969: 105). In addition, Brookover and associates (1967) find support for their hypothesis that self-concept of academic ability is an intervening variable between academic achievement and perceived expectations and evaluations by others. Perceived evaluations and expectations of academic ability by others and self-concept of academic ability are more highly correlated than are self-concept of academic ability and achievement. Furthermore, first order correlations 34 between perceived evaluations and expectations of academic ability by others and achievement when controlling for self-concept of academic ability are smaller than the correlations between self-concept of academic ability and achievement when controlling for perceived evalua- tions and expectations (Brookover, et al., 1967: 118, 121). Coleman, in an extensive study documenting "inequality of educa- tional outcomes" (essentially achievement differentials) and correlates of these differentials, found that two factors -- self-concept as student and sense of control of the environment -- are most important in pro- ducing differential achievement. Of all the variables measured in the survey, including all measures of family background and all school variables, these attitudes (self-concept and sense of control) Showed the Strongest correlation to achievement, at all three grade levels (6, 9, and 12) (Coleman, 1966: 319). Coleman's findings suggest that children develop attitudes toward themselves and their life chances which either inhibit or facilitate their academic performance. The observed correlations, however, do not reveal the process by which these attitudes develOp and, in turn, function to produce the effect that they do on achievement. In fact, Coleman and others have indicated that it is not clear what the causal direction is in this relationship (i.e., from poor self-concept and low sense of control to low achievement 2; from low achievement to poor self-concept and low sense of control). Spilka and Bryde (1968: 1704) postulate a circular or interactive pattern. 35 Another dimension of "self-concept," examined by some researchers in relation to academic achievement, is "self-esteem." In general, self-esteem has been defined as: The evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an approval or disapproval and indicates the extent to which the individual believes himself to be capable, successful, and worthy (Coopersmith, 1967: 4-5). Like "self-concept of academic ability" which focuses on those attributes relevant to the student role, it seems that self-esteem could also be viewed from the same perspective -- i.e., esteem for oneself as student; the evaluation which the individual makes of himself as student. Yet, like Studies examining the relationship between academic achievement and self-concept, most studies concerned with self-esteem employ the concept as a global attitude toward the self rather than as a more specific aspect of the self (namely, the self as student). Brookover (1967) also criticizes those research efforts which attempt to examine the relationship between "self-liking" (one interpretation sometimes given to the self-esteem concept) and academic achievement, arguing that there is no logical reason to suppose that the extent to which an individual "likes" himself is predictive of academic achievement. On the other hand, it seems that Brookover's self-concept of academic ability construct does not exclude COOpersmith's self-esteem construct, if one considers self-esteem more narrowly as esteem for oneself in the Student role. Certainly the self-concept of academic ability construct provides some assessment of how "capable" one judges himself to be of 36 academic endeavors and how "successful" one sees himself to be (or expects that he would be) in those endeavors. Rosenberg and Simmons (1971) employ the global concept of self- esteem in their examination of the academic achievement of black and white students in Baltimore and the relationship of achievement to self-esteem for these students. They found that: (1) among elementary school children there is little difference in the average school performance (as measured by grades) of black and white children (p. 89); (2) although there is not much difference in self-esteem at the middle levels of per- formance, it is plain that highly success- ful secondary-school students score sub- stantially higher in self—esteem (p. 92); (3) while grades make a difference for the self-esteem of children of both races, it seems to make less difference in the case of blacks (p. 92). Summarizing their findings, Rosenberg and Simmons draw the following conclusions: There thus seems little question that the child's global feeling of self-worth is strongly related to his success or failure in school. In sum, it appears that one reason why secondary- school black children, despite their considerably poorer average performance do not score lower in self-esteem than whites is that performance in school makes less of a difference for their self-esteem (Rosenberg and Simmons, 1971: 92). Here, then, are some apparently mixed findings which Show a stronger and a more consistent relationship between academic achievement and global self-esteem for white children than for black children, and the 37 reason suggested for this difference is that school achievement is defined as less relevant to the black child's evaluation of himself than it is for the white child. In a recent, extensive study of American Indian education, Fuchs and Havighurst (1972) -- reporting on the National Study of American Indian Education -- examined, among other things, the relationship between academic achievement and self-esteem. Since the Coleman study had only a small and unreliable sample of Indian students (see Smith, 1972: 232) and Rosenberg and Simmons (1971) were concerned only with black and white students, Fuchs and Havighurst raised the question of whether the rela- tionship between scholastic achievement and self-esteem (observed pri- marily among white students) would also hold for American Indian students. Results of their study reveal ”at most only a slight relation to achieve- ment in school subjects" (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972: 178). Examination of the instrumentation employed in the National Study of American Indian Education shows that it was the global concept of self-esteem that was measured (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972: 138-139). They seem to confuse this with ”self-concept as Student" since they report that their findings contrast with those of Coleman (1966: 178). The comparison, however, does not seem to be a legitimate one since Coleman did not examine the relationship between achievement and a global self-attitude as had been done in the National Study of American Indian Education. On the contrary, Coleman examined that aspect of the self-concept which seems most relevant to education -- "self-concept, Specifically with regard to learning, and success in school" (Coleman, 1966: 319). Thus while Fuchs and Havighurst's findings do not Show a strong relationship between achievement and global self-esteem, the question of whether self-concept 38 as student relates to academic achievement in the same way as it does for other students (cf., Coleman, 1966; Brookover, et al., 1967) still remains an Open question. One additional self-construct which seems pertinent here, but which has thus far received little attention in the literature is that of "self-investment." This construct seems to be suggested by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia's work as well as by Rosenberg and Simmons' conclusions with reapect to the self-esteem of black students. Faunce (1972) has been develOping this construct with respect to occupational roles. In his work, "self investment is seen aS a selective process in which the extent of investment of self in any role is dependent upon the amount of return on such investments in the past and the anticipated amount of return in the future" (Faunce, 1972: 2). In the exchange model employed with this conceptualization, Faunce hypothesizes: In social encounters in which self esteem is invested -- and consequently risked -- the anticipated return from the "commodity" exchange is an enhancement or reaffirmation of social Status which, in turn, produces either an increment in self esteem or a confirmation of an already positive self-identity (ibid.). This conceptualization seems to fit well with Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia's contention that commitment to a value is a dimension which is separate from acceptance of a value. Employing Faunce's conceptualization of self-investment and Brookover's contention that self-concept of academic ability is a threshold variable, one might expect that a child with a positive self-concept of academic ability might choose not to invest (commit) himself to the pursuit of academic achievement either because he perceives the return on such an investment to not be worth 39 the investment or because he perceives the return from investment in other competing roles to be more rewarding. Similarly, Rosenberg and Simmons' conclusion that performance in school makes less of a difference for the self-esteem of black children may be a reflection of the fact that these children have not made an investment in the student role. This discussion of self-investment in the student role, however, is highly speculative Since little research has been done in this area. Theoretical Foundations Symbolic Interactionism The self-concept as well as the other self-constructs with which we have been dealing clearly have their roots in the social psychological tradition of symbolic interactionism. Blumer (1962) points out some of the basic premises of this tradition, indicating the place of several concepts of interest here in that tradition. Beginning on the most elementary level, Blumer says that symbolic interaction refers to the distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between human beings. The distinctive character of that interaction is "the fact that human beings interpret or 'define' each other'S actions" (Blumer, 1962: 179). Moreover, in interpreting and defining the actions of others, the individual relates these to his own plan of action through another social object, "the self." Mead is credited with develOping this con- cept in his analysis of what the process of "interpreting and defining" means to human action. Mead writes: The individual experiences himself as such, not directly, but only indirectly, from the parti- cular standpoints of other individual members of the same social group or from the generalized 4O standpoint of the social group as a whole to which he belongs. For he enters his own experi- ence as a self or individual, not directly or immediately, not by becoming a subject to him- self, but only insofar as he first becomes an object to himself just as other individuals are objects to him or are in his experience; and he becomes an object to himself only by taking the attitudes of other individuals toward himself within a social environment of context of experi- ence and behavior in which both he and they are involved (Mead, 1934: 202-203). This suggests that children come to perceive themselves as students and develop their self-concept of academic ability by taking the attitudes of others in that social context toward themselves. Who are these others involved in that social context? Clearly, three sets of others emerge in response to this question: other students (peers), teachers, and parents. Hence our focus on the expectations and evalua- tions (attitudes) of these others as they are perceived by the individual for, according to symbolic interactionism, it is not the actions of others as such that determine the individual's self-concept and behavior, but his interpretation and definition (hence perception) of the attitudes and actions of others. Blumer points out that human action is symbolic interaction which means that man "makes indications to himself in his surroundings and thus guides his actions by what he notes" (Blumer, 1962: 180). Thus, Blumer continues: Instead of the individual being surrounded by an environment of pre-existing objects which play upon him and call forth his behavior, the prOper picture is that he constructs his objects on the basis of his on-going activity. In any of his countless acts ... the individual is designating different objects to himself, 41 giving them meaning, judging their suitability to his action, and making decisions on the basis of the judgement (Blumer, 1962: 182). The environment of the Indian child is more than the school, and because he builds part of his social reality and plan of action in the environ- ment outside of the school, we inquire what impact the indications from these other environments have on his self-concept in the school environ- ment? Hence our concern with his sense of control and sense of futility with respect to his environment and life chances, for, according to these premises, the individual makes judgments about the suitability of a particular course of action based upon the indications he has made of Object in his environment. These, then, are some of the broad, basic premises from symbolic interactionism which enter into the present conceptualization and analysis of the problem under study. Other considerations from the tradition of symbolic interactionism will also become apparent as we continue our discussion of the theoretical foundations for this study. Role Theory Role, like self, is a concept coming out of symbolic interactionism. lMead'S discussion of play and game activity as background factors in the genesis of the self seem to clearly indicate this: They (children) organize in this way the res- ponses which they call out in other persons and call out also in themselves. ...A child plays at being a mother, at being a teacher, at being a policeman; that is, it is taking different roles, as we say (Mead, 1934: 214). 42 When we contrast play with the situation in an organized game, we note the essential dif- ference that the child who plays in a game must be ready to take the attitude of everyone else involved in that game and that these different roles must have a definite relation- ship to each other (Mead, 1934: 215). What Mead is implying here is not only that the self arises in inter- action with others, through taking the role of the other, but he also seems to imply that individuakslearn social roles by giving meaning to the attitudes and actions of others, internalizing these so that they become part of one's own repertoire, and making these learned responses under appropriate circumstances. There are two concepts which are of central importance in role theory, the concept of position and the concept of role. Theoretically, "a position is a category of persons occupying a place in a social relation" while "role is defined as the set of prescriptions defining the appropriate behavior of an occupant of a position toward other related positions" (Johnson, 1970: 44). As these terms are used in the literature, however, "role" seems to include both of these meanings. Applying this conceptualization to the school context, several positions can be identified, those of Student, teacher, and administrator. Each of these positions, then, carries with it a set of prescriptions defining behavior in that position and toward the other positions. Thus there are behavioral expectations of Students, teachers, and administrators. These behavioral prescriptions, roles, are learned, according to Mead, in the social interaction of individuals. This learning involves not only the learning of one's own role (e.g., student) from interpreting and giving meaning to the attitudes and behavior of others (students, 43 teachers, and administrators), but also the learning of the other roles in that social context (e.g., students develOping expectations for other students, teachers, and administrators). A child, therefore, is seen as learning the role of student in interaction with other students, teachers, and school administrators. He learns what is expected of him through interpreting the attitudes and actions of these others. Our focus here is on the child in his Student role. Therefore, we find it important to examine the expectations which children perceive others in the school have of them in their role of Student. Problems may arise for the individual, however, when he perceives others to have conflicting expectations of him as student. Suppose, for example, the child perceives teachers to expect high academic achieve- ment while he perceived peers to expect "average" academic achievement (i.e., like that of most of his classmates). Examination of the per- ceived expectations of others may reveal such differences, and examina- tion of whose opinion the child perceives as most important to him may help us understand his resolution of this problem. However, still another problem, that of role conflict, may develOp. Recognizing that individuals occupy many different positions in the social structure of the community (e.g., classmate, cousin, boyfriend, etc.), it is possible that the individual will occupy positions which will have con- flicting behavioral prescriptions (i.e., role conflict). Brookover and Gottlieb (1964) suggest that "a possible conflict between role expecta- tions may exist unless the student is able to mediate the differential expectations and perform satisfactorily in both" (Brookover and Gottlieb, 1964: 455). It has been suggested earlier that a conflict in behavioral 44 prescriptions may arise with respect to a traditional Indian emphasis on COOperativeness (individual in the role of Indian) and the school's emphasis on competitiveness (individual in the role of student). Examination of the perceived normative climate of the school as generated by classmates and perceived expectations of teachers for competitiveness will help determine whether, in fact, such conflict is perceived. If it is found that children do perceive such conflict, this knowledge will provide some direction for future research on how the individual resolves this conflict. Social Psychological Learning Theory The social psychological perspective employed in this theory of learning is that of symbolic interactionism. It takes the basic concepts and premises of symbolic interactionism and applies them to learning behavior in the school. Thus, insofar as one considers this theory at all, it is of the "same family," but only a lower level of abstrac- tion than symbolic interactionism. Johnson (1970) finds this perspec- tive to provide many insights to the learning process. In particular he points out: It focuses on the individual and his inter- personal relations with members of his own and other social systems and seeks to under- stand and explain how an individual's thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and behavior are affected by actual or imagined interaction with other human beings (Johnson, 1970: 17). The basic premise underlying these theoretical considerations is that learning occurs in a social milieu. Individuals, by and large, learn to behave as others with whom they interact behave. Furthermore, 45 it is observed that social groups develop norms which define appropriate and expected behavior within the group. Individuals learn these norms through participation in the group. Brookover and Erickson aptly summarize this perspective, deriving several prOpositions from these premises (Brookover and Erickson, 1969: 15-16): (1) Each person learns the definition of appro- priate behavior through interaction with others who are important or significant to him; ‘ (2) ...through interaction with others the individual learns to behave in ways that he perceives as appropriate or proper for him; (3) ...the individual also acquires conceptions of his ability to learn various types of behavior through interaction with others whose evaluations are important to him. Academic achievement, which may be seen as one measure of what has been learned, then occurs in a social context. Norms defining that achievement might be expected to be found in that context. Hence we inquire into the students' perceptions of the academic norms of their schools, as these norms are presented to them by peers and by teachers. Much of the research on school climates also looks into these norms, and normative differences between high and low achieving schools have been found (cf., McDill, Meyers, and Rigsby, 1967; Schneider, 1973; and Brookover, et a1 , 1973). Within the social context of the school, social psychological theory directs attention to those others who are particularly important to the individual in establishing, transmitting, and enforcing norms of behavior. Thettheoretical literature refers to "significant others" who are 46 conceptualized as directly reSponsible for the internalization of norms and who are actually involved in the cultivation of abilities, values and outlook (Shibutani, 1967: 168) and reference groups which, from one research tradition, are conceptualized as those groups whom the indivi- dual accepts as standards of comparison for self-appraisal (Hyman and Singer, 1971: 69). From a theoretical point of view, these two seem much alike. Analytically, however, we can conceive of a set of others who serve as sources of expectations and evaluations and who, perhaps, are more actively involved in cultivating abilities, values, and outlook which conform to their expectations and evaluations ("significant others”). On the other hand, we can also conceive of another set of others who more passively serve as a standard of comparison against which the individual evaluates himself -- his abilities, values, etc. (reference group). Consequently, it becomes important to inquire: Who are the child's significant others who influence performance in the classroom? Who is it that serves as a standard against which the child compares himself and evaluates his performance? Social psychological theory does not provide ready answers to these questions, and research on this subject has led to a variety of findings and conclusions, generally pointing to three sets of others: Classmates (peers), teachers, and parents. McDill, Meyers, and Rigsby, for example, seem to suggest that teachers and classmates are the most Significant others because it is they who place positive or negative valuations on intellectualism, achievement, and competition (schOol norms found to correlate with high achievement). Waxg Wax, and Dumont (1964), to provide a somewhat contrasting example, 47 clearly indicate that they see the peer group as most influential in the classroom. In their estimation, it is the peers who set the Stan- dards for the classroom and compel others to comply. The teacher, in many cases, is viewed as a "negative reference individual" -- i.e., one whose values and outlook are rejected (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 98). In contrast to this, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and Rist (1970) provide evidence to suggest that the teacher is a very significant other for children's academic performance so much so, in fact, that Rosenthal and Jacobson found that they could bring about improvements in children's performance by informing teachers that those children were about to "bloom" intellectually. More recently, Rosenthal (1973) has proposed a four-factor "theory" to explain the earlier findings. He suggests: People who have been led to expect good things from their students, children, clients, or what-have-you appear to: -- create a warmer social-emotional mood around their Special Students; -- give more feedback to these students about their performance; -- teach more material and more difficult material to their special students; and -- give their Special students more opportuni- ties to respond and question. Basically, what Rosenthal is suggesting is that teachers create a receptive climate in which they provide ample action Opportunities to the pupils from whom they expect high achievement and give positive reinforcement for such behavior. From our interactionist perspective, “K3 might suggest that the child observes the differential action 48 opportunities which the teacher provides as well as the teacher's response to his behavior and interprets these to mean that the teacher (1) believes he can perform the tasks given to him, (2) believes that he can perform better on these tasks than some, at least, of his classmates because the tasks are perceived to be more difficult, and (3) approves of his efforts in these tasks. Perhaps, the child also finds both the assign- ment of tasks more difficult than those assigned to ”slower" class- mates and the approval from the teacher to be rewarding -- sufficiently so that he invests still more of his efforts in performance of those tasks which he perceives will bring him still further rewards. From still another research tradition, the role of the family, particularly the parents, is emphasized in determining children's achieve- ment levels. This perspective has found considerable empirical support (cf., Sewell and Shah, 1967; Gordon, n.d.; Rosen and D'Andrade, 1959; Coleman, 1966). Since parents are important agents of socialization (hence, "Significant others") for young children, it is argued that they Shape the child's basic values, orientations, and definitions of self, including those related to education. Brookover and Erickson (1969), however, point out that while there is increasing literature for high school and college students, there is little literature on this subject for elementary school Students. They go on to say: This may result from the assumption that parents are by and large the most significant others for the elementary age group and that teachers largely function as parent surrogates in the elementary classrooms. These may be accurate assumptions, but we are not in a position to verify them with very much sound research evidence (Brookover and Erickson, 1969: 68). 49 Because others are seen to be so important to the self-concept, the individual's plan of action, and, ultimately, academic performance, and because there is this gap in our knowledge, and even more so as it pertains to American Indian children who, according to ethnographic reports, may experience different patterns of socialization than domi- nant (white) children, we see identification of significant others for the child's academic endeavors to be an important concern in the present study. Status Expectation Theory Recent theoretical work by Berger and associates appears to hold great promise of providing a framework for many of the studies dealing with differential achievement by minority children, particularly for those studies concerned with teacher expectations. The status expecta- tion theory essentially argues that status characteristics (e.g., age, sex, race, ethnicity, etc.) are differentially evaluated and carry with them differential performance expectations. In developing this theory, Berger and associates noted two commonalities in the small group litera- ture focusing on the relationship between a group member's status and the distribution of participation, influence, and prestige in task- oriented, decision-making groups: "...status categories (1) always appear to imply different evaluations of individuals, and (2) always provide the basis for inferring differences in an individual's capacities or characteristics" (Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch, 1972: 242). The observation that status categories not only distinguish individuals in terms of that particular attribute (i.e., age, sex, etc.) but also in 50 terms of many other attributes (e.g., ability, moral character, etc.) led Berger and associates to identify these as "diffuse Status charac- teristics” -- those Status characteristics from which one infers general assumptions about individuals. One might view these diffuse status characteristics as creating a kind of "halo effect" (see Thorndike, 1920) in that they act as stimuli for other perceptions and judgments made of the individual. Jones and Gerard comment "that our impressions of others are organized around a focus, that component bits of informa- tion are not additive, that the characteristics of a person are defined in relation to one another" (Jones and Gerard, 1967: 272). Diffuse status characteristics, then, serve as the focus around which other perceived characteristics of the individual are organized. When a per- son encounters an individual who possesses a given state of such a diffuse status characteristic (i.e., individual of a particular age, sex, race, ethnic background, etc.), the perceiver Operates in terms of his built- in map of inference and attributes other characteristics to the indivi- dual which he sees as intimately related to the initial characteristic. Often this occurs without reflection and thus unconsciously the perceiver structures the encounter. Several research groups (cf., Cohen, Roper, and Lucero, 1971; Roper, 1971; Entwisle and Webster, 1972; Cohen, et al., 1970; and Lohman, 1970) have attempted to apply this theoretical framework to the problem of interracial interaction disability in student groups. They observed that in tasks wherein there was no basis for prior cultural belief that the status characteristic (in this case, race) was relevant to performance on the task, differential performance still resulted and related to the status characteristic. More concretely, in task-oriented, decision-making 51 groups, black students were more reticent and less aggressive than were white students. Experimenters have attempted to change the differential performance of the low status subjects by taking them aside and giving them positive evaluations for their efforts and by providing them with successful role models. Many of these attempts to raise the level of performance of the low status subjects have been successful. However, one might question whether in the real-life Situation of the school, where the social context is often broader than that of a task-oriented, decision-making group, intervention at the level of individual student expectations is either the most effective or the most efficient approach. Again, there appears a need to focus on the broader process which leads to academic achievement. There is reason to believe that "Indianness" functions as a diffuse status characteristic and that a whole set of academic expectations and evaluations are associated with this characteristic. Academically relevant assumptions inferred about Indian students are found in the literature. For example, Wax, Wax, and Dumont observed that "the educa- tors believe the Sioux children are so lacking in culture that they cannot master Scholastic materials ..." (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 104). Moreover, they observed that many educators attribute this lack to the Indian home: ' '...the Sioux pupils are woefully lacking in knowledge, morals, and manners because of an inadequate home life" (ibid.). Berry summarizes status-derived assumptions concerning Indian children in his review of the Indian education literature: "...much of the literature on Indian education reveals the assumption that the child has little or nothing in his background upon which schools might build" (Berry, 1968: 47). 52 Perception of the attribute "Indianness" (whether by physical appearance, language, place of residence, or whatever) seems to serve as a stimulus evoking many other assumed attributes -- e.g., inadequate homelife, cultural deprivation, inability to master scholastic materials, non-productive members of society, etc. Coombs (1958) has even suggested that the "halo" about "Indianness" is relative to the "degree Indian" (i.e., "full-blood" vs. "mixed-blood"). He observed that the public schools, where the average achievement was highest, had the smallest proportion of "full-blood" students while mission schools, which generally Showed the lowest average achievement, had the largest proportion of "full-blood" students (Coombs, 1958: 96-97). Coombs realized that "Indian blood" is not so much an indicator of socioeconomic status and of cultural and social differences. In general, ”mixed-blood" students (who performed better on achievement tests than did "full-blood" students) are culturally and socially more assimilated than the "full-blood" Students. Coombs argues that the "mixed-bloods" perform better on achievement tests than do the "full-bloods" precisely because of their behavioral and attitudinal patterns which more closely approximate those of the dominant society. However, there is still room for speculation as to how this "cultural and social difference" operates to the benefit of the "mixed-bloods" and the detriment of the "full-bloods." From the perspective of the status expectation theory, it might be argued that "mixed-blood" and "fullbblood" denote two states of the diffuse status characteristic, "Indianness." The state, "full-blood,” then would be the extreme of "Indianness." In physical appearance, language, place of residence, etc., the "full—blood" students would more readily be identified with the diffuse status characteristic and 53 would elicit the other assumed attributes pointed out (from the litera— ture) earlier. "Mixed-blood" students, on the other hand, would probably be less likely to be characterized by the same set of attributes because they would less likely be identified with the diffuse status characteris- " they may not Speak or understand the tic -- they may not ”look Indian; Indian language; and they would probably live in a less remote area and in a structurally better house. AS Coombs points out, the "mixed- blood" students more closely resemble the white, culturally and socially. From a teacher's point of view, then, the "mixed-blood" student might more closely fit the teacher's "model of academic success" for this model has been observed (see Rist, 1970; Useem, 1947) to correspond to white middle-class values and norms. "self-concept as Earlier it was suggested that the often studied Indian" might be considered in relation to "self-concept as student." If, in fact, self-concept as Indian is correlated with self-concept as student such that a high score on one means a low score on the other, it could mean that the children have learned and internalized the set of attributes associated with the diffuse status characteristic, "Indianness." To think of oneself as Indian, then, would also imply "poor student." If these two concepts are so to think of oneself as associated and they are learned ways of perceiving, then significant others in the child's social milieu must also see these as associated. The literature at present, however, gives no evidence that these two concepts (self-concept as student and self-concept as Indian) are associated for either the child or for others in his social milieu. This is a question which is explored in a limited way in the present study in that 54 we informally look at teachers' attitudes toward Indians generally and toward their Indian students more Specifically. It remains for future research, however, to investigate the relationship between self-concept as student and self-concept as Indian. Summary of the Literature and Theoretical Foundations Many "explanations" have been offered for the American Indian's poor academic performance, and many of the suggested "causes" (e.g., language barriers, teachers' attitudes, alienation, etc.) may indeed contribute to this problem. However, most of the "explanations" fail to satisfy us because they (a) lack convincing empirical support, (b) operate under assumptions which may be false, or (c) both of these. In addition, the Indian education literature dealing with "causes" of academic failure prove unsatisfactory because it lacks any kind of unity. One finds many disparate findings, many no doubt with some grain of truth, but no effort to ”put together the pieces of this puzzle" is evident in the literature. Other research (i.e., with non-Indian subjects) on differential achievement has called our attention to the relationship of a student's self-concept of academic ability to academic achievement. There is empirical support for the contention that self-concept of academic ability derives from the individual's perceptions of the evaluations and expecta- tiLons which others make of him in the student role as well as a theore- lxical basis for this relationship. The self-concept of academic ability 1&3 further seen as both an intervening variable (one intervening between ex:pectations and evaluations of significant others and academic achieve- um nt) and a threshold variable which sets limits on achievement. Caution 55 is to be observed, however, in utilizing this concept with American Indian Students because we have no certainty that it is a valid construct for this culturally-different population, particularly since items in the self-concept of academic ability measure ask the student to compre his abilities with that of his classmates, indicating an orientation to competitiveness. Ethnographic reports indicate, however, that such an orientation may be alien and even unacceptable in the tradition of some American Indians and that COOperativeness may be more highly valued. Assessment of the appropriateness of this construct with a sample of Indian students is, therefore, one of the concerns of the present study. Utilizing theoretical insights from symbolic interactionism, role theory, social psychological learning theory, and status expectation theory, we propose to begin the task of weighing the evidence in support and against the many assertions on the problem of academic failure by American Indian students. We also attempt to take some initial steps in the direction of bringing together findings and conclusions in a processual model indicating how various factors operate and ultimately lead to academic failure. Symbolic interactionism provides the broad general framework for this effort. It calls our attention to the fact that human interaction involves not simply organisms reacting to one another's behavior, but involves human beings interpreting and defining each otherfs actions. It points out that individuals derive their own self-concept and plan of action from their perceptions and interpretations of the attitudes and behavior of others. Role theory focuses our attention on children in their student roles. It points out that individuals learn roles, which are prescriptions for 56 the behavior of individuals in particular social positions, in inter- action with others The child, therefore, is seen as learning the role of student (i.e., behavior appropriate to students) through interaction with others in the social context of the school (e.g., other students, teachers, and administrators). Role theory also calls our attention to problems which may arise when individuals receive conflicting expecta- tions of them from others and when they have two or more highly valued roles with conflicting behavioral expectations. Social psychological learning theory, in this interpretation, draws on many of the general formulations from symbolic interactionism and role theory and applies them in the social context of the school. Thus learning is seen as occurring in a social context. Individuals learn the behavior of others in that context as well as the norms defining appropriate behavior for themselves in that context. Significant others and reference groups are seen as important in these processes. The norma- tive climate of the school -— as created by classmates and teachers and as interpreted by the child -- is also seen as defining behavioral expectations for the individual. Finally, status expectation theory is examined in an attempt to relate differential expectations and performance to the diffuse Status Characteristic of "Indianness." A diffuse status characteristic is .Seen.as functioning as a focus for a "halo" of other attributes imputed to an individual perceived as possessing the diffuse status characteris- tic. Here we are particularly concerned with the possibility that "Indianness” serves as a stimulus for the attribution of negative, aca- ciemically-relevant characteristics. 57 Tentatively Proposed Model The model presented in Figure 1 below is only tentatively proposed and serves as a heuristic device for this study. Only one small part of the model is tested in this research, as a first step in assessing the viability of the eXplanation Suggested by the model This first test, however, is seen as important because it examines some of the basic assumptions of the model as well as some of its central assertions. The tentative model takes departure from the Status Expectation Theory deve10ped by Berger and associates. The model suggests that an important process leading to the low academic achievement of American Indian children begins with the very fact that these children occupy a social status to which negative, academically-relevant attributes r are assigned. AS a consequence of these assigned attributes, certain behavioral expectations are evoked. Following from the teacher's expectations for the academic achieve- ment of pupils are two immediate consequences: (1) differential action opportunities (e.g., assignment to different classroom groups, assign- ment of different classroom tasks, etc.); and (2) evaluations of behavior (e.g., perception of the extent to which children conform to expecta- tions, leading to such labels as "fast learners," "Slow learners,” "well- adjusted," etc.). The tentative model suggests that differential evaluation reinforces teachers' expectations for their pupils and their assignment of pupils to differential action Opportunities. Via both verbal and non-verbal cues, children perceive the differentials operating in the classroom. Perception of these differentials are interpreted and given meaning. 58 .OocmEu0muomncowumuooaxmumnumum "Hopoz venomoum zam>wumucoH .H muswwm monmEuowuom OHEmpmo< cowumasofimu uwwmcomuumoo “cowuwuamp< woesuauu<-eamm unamemu< a7 maumum xufiuocwz mo mocmwfimm .Anrllllllrl mamauempmmuaa no :oaumumuawmucH can cowuaooumm mmHuHGSuuommo :83: msauacfluoaao Ill v Hmwucouowwwn cowuo< «lllllmcoHumdam>m MOLOOOH HmHucOqumwm mo cowuaooumm Hmwucmuowwwo op APIIIIIIIIII mcowuwsam>m was mcoaumuomaxm Moscow HmwucOummmwa mcoaumuomaxm Hmucmumm maumum HwHuCOHOMMHQ 59 From these interpretations and meanings, then, the child, according to symbolic interactionism, derives his self-concept of academic ability and other academically-relevant self-attitudes. Teachers' evaluations, through classroom responses to the child and reports sent home with the child, are also seen as influencing the expectations and evaluations which peers and parents have of the child's academic ability. In addition to what teachers tell them about their children's academic ability and prospects, parents are also seen as influenced by expectations derived from their own status (i.e., the extent to which they have internalized the "halo" of attributes associated with the diffuse status characteristic, "Indianness"). The expectations and evaluations of parents and peers, insofar as the child regards them as significant others with respect to his academic endeavors, are also seen as interpreted by the child and incorporated into his self-attitudes with respect to education. The model also indicates the influence of the child's perceptions of the social environment outside of the school on his academic self- attitudes and ultimately academic performance. Perception of differential "life" Opportunities is seen as related to the salience of minority Status for the child. These considerations then enter into his judgment concerning the worthwhileness and the appropriateness of investment in the student role for him. Although not yet fully developed, it is finally suggested that some sort of adaptation to the school's demands (for attendance, for perfor- mance, etc.) occurs utilizing, perhaps, a cost-benefit calculation. This would follow from both the exchange model of self-investment suggested 60 earlier and the contention that self-concept of academic ability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for academic achievement, meaning that the individual may choose not to achieve even though he believes he is able to do so. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Hypotheses and Questions Studies In this first test of the tentatively proposed model, both an exploratory and an hypothesis-testing approach are deemed necessary. A prime concern is to ascertain whether self-concept as student is indeed a viable concern of American Indian students Since much of the theory on which this research and model are based rests on this assumption. In order to assess self-investment in the student role, several questions are asked of students about their perception of the importance of being a good student, their perception of the impor- tance of school more generally, and the Significance for them of evalua- tions of them as students. The meaningfulness of the self-concept of academic ability construct for American Indian students is also examined in several ways: (1) by examining the inter-item correlation matrix of the items composing this construct and comparing it with that of previous studies with non-Indian subjects; (2) by examining, in particular, the items connoting "competitiveness" since this is one of the important questions about the appropriateness of this construct for American Indian subjects; and (3) by examining the correlations between self- concept of academic ability with perception of the expectations and evaluations of others as well as with academic achievement to see whether 61 62 this construct functions in the same way as it does for non-Indian sub- jects (from previous studies). Also of concern to the present study is the identification of the child's significant others in relation to his self-concept of academic ability and academic performance and some assessment of the relative importance of each of several potential significant others, namely parents, teachers, and peers. Several sets of questions are directed to the Students asking: (l) the significance, for them, of evaluations of them as students from these three sources; (2) perceived interest on the part of others in their school work; and (3) the significance, for them, of the opinions of these others more generally. Since the tentatively proposed model takes as its point of departure, the status expectation theory deve10ped by Berger and associates, a number of observations in the school environment have been viewed as important. First, we wanted to observe whether there was any indication that "Indianness" serves as a diffuse status characteristic for teachers and, if so, how this is reflected in their expectations for their stu- dents. We also sought to inquire whether teachers have differential expectations of children with different states of the diffuse status characteristic (i e., "mixed-blood" vs. "full-blood" children) and whether these resulted in assignment to differential action Opportunities. Second, we wanted to observe whether and how these differential expec- tations, if they do exist, are communicated to children. If possible, we also wanted to inquire how teachers respond to children who do not conform to their expectations (i.e., who do not fit the perceptual map organized about the diffuse status characteristic). Third, we wanted to observe whether there were any indications that children have internalized 63 this same perceptual map which takes the diffuse Status characteristic of "Indianness" as the focus for academically relevant attributes. Apart from these questions, the first test of the tentatively pro- posed model calls for an examination of the viability of several cen- tral assertions, namely that: (l) the child's self-concept of academic ability (if it proves to be an acceptable construct) is derived from the child's perceptions of the expectations and evaluations which Signi- ficant others make of him; (2) positive self-concept of academic abil- ity is a necessary condition for high academic performance; and, by derivation from (1) and (2), (3) perceived evaluations of significant others are reflected in actual academic performance. These, then, yield several hypotheses for testing: H1: Self-concept of academic ability varies directly with perceived evaluations from significant others. Self-concept of academic ability is an index determined by several questions asking the child to assess the kind of student he is. As indicated earlier, several questions are designed to identify academi- cally relevant significant others. Several additional questions elicit the child's perceptions of the evaluations and expectations of him as student by these others. H2: Academic achievement varies directly with self-concept of academic ability. Academic achievement is measured with achievement data from the school records. Two kinds of achievement data examined include scores from Standardized achievement tests and school grades. 64 H3: Academic achievement varies directly with perceived evaluations and expectations from significant others. The more interesting test anticipated here is the relationship, if any, between achievement test scores and perceived teacher evaluations since school grades may be one source of the child's perception of teachers' evaluations. Each of these hypotheses finds varying support in the literature. If self-concept of academic ability serves as an intervening variable, as Brookover and associates suggest, (with supporting data from their studies of non-Indian subjects) then we should also observe that: (l) the correlations between perceived expectations and evaluations of significant others and self-concept of academic ability are higher than the correlations between self-concept of academic ability and achievement; and (2) the correlations between perceived expectations and evaluations of significant others and achievement are reduced when controlling for self-concept of academic ability. An important question here, as pointed out several times previously, concerns the relationship between these factors for the "culturally and socially different" Indian child. The literature seems to be less clear on the relationship between academic achievement and self-attitudes for minority children than it is for majority (white) children (cf., Coleman, 1966; Rosenberg and Simmons, 1971; Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972). The social context of education (both in terms of the larger commu- nity and the school community) for Indian children as well as the theore- tical perspectives discussed earlier can be used to generate several additional hypotheses: 65 H4: Investment in the student role declines as the child's sense of control over his environ- ment declines and sense of futility increases. Sense of control/sense of futility is a factor found in the research work of Coleman (1966) and Brookover, et a1. (1973) to be correlated with academic achievement. Coleman suggests that it may be an impor- tant factor for minority children. Factor analysis of the data will help determine if the same items compose a similar factor for Indian Students. It might further be anticipated that the relationship between self-investment in the student role and sense of control/sence of futility is one which will be greater for the upper elementary grades when children might be expected to be more aware of the lack of employ- ment opportunities in their immediate (reservation) community and the dependent minority Status of the Indian in the larger (state or national) community. H5: Academic achievement declines as both in- vestment in the student fole and sense of control declines and sense of futility increases. To the extent that the "cross-over phenomenon" exists, as it has been reported in a number of earlier studies, this hypothesis would suggest a possible reason for that phenomenon's observation, particularly if, as in H4, it is more pronounced for upper elementary students. Perception that one cannot influence his life chances through his own actions and efforts is seen as leading to a redefining of the student role as one which is not relevant or worthwhile for the individual. Hence the decline in investment in the Student role. Decline in investment, in turn, is 66 seen as meaning less time and effort directed to behavior expected of one in the student role, hence the decline in academic achievement. H6: Academic achievement varies directly with school climate in which students value academic achievement, there is a moderate amount of competitiveness, and both teachers and students are perceived as caring about academic achievement. This hypothesis follows from some of the very basic premises of social psychological learning theory, namely that individuals learn and respond to group norms and that individuals learn the behavior of others around them. In addition to observations, several questions are directed to students to obtain a measure of their perception of the school climate. In summary, results of this study are expected to show that there is reason to believe that, in the perception of many educators who work in Indian schools, "Indianness" does represent a diffuse Status charac- teristic which serves as a focus for attributes relevant to academic achievement. Children who are more readily identified with this diffuse status characteristic, i.e. those identified as "full-blood" physically, linguistically, or by place of residence, will be expected (by teachers) to conform to the model of Students derived from the image of "Indian" and its related "halo." Children develOp this perceptual map and learn corresponding expectations from Significant others in their school environ- ment (e.g., from teachers, peers, and parents). Consequently, children who perceive that Significant others perceive them as poor Students will have low self-concepts of academic ability and these will relate to the academic achievement. As children grow older, i.e., reach the upper elementary grades, they will perceive more acutely the differential 67 Status occupied by the American Indian in this society. As a result, their self-investment in the student role and their sense of control of the environment will decline while their sense of futility will grow. These will have predictable consequences for their academic achievement, i.e., poorer achievement. School climates in which academic achievement is at a low level will also be characterized by a lack of emphasis on academic achievement and by a sense of futility, reflecting the children's perception of their Situation. Research Design As we have already indicated, both an exploratory and an hypothesis- testing approach were deemed apprOpriate for this study. Our research Strategy combines a field study with survey research. Kerlinger points out that exploratory field studies generally have three purposes: "to discover Significant variables in the field situation, to discover rela- tions among variables, and to lay a groundwork for later, more systematic and rigorous testing of hypotheses" (Kerlinger, 1964: 388). It appears that our objectives in this study are, in part at least, consistent with these purposes. We entered the field with a number of variables in mind, but wanted to ascertain whether they were really appropriate to the Situation of the American Indian. Thus the first purpose of explora- tory field studies is particularly consistent with our concern for "self- concept of academic ability" and the potential diffuse status characteris- tic, "Indianness." We also sought to discover the relations among variables -- particularly among observations that would indicate that "Indianness" serves as a focus for academically-relevant attributes. Finally, our entry to the field clearly indicated the objective of laying 68 a groundwork for later, more systematic and rigorous testing of hypotheses As we have stated previously, the present study represents only the first step of what is to be a continuing effort to develop a processual model explaining the academic failure of so many American Indian students. A survey approach was combined with field methods because we wanted to collect data on a fairly large number of variables from a sizable sample of American Indian children. Observation in the field would only permit access to a limited number of variables and children and would not allow the kinds of comparisons desired (between an Indian sample and non-Indian samples in other studies). A survey utilizing a questionnaire was judged to be the best Strategy for obtaining this amount of data as well as for obtaining quantifiable data to test the Specific hypotheses posed in this study. Sample The sample for this study includes 481 American Indian children enrolled in grades three through eight of five elementary schools located on a large reservation in the Plains of the United States. Because we wanted to examine our theoretical constructs and hypotheses with reSpect to American Indian children with some diversity of environment, we chose five schools representing the three types of schools attended by reserva- tion Indian children. Thus, our subjects are drawn from two mission schools, two day schools Operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and one public (county) school. Our sample of third through eighth grade students includes the total enrollment of those grades in the five schools. As a result of the survey of all students in those six grades, we also have data on twenty-nine non-Indian (white) children also attending those five 69 schools. (These twenty-nine students are not included in the N of 481 reported above.) Although this number (of non-Indian students) is small and hence not very reliable, it does allow for some interesting additional comparisons. Instrumentation The questionnaire employed in this study (see Appendix A) is essentially an adaptation of a research instrument developed in 1969 by W. B. Brookover and Richard Gigliotti for use in their study of school social environments. The adaptation of this instrument essentially consisted of deleting items not of particular concern to the present study and rephrasing of several items to take into account the Speech patterns of the children with whom this instrument was to be used. This researcher undertook that task after some months in the field when she had acquired some familiarity with the speech patterns of the area. In addition, several items from the original survey were not included or were altered because they did not appear to be applicable to the situa- tion. For example, one question in the original survey asked: "How many students in this school try hard to get a good grade on their weekly tests?" After a period of observation, this researcher found that "weekly tests" were not commonly given in the schools in this study. Hence, reference to "weekly tests" was deleted from the questions. There were also a few additions of items from an instrument deve10ped by F. B. Waisanen in collaboration with Donald A. LaPointe and Patricia Flood for use in a Study of minority status and self-esteem. Like Brookover and Gigliotti's questionnaire, the instrument developed by Waisanen, et a1, is designed for use with elementary school children. The latter 70 survey instrument, however, is particularly designed for use with American Indian children in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Hence our utilization of items from these instruments will yield a body of data which may be used for purposes of comparison. Definition and Operationalization of Variables Although data were gathered on approximately ninety items (see Inventory of Variables in Appendix B) and refinement of these items led to the construction of fourteen indices (see Indices in Appendix C), seven variables constitute the primary focus of this study. With the exception of academic achievement, these variables represent major social psychological constructs derived from our theoretical considera- tions and employed in our tentative model These seven major variables are: (1) Academic Achievement; (2) Self-concept of Academic Ability; (3) Self-investment in the Student Role; (4) Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others; (5) Perceived Academic Norms of the School; (6) Sense of Control/Sense of Futility; and (7) Perceived Future Relevance of School. Academic Achievement Academic achievement is the major dependent variable in this study, and it is defined as the level of performance which a child has demon- strated in academic subjects. Three measures of academic achievement (discussed briefly in Chapter I) were obtained for this study. They are: Reading Achievement, Composite Achievement, and Grade Point Average. The two former measures are from standardized achievement tests while 71 the latter, of course, is a reflection of the teacher's evaluation of the child's performance. Certainly grades may not be accurate measures of what Students have learned and are subject to teacher-bias. However, Rosenberg and Simmons point out that grades may have important implica- tions for self-esteem and self-concept of academic ability. "How other children see the child, how his parents see him, and, most important, how he sees himself are likely to be affected by the grades appearing on his report card" (Rosenberg and Simmons, 1971: 89). Self-Concept of Academic Ability Self-concept of academic ability serves primarily as an independent variable in this study although the antecedents of this self-attitude (hypothesized to be most importantly the perceived expectations and evaluations of others) are also considered. The definition of this concept is taken from the work of Brookover, et a1. (1967): "Self- concept of academic ability refers to behavior in which one indicates to himself (publicly or privately) his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others engaged in the same task" (p. 8). This self-attitude is measured by an index which draws together the various indications which an individual makes to himself about his ability to achieve in academic tasks. (See Appendix B for the intercorrelation matrix of the items forming this index as well as for the intercorrela- tion matrices of the other indices.) The following items compose the index for Self-Concept of Academic Ability: (Question #28) Think of your friends. Do you think you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your friends? 72 (Question #29) Think of the students in your class. Do you think you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than the students in your class? (Question #30) Do you think you could finish college? (Question #31) If you went to college, do you think you would be one of the best students, about the same as most of the students, or not as good as most of the students? (Question #32) Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do you think your own work is? (Question #33) What marks do you think you really can get if you try? AS indicated earlier, there is some question about the validity of this construct for American Indian children. Thus this is one of the questions addressed in this study. Self-Investment in the Student Role Self-investment, like self-concept, serves primarily as an indepen- dent variable with respect to academic achievement in this study. How- ever, we do inquire what effect sense of control/sense of futility has on the child's self-investment in the student role. This construct is very Similar to Gigliotti's "Importance of Self-Identity (Role) Student" (Gigliotti, 1972), utilizing the same items from the student questionnaire to measure it. However, our conceptualization of this construct, based on the theoretical discussion of self-investment in terms of exchange, varies somewhat from that of Gigliotti. Self-investment in the student role, in this study, may be defined as the extent to which an individual perceives it to be important for him to invest his efforts 73 and self-esteem in the performance of the student role. Items measuring this construct are the following: (Question #17) If your teacher told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? (Question #18) How important is it to you to be a good student? (Question #19) If your parents told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? (Question #20) If your best friend told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others Consistent with the theoretical development of self-expectations, perceived expectations and evaluations of others is utilized as an independent variable in this Study. This construct has been utilized and defined by Gigliotti (1972: 30) as: "The level of academic per- formance which a student perceives 'others' believe to be normal and probable for him." The "others" whose expectations and evaluations are in question here are parents, teachers, and best friend. The decision to look Specifically at the perception of the attitudes of these others follows from both a reading of the literature indicating that these others seem to have the most influence on the child's self-attitudes and academic performance as well as on our perception that the child is most involved with these others in the social context of learning. Additionally, symbolic interactionism suggests that it is those with whom the child is most intimately involved in a particular social context who have the greatest influence on his emerging self-concept in that context. 74 Since we are also interested in the relative importance of each of these three sources of evaluation, the decision was made to examine this con- struct in terms of three separate measures: (1) (2) (3) Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations (Question #37) How good of a student does your best friend expect you to be in school? (Question #38) Think of your best friend. Would your best friend say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than other children your age? (Question #39) What grades does your best friend think you can get? Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations (Question #43) How good of a Student does the teacher you like the best expect you to be in school? (Question #44) Think of your teachers now. Would they say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than other children your age? (Question #45) Do your teachers think you could finish college? (Question #46) What grades do your teachers think you can get? Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations (Question #47) How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school? (Question #48) How good of a student do your parents expect you to be in school? (Question #49) Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and father say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your friends? (Question #50) Do your mother and father think you could finish college? (Question #51) What grades do your mother and father think you can get? 75 Perceived Academic Norms of the School The academic norms of the school are conceived to be generated primarily by students and teachers. These norms are seen as functioning as independent variables when perceived by an individual student, indi- cating to him what is considered to be acceptable behavior in the social context of the school. Perceived academic norms of the school may thus be defined as the perceived level of academic performance which is believed to be normal and acceptable for the students in a school. This definition is very Similar to Gigliotti's definition of "Climate of Academic Expectations" (1972: 30). The following items compose the measure of this variable: (Question #13) How many students in your class try hard to get good grades on their school work? (Question #14) How many Students in your class will work hard to do better work than their friends do? (Question #21) How do you think most of the stu- dents in your class feel when one of you does a bad job on school work? (Question #23) How important do most of the students in your class feel it is to do well in school work? Analysis of responses to Questions #14 and #21 also provides some indica- tion of the relative importance of competitiveness and cooperativeness to this sample of American Indian children. Sense of Control/Sense of Futility Interest in this construct derives from Coleman's findings that sense of control is one of the important predictors of academic achievement 76 for the Subjects in the Equality of Opportunity study and from his further finding that this variable is most Significant for minority subjects. The work of Brookover, et a1. (1973) also indicates that "student reported sense of futility” is an important correlate of mean school achievement and one of the key factors which significantly differentiates between white and black schools. Sense of control and sense of futility are conceptualized as the opposite ends of one atti- tudinal dimension: the extent to which an individual feels that the environment will respond to his efforts (Coleman, 1966: 321); or how much the individual perceives that he can control the circumstances that affect him (Gigliotti, 1972: 31). This construct, then, is mea- sured by the following items: (Question #24) PeOple like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want to in life. (Question #25) People like me will never do well in school even though we try hard. (Question #26) I can do well in school if I work hard. (Question #27) In this school, students like me don't have any luck. Perceived Future Relevance of School Two observations from the literature aroused our curiosity about the effect of perceived future relevance of school on the academic performance of American Indian children. One is the observation of Wax, Wax, and Dumont (1964) and others (see Berry, 1968) that the orientation of American Indians toward education is a pragmatic one which sees a good education as related to a good job. The second observation, 77 found in the work of Brookover, et a1. (1973), is that "perceived future evaluations and expectations” (on the part of teachers, however) are related to school achievement. Perceived Future Relevance of School, then, is employed in this study as an independent variable which is expected to influence both academic achievement and self—investment in the student role. Perceived Future Relevance of School may be defined as the child's perception of the relationship between academic performance and other activities (e.g., work) which he may desire to engage in at some future time. It is measured by the following items: (Question #55) If I do will in school, it will be easier for me to get the kind of job I want when I finish school. (Question #57) How important do you think it is for you to finish high school? (Question #58) How important do you think it is for you to finish college? Data Collection Basically two data-gathering techniques have been employed in this study: observational and survey techniques. Observational techniques allows the researcher to place the study in its situational context and allows the researcher to gather data on topics which cannot readily be approached by survey techniques. For example, the relevance of "Indianness" for academic expectations was seen as one such topic. Direct questions on this subject via a survey technique were judged likely to be resisted and to elicit invalid reSponses owing to subjects' attempt to provide socially-approved responses. Hence the decision was made to employ observational and informal interview techniques with this 78 and similarly "sensitive" topics. The researcher was able to establish an acceptable role in the community as a part-time teacher in a high school on the reservation. It is su3pected that this role resulted in less resistance and suspicion than might have been accorded "a researcher" or "a social scientist." The period of residence at the research site was six months, with approximately ten days to two weeks allotted to "visiting" each of four of the schools involved in the study. Considerably more time was spent at a fifth school owing to its location on the same campus where the researcher served as a part-time high school teacher. In the context of this school, the research technique employed may best be described as participant—observation. It was at this school that the researcher became best acquainted with students and teachers, occasionally served as substitute teacher, and made necessary modifications in the survey instrument employed with students. The researcher maintained a journal of field notes during this six-month period. Attitudinal questions may effectively be directed to students using a survey approach, particularly when it is the desire of the researcher to gather such data from a fairly large number of subjects. Hence, a questionnaire (see Instrumentation) was employed in the survey of children enrolled in grades three through eight of five elementary schools. Use of this survey instrument allowed the researcher to obtain quantifi- able data from 510 students. The survey was administered by the researcher who read through the entire survey with the younger (generally third and fourth grade) subjects. Data on academic achievement is available in school records. Four of the five schools in the study administer achievement tests at regular 79 intervals, and results of these are generally placed in students' files. Because school administrators are sensitive to "over-testing" their pupils, an agreement was reached with the schools to do no further "testing," but rather to make use of the achievement data which already existed in the school records. In addition to achievement tests scores, school grades were also gathered to provide still another measure of academic achievement. Analysis of Data One of the first procedures employed in analysis of the data was a factor analysis. It was anticipated that such analysis would serve as an indication of whether the same items form similar factors for American Indian children as they do for other children who have responded to the student survey (comparison here is particularly with the work of Brookover and associates, 1973). Factors of particular interest and con- cern are: self-concept of academic ability; student perceived future evaluations and expectations; sense of control/sense of futility; and student perception of school academic norms. In testing the hypotheses proposed in this study, most attention has been given to survey data and data from school records (achievement test data and school grades) since these are most readily quantified. Fourteen indices have been constructed (see the discussion of variables earlier in this chapter and Appendix C) to facilitate analysis. These indices include: self—concept of academic ability; student-perceived academic climate; perceived expectations and evaluations of others; and sense of control/sense of futility. 80 Since most of the variables in this study are measured by ordinal scales, and nominal scales in a few cases, statistics such as chi square (to test for significance of differences) and Kendall's Tau Beta (to assess degree of association) have been employed. However, it should be pointed out that Kendall's Tau Beta is a test of linear association and is not meaningful when the relationship between variables is curvi- linear. In such cases, it will be particularly important to pay atten- tion to the patterning of the data in the contingency tables. However, the nature of the data, the stage of model develOpment, and the objec- tives of the present study do not warrant use of statistics which would permit conclusions about process at this time. Hence the title of the study indicates that it is only an initial step toward a processual model. As an initial step toward the development of a processual model, it has been deemed important to examine some of the basic assumptions underlying the tentatively proposed model. Hence, in analyzing our data we take particular care to look at items comprising such constructs as self-concept of academic ability, self-investment in the student role, and perceived academic norms of the school. Both a narrative and a tabular display of findings are used in the report of this study. The narrative is seen as very important in that it: permits presentation of materials on which no statistical analysis is possible (e.g., observational data); places the study in its situational context; permits some assessment of assumptions and Speculations con- tained in the tentatively prOposed model and previous research; and provides guidance for continued work in this area. Data reported in 81 tabular displays is largely drawn from student surveys and school records. The tabular displays are accompanied by discussion of findings related to the hypotheses and questions posed in this study. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The analysis of results of this study begins with some preliminary considerations concerning: the observed nature of academic achievement by children in the schools studied; variations in achievement by sex, grade (paying particular attention here to evidence indicating operation of "the cross-over phenomenon"), ethnicity (utilizing data from the small sample of white children attending these five schools), and school; and observations concerning the schools and communities involved in the study. Attention is next focused on questions directed to the under- lying assumptions in this study. This includes an examination of the integrity of constructs, comparing results of this study with other studies employing the same or similar constructs. Following the con- sideration of underlying assumptions, important assertions made in this study are examined with primary focus on the assertions made in the hypotheses posed for testing in this first assessment of the tentatively prOposed model of Indian academic achievement/academic failure. Finally, the results of the study are summarized not only in terms of the questions and hypotheses posed in this study, but also in terms of the tentatively proposed model. Further discussion of these findings in relation to the model are found in Chapter V. 82 83 Before proceeding, however, several words of caution are in order in interpreting the findings of this study. First, the results of this study should not be interpreted as applicable to all American Indian students wherever they may be found. The sample in this study is limited to a reservation population of elementary school children residing in the Plains of the United States. Nearly one-half of the American Indian pOpulation is now reported to live in urban areas (Wax, 1971) with social environments very different from that of the reservation. Consequences of differences in social environment may be very considerable both in terms of the tentatively proposed model and in terms of the validity of the underlying assumptions of this study. For example, the diffuse status characteristic may be more readily activated in social contexts where there are large numbers of individuals who do not possess this characteristic and where persons who do possess the characteristic are in the minority. Similarly, value orientations, such as the orientation to competitiveness which may be alien to the tradition of a tribal group may not be so alien and may even be acceptable and valued among Indians living in large urban places where such orientations are the norm. Also not to be overlooked is the fact that there was and is great diversity in culture among the American Indians. Hence what is unaccept- able behavior among some tribal groups may be acceptable among other tribal groups. This is not to say that the potential value of this study is very limited. On the contrary, if an assumption proves viable in a con- text where it should have difficulty, then one can feel fairly confident in making the same assumption elsewhere. Still another caution to be observed in interpreting the results of this stud is that care be taken in inferrin "ex lanations" of Y 8 P 84 academic failure from results of this study. The problem being studied here is very complex, and, in this study, the focus is only on what is perceived to be some important social psychological dimensions of this problem. Other dimensions, such as nutritional deficiencies and their consequences for learning, are not dealt with in this study. It is very possible that these are contributory factors. However, the social psycho- logical dimensions selected for study are seen as very important, parti- cularly when it is observed that studies such as that by Brookover, et a1. (1973: 117) have found that such variables as Student Reported Sense of Futility accounted for 44.9% of the variance in achievement in their sample of schools. If findings such as these persist in the study of the achievement problems of American Indian children, progress will indeed have been made in explaining the problem of academic failure and in indentifying potential points of intervention in this process. Academic Achievement The Indian education literature has been consistent in reporting that Indian students show poor academic achievement regardless of what instruments or criteria are used to assess academic achievement. The point where less consistency is found, however, is in the report of a pattern of achievement, frequently referred to as "the cross-over phenomenon," indicating that American Indian children achieve at or above national norms early in their school careers (most say until grades three or four) and then "cross over" to achievement below national norms. Once this cross-over has been observed, it is contended that academic performance continues to decline as the children move through the school (see Berry, 1968: 22). Other researchers, as it was pointed out in Chapter II, 85 deny the existence of such a phenomenon (cf., Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972; Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964). As a consequence of this situation in the literature, the inquiry here begins by examining the achievement data on the 481 American Indian children in this study. Attention will be largely confined to the achieve- ment data from standardized tests and will be reported in terms of achieve- ment indicating whether the child is: (1) advanced beyond the grade in which he was enrolled at the time when he took the test (advanced 1.0-1.9 grades; advanced 2.0 or more grades); (2) within one grade of the appro- priate grade placement; or (3) behind the grade in which he was enrolled at the time when he took the test (behind l.0-l.9 grades; behind 2.0 or more grades). Table 1 displays the data on composite achievement for all subjects for whom this data was available (302 Indian subjects and 22 non-Indian subjects) and the data on reading achievement for all sub- jects for whom this data was available (357 Indian subjects and 25 non- Indian subjects -- an increase in N owing to a testing program in one school focusing primarily on reading achievement). These figures indicate an achievement picture like that found by other researchers, namely, most Indian children achieving one or more grades behind the norm. Indeed, 62.3% of the Indian children are one or more grades behind national levels in composite (over-all) achievement, and a similar proportion, 65.2%, are one or more grades behind in reading achievement. Controlling for ethnicity, it is found that the non-Indian students attending the same schools as the Indian subjects in this study achieve better than their Indian classmates. The superior achievement of the non-Indian students is particularly evident in reading achievement, 86 Table 1. Academic Achievement by Ethnicity. Composite Achievement Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Appro- Ethnicity 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 priate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total Indian 3(l.l) 12(4.0) 99(32.8) 93(30.8) 95(31.5) 302 Non-Indian 2(9.l) 2(9.l) 9(40.9) 6(27.3) 3(13.6) 22 Total 5(l.7) 15(5.0) 107(35.7) 75(25.0) 98(32.7) 324 Reading Achievement Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Ethnicity 2.0+ l 0-1.9 Approp. 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total Indian 9(2.5) 20(5.6) 95(26.6) 94(26.3) 139(38.9) 357 Non-Indian 7(28.0) 2(8.0) 7(28.0) 5(20.0) 4(16.0) 25 Total 16(4.2) 22(5.7) 102(26.6) 99(25.9) 143(37.4) 382 reflecting, perhaps, greater facility with the English language on the part of the non-Indian students. The non-Indian children here are pre- dominantly children of teachers working in these schools and white ranchers. The education literature tells us that it is often the case that the children of public school teachers perform very well in school. Just why this is the case, however, it not clear. Out of curiosity, differences in grade point average were also examined by ethnicity to see whether the non-Indian students would also achieve better than their Indian classmates in terms of school grades. Because there were variations in the grading systems of the five schools, some recoding was necessary. Hence a three-point scale was deve10ped with a score of 2.0 representing the middle grade given in any of the other systems (e.g., "C" or "Satisfactory"). 3.0 represents the highest grade awarded and 1.0 represents the lowest grade. Table 2, which displays 87 Table 2. Grade Point Average by Ethnicity. Grade Point Average Ethnicity 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total Indian 43( 9.2) 155(33.3) 241(51.7) 27(5.8) 466 Non-Indian 7(25.91 13(g§.1) 7(25.9) 0(0.0) 27 Total 50(1o.1) 168(34.1) 248(50.3) 27(5.5) 493 d.f.= 3 x2: 13.877 p(.01 the data on achievement as measured by grade point average controlling for ethnicity, indicates that the non-Indian students do receive higher grades in school than their Indian classmates. At this point, no sugges- tion is made as to why this is the case -- this question being part of the larger inquiry. However, it might be suggested that difference should not be attributed to language barriers alone. Surely, difficulty with the medium of instruction does pose serious problems for a child's learning, and although the traditional Indian language of this tribe is widely Spoken on the particular reservation where this study was con- ducted, this researcher found that the children could function quite well in English, at least in informal communication they could readily understand and be understood. It is suggested that, to the extent that lack of facility with English is a contributory factor to poor academic achievement, one might also inquire why better skill in English usage is not acquired in school? In other words, what is being suggested here (as Berry and others have suggested -- see Berry, 1968: 57) is that language difficulties may be a "symptom" rather than a cause of poor academic achievement. Differences in grade point average by ethnicity seem to suggest that teachers' evaluations and expectations may be an important factor here. 88 The sex of the child appears to make little difference when achieve- ment is examined utilizing the standardized measures of academic achieve- ment (see Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix E). However, when one examines grade point average (Table 3 in Appendix E), American Indian girls show themselves to be achieving better than American Indian boys. Apparently, these girls are doing something in the classroom which the teacher evaluates more highly than what the boys are doing. Whatever it is, however, it seems to have little consequence for their achievement when assessed by a standardized measure of achievement. In order to investigate the existence of a "cross-over phenomenon" among the students in this study, achievement is examined by grade in school. According to the literature, a "cross-over" from good to poor achievement should be witnessed around grade four. Tables 3 and 4 diSplay the data in question here. Table 3. Composite Achievement by Grade in School. Composite Achievement Grade Advanced Within Ap- Grade Behind Grade 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 propriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total 3 0(0.0) 2(3.8) 25(48.1) 22(42.3) 3( 5.8) 52 4 0(0.0) 4(6.0) 22(32.8) 31(46.3) 10(14.9) 67 5 0(0.0) 0(0.0) l4(26.9) 12(23.1) 26(50.0) 52 6 l(1.6) 2(3.3) 24(39.3) l6(l4.0) 18(29.5) 61 7 1(2 3) 4(9.3) 13(30.2) 6(14.0) 19(44.2) 43 8 l(3.7) Q(0.0) l(3.7) 6(22.2) l9(70.4) 27 Total 3(l.0) 12(4.0) 99(32.8) 93(30.8) 95(31.5) 302 89 Table 4. Reading Achievement by Grade in School Reading Acehivement Grade Advanced Within Ap- Grade Behind Grade 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 prOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total 3 0(0.0) 2( 3.8) 27(51.9) 20(38.5) 3( 5.8) 52 4 O(0.0) 8(ll.3) 18(25.4) 14(19 7) 31(43.7) 71 5 1(2.0) l( 2.0) 12(24.0) 10(20.0) 26(52.0) 50 6 4(4.9) 4( 4.9) l9(23.5) 26(32.l) 28(34.6) 81 7 2(3.3) 5( 8.3) 11(18 3) 14(23.3) 28(46.7) 6O 8 2(4.7) 0( 0.0) 8(l§.6) 10(23.3) 23(53.5) '43 Total 9(2.5) 20(5.6) 95(26 6) 94(26.3) 139(38.9) 357 The data in this study is in agreement with Fuchs and Havighurst (1972: 126-128), indicating that rather than showing a "cross-over" from good to poor achievement, there is a fairly consistent pattern of poor achievement at each grade level. Achievement in either grade three or four could hardly be termed "at or above national levels" although third grade students here do show achievement closer to national norms than do children in the other five grades studied. Indeed, about one- half of the third grade students are within one grade of their appropriate grade level in both composite and reading achievement. However, a com- parable number in the same grade are also one or more grades behind their appropriate grade placement in both composite and reading achievement. Students in the fifth and eighth grades seem to fare less well in both composite and reading achievement. Fifty percent of the fifth grade students are two or more grades behind in overall achievement and 52% are two or more grades behind in reading achievement while 70.4% of the eighth grade students are two or more grades behind in overall achievement 90 and 53.5% of them are two or more grades behind in reading achievement. However, these observations need to be considered with caution because of the small number of students involved at each grade level. If, however, further research shows the findings for grades five and eight to be reliable, it might be suggested that some school climate factors be con- sidered in searching for an explanation for this situation. In four of the five schools involved in this study, grade five seemed to represent a transition grade bringing these students into new networks of inter- action -- generally increased interaction with older students and decreased interaction with younger students in the elementary school. This transi- tion (in the four schools where it was observed) involved a physical removal from the lower grades. In two cases, the move was to a separate building on the school's campus; and, in the two remaining cases, the move was to the opposite end of the building from where the lower elemen- tary classes met. Grade eight, on the other hand, involved no such move or change in interaction patterns. However, one might suggest that preparations through counseling, etc. were being made in grade eight in anticipation of an even greater move to a new school. In most cases, the children in grade eight in this study will be attending high school in a different community since there are few high schools on the reserva- tion. For many of the students, this will also mean living away from home while attending high school. Hence new patterns of interaction and new "others" may be anticipated by these eighth grade students. Thus, in light of these data, it is concluded that if there is a "cross-over" from achievement at or above national levels of achievement to achievement below those levels, there is little indication of it here. 91 There does, however, appear to be an ever-increasing proportion of stu- dents at each successive grade level who are behind national levels of achievement. This is understandable if one considers that the child who gains, perhaps, one-half grade per school year will become further behind his grade each year of school. Thus, at the end of first grade, for example, he would be one-half grade behind; at the end of the second grade, he would be one full grade behind; etc. In order to really answer the question if and when a "cross-over" phenomenon occurs, however, a longitudinal study is seen as required. Finally, in this preliminary assessment of the academic achievement of the subjects of this study, attention is directed to the five schools from which the subjects were drawn. Although the unit of analysis in this study is the individual student rather than the school, as it has been in many other studies, some attention is directed to the schools in an exploration of the variations of school climates and their possible consequences for achievement. In order to ensure the anonymity of the schools involved in this study, the schools are only identified by letters. Thus, Schools A and B are day schools Operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); School C is a public school Operated by the county; and Schools D and E are mission schools. In examining composite achievement by school, School E is excluded from consideration owing to the fact that this school does not regularly administer achievement tests to its stu- dents. Only the fourth grade students in this school were given achieve- ment tests during the past year. School E is included in the consideration of reading achievement, however, since standardized reading tests were administered in all grades except grades three and five of this school. 92 Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix E and Figure 2 presented here display the data on academic achievement by school. The data on academic achieve- ment by school include data on all students surveyed in the schools, Indian and non-Indian, since school climate, including climate of achievement (or failure), is seen as the product of all participants in the given social unit. School Composite Achievement Reading Achievement A 33.7 32.7 B 45.9 50.0 C 48.6 54 l D 47.1 41.2 E ---- 13.3 All 42.3 36.6 Figure 2. Percentage of Students Within One Grade of Appropriate Level or Advanced by School. Table 4 (Appendix E) reveals little variation in achievement patterns among four of the schools in this study in composite academic achievement of their students. The data from these four schools indicate that more than 50% of their students are achieving at a level one or more grades behind the norm. School D has a somewhat larger proportion of students within one grade of their appropriate grade level, but it also has 31.4% of its students at a level two grades or more behind the norm. Reading achievement, Table 5 in Appendix E, shows essentially the same patterns with one exception -- School E is shown as faring far worse than the other schools with 86.7% of its students one or more grades behind the norm! One must be wary, however, in accepting this startling 93 piece of data at face value since the 83 students on whom reading achievement data were available represents only 57.6% of the subjects drawn from that school. In addition to students absent on the day of the test and transfer students, no reading achievement data were available for third and fifth grade students of this school. It might be anticipated that if more data were available, achievement in this school would be much like that observed in the other four schools. Figure 2 provides a more manageable breakdown of achievement data by school. Looking on the positive side, it reports the percentage of students who are achieving satisfactorily (within one grade level of their appropriate placement or better) within each of the schools in the sample. Aside from the problematic case of School E, it shows that two schools, Schools B and C, have 50% or more of their students achieving satisfactorily in reading. One school, School A, appears to do less well than the others in both composite and reading measures of achievement. These data seem to indicate that "type" of school (i.e., BIA, public, or mission) makes little difference insofar as one can tell from the small sample of such schools examined in this study. This contrasts with Coombs' finding (1958) that achievement by type of school arrayed itself in a hierarchy with public schools at the top, followed by BIA schools, and mission schools at the bottom. Coombs also pointed out that this hierarchy by type of school was Paralleled by the prOportions of "mixed blood" and "full-blood" students in each type of school. Although statistics here are not available, our best guess is that Schools A, B, D, and E have comparable proportions of "full-blood" and ”mixed-blood" students while School C differs from these in that it has a large prOportion of white and "mixed-blood" students. School C 94 is located near the edge of the reservation and has many white and ”mixed-blood" ranchers surrounding it. In spite of this, however, the achievement data from School C do not show it to be noticeably superior to the other four schools -- as might be expected from Coombs' thesis. Teaching methods and organization of the learning environment also seem to make little difference in the achievement observed in these five schools. A range from open and little-structured to closed and rigidly structured methods and organization was observed. School E represented the open and little-structured side of the range with "individualized instruction" via learning packets which the children utilized largely at their own pace and without formal group instruction. School A, on the other hand, seemed to represent the closed and rigidly- structured side of the range with the traditional self—contained class- room, confinement Of students to assigned desks, and a large amount Of formal instruction. The three remaining schools fell somewhere between these two schools. Ranging from Open and little structured to closed and rigidly-structured, the three remaining schools would be arranged in the following order: School D, School C, and School B. In spite of these methodological and structural differences, however, results, in terms Of measured achievement at least, show little difference. Returning briefly to the Observation from Figure 2 that School A seems to do less well than the other schools in both composite and read- ing measures Of achievement, it might also be Observed that this same school seems to have a "holding" problem, i.e., it appears to lose (either through drop-out or transfer) students before they reach the seventh and eighth grades. Figure 3 displays the distribution of students in these 95 five schools by grade (for grades three through eight). School A, which is one Of the largest schools in this study, has the smallest proportion of students in grades seven and eight. When queried about the small number Of students in these two grades, a teacher in School A readily admitted that the school does indeed lose students, often, it was reported, to a nearby mission school (School D). The teacher could give no explanation for this loss of students. This researcher suspects that there is something operating in the social climate of this school that results in both the poor showing in achievement and in the loss of students. It might be further observed that this school seems to have a poor reputation in the area. It is criticized for its rigidity, behavior problems, and its inability to 'get results." Grade School 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total A 25(22.7) l6(l4.5) 27(24.5) 24(2l.8) ll(10.0) 7( 6.4) 110 B 23(16.8) 17(12.4) 26(19.0) 23(16.8) 25(18 2) 23(16.8) 137 C 8(17.4) 5(10.9) 6(13 0) 9(19.6) 11(23.9) 7(15.2) 46 D l3(17.8) 9(12 3) l4(19.2) 9(12.3) l7(23.3) ll(15.l) 73 E 20(13.9) 29(20.1) 26(18.l) 24(16.7) 23(16.0) 22(15.3) 144 All 89(17.4) 76(14.9) 99(19.4) 89(17.4) 87(17.l) 70(13.7) 510 Figure 3. Distribution of Respondents by Grade and by School. several points can be made: a picture Of poor academic achievement much like that Observed in earlier (1) the Indian children in this study present In summarizing the findings and Observations thus far on achievement, studies with most children achieving one or more grades behind national norms; (2) the small number Of non-Indian respondents included in this 96 study show significantly better achievement than their Indian class- mates, both in terms of standardized measures of academic achievement and grade point average; (3) Indian boys and girls show the same patterns of achievement on standardized achievement tests, but girls do better when achievement is measured by grade point average; (4) rather than evidence to indicate existence of a ”cross-over phenomenon," data from this study reveal poor achievement at all grade levels, third through eighth; (5) there does seem to be a somewhat greater achievement problem in grades five and eight, and it has been suggested that, should this pattern prevail with a larger body Of data, factors in the social environ- ment of these grades within the school may have some bearing on the problem; and (6) little variation in achievement by school is apparent in this sample of five schools -- hence such school factors as type Of school and teaching methods and organization of the learning environ- ment seem to have little bearing on achievement. Assumptions Questioned The assumptions which have been called into question in this research revolve about the Indian student's self-concept as student. First, the question is raised whether "self" constructs deve10ped among and found to be appropriate for middle-class subjects are also appropriate for a sample whose cultural traditions and social conditions are quite different from that pOpulation. Second, the question is raised whether the orientation to "competitiveness" which constitutes part of the construct, "self-concept of academic ability," is apprOpriate to the present sample of subjects. Macgregor (1946: 132) tells us the following about children from this tribal group: 97 Shaming is applied not only to misbehaving youngsters but also to the selfish and competi- tive child, who seeks to gain to the disadvan- tage of others, an act which brings strong criticism from both parents and other children. This leads one to suSpect that the orientation to competitiveness in academic achievement, i.e. to do better than ones friends or classmates, may be unacceptable to these children. A third question asks whether there is any indication that the student role is valued by Indian stu- dents, i.e., whether there is "self-investment" in the student role. Finally, a fourth question asks whether the constructs employed in other research and suggested in the tentative model guiding this study hold up for American Indian subjects. Each Of these questions shall be con- sidered in turn in this section. Self-Attitudes We are concerned with assessing the apprOpriateness of self constructs for the sample of American Indian subjects in this study because these constructs have largely been developed and utilized in the context of a white, middle-class value system. Bryde (Indian Education Hearings, 1968: 1445-1456) and MacGregor (1946) point out what appear to be con- flicting orientations among the Dakota, and these conflicting orienta- tions seem to have some implications for the self constructs in question here. MacGregor, as indicated earlier (1946: 122), points to the "leveling" effect of the peer group as a means Of social control which teaches children "not to disrupt the co-Operative aspects Of Dakota life" (ibid). "Shaming" is directed at individuals who are perceived to be selfish and competitive, suggesting that the individual is not to rise too much above 98 the group nor to seek gain to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of others. Yet, both Bryde (1968) and MacGregor (1946) report that "individual autonomy" is highly valued by the Dakota. Individual auto- nomy generally implies some "independence" from the group in decision- making and in behavior. Such independence of action may be seen as conflicting with group pressure to conform. For the Dakota child, however, Bryde says that individual autonomy means that the child makes his own decisions without coercion. Parents and other adults may advise the child, but they do not force him tO comply with their wishes. Yet, Wax, Wax, and Dumont (1964) report that the peer group does indeed com- pel the individual to comply with their norms for academic performance. They particularly report that children in the middle elementary grades physically punish those who do not conform to group standards (Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964: 90-97). Thus, it appears that individual autonomy is tempered by the develOpment Of peer group loyalties and pressures to conform. Consequently, it appears that the child may not be so auto- nomous in decisions and behavior related to academic performance. In order to assess the appropriateness of the self constructs employed in the proposed model and in this study, responses to items asking the child to evaluate and compare himself as a student with others are examined. If, in fact, the self constructs employed here suggest comparisons and aSpirations which are not apprOpriate to this sample Of Indian children, it would be expected that there would be many "no responses" to those items indicating, perhaps, an "unthinkable" question. It would also be anticipated that there would be very few responses revealing the perception that the child sees himself as "better than" his peers. 99 Questions 28-33 of the student survey compose an index of self- concept of academic ability. Figure 1 in Appendix E displays responses of the Indian students to each of these questions. It reveals that there are very few no responses to these items. NO responses were con- sistently at a rate of about 2% for all items in this index. Although there is some tendency to select middle responses (indicating, in general, that one perceives himself to be "the same as" others), reSponses do show some dispersion. For example, when asked to compare their school ability with that of their friends (Question 28), more than one-third of the subjects reported that they could "do school work better than their friends." According to reports on the leveling effect Of the peer group (cf , Macgregor, 1946; Erickson, 1950; Wax, Wax, and Dumont, 1964), such an attitude would be considered unacceptable. In another question when children are asked to indicate what marks they think they can get if they really try (Question 33), a surprisingly large proportion (75.1%) indicate the top grade awarded in their school. In other words, most of these students believe that if they really wanted to and really tried, they could achieve §£_£pglppp of their class. Again, such an attitude (and this being shown by the vast majority of students) would almost be unthinkable in terms of the orientations previously discussed. Thus, it seems that these items give very little indication that these Indian children reject a frame of reference which asks them to compare themselves with their peers, even when such comparisons result in expres- sions indicating that they conceive of themselves as rising about the group. When results of responses to these self-concept items are compared, utilizing the index of self-concept of academic ability, for the Indian 100 and non-Indian students in this sample, it is found that no significant differences are apparent. (See Table 6, Appendix E.) Although the number of non-Indian respondents is small, this finding does suggest similar self-attitudes for Indian and non-Indian students in the given social environment. This would be expected from the premise in social psychological learning theory that individuals learn the behavior and norms Of those with whom they are associated. In addition to these "statistical" observations, field observations of this researcher suggest that much has changed in the traditional orientations of the Indian people (at least for the tribal group in the place studied), and this is to be expected given the disruption which has occurred, particularly in the economic Sphere. There were times when this researcher even wondered in anything of the "old ways" existed at all. Then, however, something would happen -- a student would say some- thing in class or write something in a paper or an interaction pattern would be Observed between an Indian teacher and Indian students -- and one would realize that there was something "of the Indian way" there. Children did not appear eager to demonstrate their ability as greater than that of their classmates in the context Of the classroom. Yet pride in oneself was evident in a quiet way (generally a shy, pleased smile) when an award was received for outstanding academic performance (e.g., for good grades on a report card, good attendance, etc.) or when a task was successfully accomplished (as was Observed when a boy, after several days of trying, accomplished a mathematical puzzle which he had been working on on his own). Young children unashamedly took great pride in their school work. Much to the surprise of this researcher, because the literature says that Indian children are very shy, young 101 children (especially in grades one through three) frequently approached the researcher during periods of observation to Show a paper which had been completed, a piece of artwork which they had done themselves, or "how I can read." The researcher came to View this as "approval- seeking" behavior by these children -- seeking out a positive response to their efforts. This researcher responded with enthusiasm to these approaches with the result that the same child generally approached again and other children came too. Positive responses to such approval- seeking behavior seemed to increase the children's self-esteem as student for their pleasure was evident. Thus, on the basis Of statistical data and Observational data, this researcher is inclined to believe that self constructs which ask subjects to compare their academic ability and performance with that of their peers and which solicit expressions indicating aspirations for performance greater than that of their peers are apprOpriate to this sample of Indian children. Competitiveness Like "self-attitudes," it has been suggested that a competitive orientation in which one seeks gain to his own advantage is alien to some American Indian traditions, including that of the subjects in this study. In order to assess the status of this contention, attention is directed to six items in the student questionnaire which suggest "com- petitiveness" or, at least, potentially imply invidious comparisons with peers. Three of these items appear in Figure 1, Appendix E, in relation to self-attitudes. Questions 28 and 29 clearly ask the student to compare his own perceived ability with that of his friends and classmates. Although most Students (58.2% and 63.4% respectively) reported 102 that their ability is "the same" as that of these others, there were some (34.7% and 28.1% respectively) who did see themselves as "better" ~- a distinction not likely to be made by someone Operating with the tradi- tional orientation. Moreover, the fact that only 2% of the respondents failed to answer these questions suggest that the comparisons called for are not totally inappropriate. Responses to the question, "What marks do you think you really can get if you try?", (Question 33) indicate that the Indian children in this study are not adverse to thinking of themselves as potentially achieving at the tOp of their class. What is not known, however, is whether these children conceive of achieving high grades in competition with others or in competition with themselves and some standard of excellence. When learning is individualized, as it largely is in three of the five schools in this Study, the latter interpretation may be more likely. In that case, grades in school connote less of a competi- tive orientation. There are, however, three additional items which can be examined in relation to the question of competitiveness. Figure 2 in Appendix E displays responses to these three items -- Questions 13, 14, and 21. As a first Observation, it may be noted that there are no "No Responses" to any of these questions, and, as suggested earlier, this may imply that the ideas connoted here, at least, are not "unthinkable" for these children. Questions 13 and 14 ask the child about the competitiveness which he perceives among his classmates. Question 13, which asks how many of his classmates the child perceives to be trying hard to get good grades in school, is somewhat like Question 33 in that it is uncertain whether the competition implied here is perceived to be with classmates 103 or with some other standard. As it has already been suggested, there is reason to suppose that the latter interpretation is more accurate Hence many (78.9%) report that "half" or more of their classmates are competitive in this way. Question 14, however, clearly asks the child how many of his class- mates he perceives tO be oriented toward out-performing their friends. Responses to this question are fairly evenly distributed across the range of given answers from "almost all of them" engage in such behavior to "some of them" will do this. Only 5.4%, however, report that this is true of "almost none" of their classmates. This seems to suggest that the children perceive some, at least, competition among their peers, and this orientation, according to 20.8% Of the respondents, characterizes "almost all” Of their classmates. From this one might conclude that competitiveness, as it is perceived by the Indian child, is not totally absent from the behavior of their peers. Just how much of this orienta- tion is present, however, is not clear. Finally, Question 21 is interesting because the response choices give the respondents the Option of characterizing their peers as com- petitively-oriented or cooperatively-oriented. The question asks: How do you think most Of the other students in your class feel when one Of you does a bad job on school work? Response categories are: (1) They feel badly and want to help. (2) They feel sorry, but don't say anything. (3) They really don't care. (4) They are secretly happy that it happened. Response #1 is seen as a "concerned and cooperative" response in that it expresses concern about the event and a desire to work with the other in resolving the difficulty. Response #2 is seen 104 as a "concerned and helpless” response in that it again expresses concern about the event, but, it seems, a perception that they cannot do anything about it. Alternatively, one might argue that the failure to actively respond to the individual with the problem is a reflection Of the traditional (to this tribal group) norm of "noninterference" in the affairs of others. ReSponse #3 is seen as an "indifferent" reSponse which may either imply a lack of concern about the event or the attitude that it is unimportant. Response #4 (which frequently brought laughter or a smile to the children) indicates an "extreme competitive" oriented response in that the failure of another somehow increments ones own stature. Predictably few (7.3%) of the children chose the fourth response. However, the distribution Of the remaining responses does not indicate a clear "cooperative" orientation either. Most children (66.5%) do report that they perceive others to be concerned about such an event, but they do not agree on whether their classmates would come to the aid of the individual who is experiencing difficulty. What these varied findings seem to indicate to this researcher is that traditional values and orientations exist along side and mixed with formerly alien values and orientations to which these peOple have been exposed for a long time now. In some cases, especially team sports, individuals will behave in a very competitive fashion, and in other cases, particularly it seems with respect to family affairs and problems, individuals will behave in a very cooperative fashion. It has already been noted that competition among peers was not Observed to be prominent in classrooms. This may be due to either a lack of such orientation on the part Of these children (although the statistical 105 data in this study do not Show a total absence of this) or a lack Of such demands for competition in the classroom. Teachers seemed to be fairly well aware of the traditional prohibition of competitiveness for individual gain and may consequently, as some reported, not invite such behavior in their classrooms. Yet some children (responses to Question 14 eSpecially) report perceiving competitiveness among their peers. Later (in relation to Hypothesis 6) it will be inquired whether varying degrees of perceived competitiveness have any effect on academic achievement. Self-Investment Earlier the question of meaningfulness of the student role to Indian students was raised, and again (in the preceding discussion of Competitiveness) the suggestion was made that academic events may be perceived to be of little consequence to Indian students (see especially response #3 to Question 21). The concern here focuses on the assumption of self-investment in the student role. It is the assumption of this, and many other studies, that students value the student role and invest self-esteem in it such that he seeks to benefit from this investment ("enhancement or reaffirmation of his social status" -- Faunce, 1972: 2) and failure to benefit from this investment results in adjustive responses on the part of the individual. In order to assess self-investment in the student role, the four items comprising the self-investment index are examined. Figure 3, Appendix E, displays student responses to these four items. Question 18 asks the student very directly, "How important is it to you to be a good student?" To this, nearly one-half (47.8%) Of the children reply, "It's 106 the most important thing I can do." 15.6% of the children, on the other hand, reported: "it's not very important." In looking at the responses to this question, however, one would have to admit that in outright declaration, the majority of these children (70.3%, combining #1 and #2) report that the student role is perceived to be of great importance to them. Questions 17, 19, and 20 approach this concern from a somewhat different angle. The children are asked to suppose the others judged their performance in the student role to be poor. They are, then, asked how they would feel about this. The "others" considered here are those who are viewed as potential significant others for the child's academic performance (i.e., best friend, teachers, and parents). Most children report that they "would feel very bad" if such judgments were made of them, particularly so if such evaluations came from teachers (47.8%) and parents (46.8%). Even when such judgments come from the child's best friend, the majority (60.3%), at least, report some concern and "bad" feelings. These responses are interpreted as reflecting some investment of self-esteem in the student role. The student role is thus seen as an important one, perhaps not the only important one but important nonetheless, for these children. Comparing the reported self-investment of the Indian subjects with the small group of non-Indian classmates, no significant differences are found. Table 7 in Appendix E displays this data. This suggests that the Indian subjects invest as much self-esteem in their student roles as do their non-Indian classmates in these five schools. The student- role, thus, appears to be one which is meaningful to Indian students as well as to white students. 107 Field observations indicate that the children take their student roles rather seriously. School attendance, for example, was observed to be high in all five schools -- a fact of which school officials are rather proud owing to reported attendance problems in the past. Even when bad weather could be expected to keep many from school, atten- dance was good, and teachers wonderingly spoke of students who walked some distance over unpaved roads, braving foul weather, to meet the school buses. In most classes visited, children appeared to be taking earnestly to their studies. Most amazing to this Observer, however, were two study halls Observed in two different schools in which sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students were actually studying without a teacher being present! This is amazing because much of the literature on Indian education Speaks of the disorder and chaos in classrooms in Indian schools. These observations seem to further add to the belief that some investment in the student role has been made by these Indian students. Comparison of Major Constructs The concern in this fourth, and last, question is the major constructs employed in this study. The question posed is whether these constructs hold up for American Indian subjects as they do for the non—Indian sub- jects in other studies. Several strategies are employed in reSponding to this question. First a factor analysis has been applied to fifty-one attitudinal items from the student questionnaire. In order to compare results of this factor analysis with that of Schneider (1973) a varimax rotation was employed. Also consistent with Schneider's study, students who had missing 108 data were dropped from the factor analysis, leaving data from 452 subjects. Contrary to Schneider's finding of four distinct student factors, no such factors emerged from the factor analysis of the data in this study. Possible explanations for this difference include the following: (1) Schneider's data included twelve attitudinal items not included in this study. Some or all of these items may have been important to the four factors which emerged from Schneider's factor analysis. (2) Altering the items in this study may have changed them such that they do not relate to one another as they had in the earlier study. This researcher does not believe this to be the case, however, since no major changes were made in the items. (3) The factors may simply not hold up for Indian subjects. It is possible that the Indian students interpret some of the questions differently than do the students in Schneider's study. Consequently, responses on the items may not relate to one another as they did in that study. To explore this question further, the correlation matrices (see Appendix D) of important constructs in this study are compared with several from Henderson's study (1972: 123-124). The Henderson study, which is related to the Schneider study in that both are parts of the continuing research program of Brookover and associates, employs the same research instrument as that which was used by Schneider and, with some modifications, by this researcher. The following eight constructs are compared (the name of the construct in Henderson's work is given in parentheses): Perceived Competitiveness among Students (Reported Student Press Competition or Individual Performance); Self-Investment in Student Role (Importance of Self-Identity Student or Role); Perceived Academic 109 Norms of School (Academic Norms of School); Sense of control/Sense of Futility (Sense of Control); Self-Concept of Academic Ability (same); Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations (same); Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations (same); and Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations (same). Comparisons include only items employed in constructs in both studies. Results of this comparison Show that the constructs hold up fairly well. There are almost no correlations which are in the Opposite direction (i.e., positive in one study and negative in the other). In general items which related to one another moderately well in one study also related to one another moderately well in the other study. Similarly, items which showed a weak correlation in one study generally showed a weak correlation in the other study as well. For example, in the self-investment construct (see Figure 4), the child's response to his teacher's evaluation of his performance in the student role (Item 17) correlated very well in both studies (.566 in Hess and .552 in Henderson) with the child's response to parents' evaluation of his performance in the student role (Item 19). On the other hand, the child's response to the question, "How important is it to you to be a good Student?" (Item 18), did not correlate very well in either study (.156 in Hess and .138 in Henderson) with the child's response to his best friend's evaluation of his performance in the student role (Item 20). It might be pointed out that two of the constructs which compared very well (i.e., showed similar patterns of relationships between items) are Self-Investment in the Student Role and Self-Concept of Academic Ability (see Figure 4 below). l. lilill i l 110 Construct: Self-Investment in the Student Role Item No. Hess Henderson 17 1.000 1.000 18 .273 1.000 .244 1.000 19 .566 .199 1.000 .552 .305 1.000 20 .531 .156 .500 .424 .138 .405 Construct: Self-Concept of Academic Ability 28 l 000 1.000 29 .313 1.000 .434 1.000 30 .063 .148 1.000 .149 .164 1.000 31 .226 .222 .293 1.000 .212 .236 .231 1.000 32 .259 .265 .216 .285 1.000 .257 .293 .208 .307 1.000 33 .066 .133 .148 .161 .212 .159 .194 .211 .243 .342 Figure 4. Comparison of Intercorrelation Matrices for Self-Investment in the Student Role and Self-Concept Of Academic Ability, Hess and Henderson Studies. These Observations suggest that these constructs are measuring similar variables for the subjects in the two studies. Like the American Indian subjects in the present study, the subjects in Henderson's study were also members of a minority group (i.e., black students) who are enrolled in an institution, the school, which is largely based on white, middle-class values and orientations. That they should regard themselves similarly in that situation is to be expected from their status in these institutions. These observations are also in agreement with Coleman's findings that minority students (except Orientals) were Similar in their self-concepts and sense of control (Coleman, 1966: 319-325). On the other hand, two constructs which did not compare as well for the Indian subjects are (1) Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations and (2) Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations. Two of the observed correlations for Best Friend items are in the Opposite direction, and all of the Observed correlations for Teacher 111 items are weaker in this study. A Similar construct, Perceived Parents' expectations and Evaluations, however, did compare well. Not only are all correlations in the same direction in the two studies, but all except three (of ten observed correlations) are of comparable magnitude. Upon closer examination, it was Observed that although the intercorrelation matrices for the former two constructs (Best Friend and Teacher Expecta- tions and Evaluations) do not compare well, the items for each of the two constructs in this study do relate to one another fairly well. This suggests that these two constructs may be measuring different variables in the two studies or that the observed differences may be an indica- tion that teachers and peers play different roles in the academic per- formance of American Indian children and of black children. Still a third strategy employed in responding to the question of whether or not constructs employed in other studies also hold up in this study is an analysis of the functioning of these constructs to see if they operate in the same way for the Indian subjects. Since self- concept of academic ability is of great concern in this study, it was decided to pay particular attention to the functioning Of this construct. Brookover, et a1. (1967), proposed and tested the thesis that self-concept is an intervening variable in academic achievement -- intervening between perceived expectations and evaluations of others and academic achievement. In order to test for this relationship, the correlations between Academic Achievement, Self-Concept of Academic Ability, and Perceived Expecta- tions and Evaluations of Others were examined. As hypothesized, they found that: (1) the correlations between Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others and Self-Concept Of Academic Ability (.71, .50, and .59) are generally greater than the correlation between Self-Concept 112 of Academic Ability and Academic Achievement (.55); and (2) the correla- tions between Perceived Expectations and Evaluations and Academic Achieve- ment when controlling for Self-Concept of Academic Ability (for eighth grade Students, .14, .06, .12) are smaller than the correlations between Self-Concept of Academic Ability and Academic Achievement when con- trolling for Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of others (.32, .48, and .42). These same relationships are examined in this study in order to determine whether the construct, Self-Concept of Academic Ability, functions in the same way for the sample of American Indian children. These data are displayed in Figures 5 and 6. The data from Figure 5 indicate that the zero-order correlations Of Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others, Self-Concept of Academic Ability, and Academic Achievement in this study are like those obtained by Brookover and associates (1967) in that the correlations between Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others and Self-Concept of Academic Ability (.41, .31, and .41) are greater than the correla- tions between Self-Concept of Academic Ability and Academic Achievement (.19, .26, and .21). The correlations of perceived expectations and evaluations of others for £323 of the 52333 others (best friend, teacher, and parents) examined here with self-concept of academic ability 35; greater than the correlations of self-concept of academic ability and academic achievement for each of the three measures of achievement employed in this Study. The data from Figure 5, however, present some mixed findings con- cerning the intervening role of self-concept Of academic ability. It does seem to be the case, although the differences are not great, that 113 Variable Pair Best Friend's Expecta- tions and Evaluations with Self-concept of Aca- demic Ability Teacher Expectations and Evaluations with Self-concept of Aca- demic Ability Parents' Expectations and Evaluations with Self-concept of Aca- demic Ability Self-concept of Aca- demic Ability with Reading Achievement Self-concept of Aca- demic Ability with Composite Achievement Self-concept of Aca- demic Ability with Grade Point Average Correlation .4102 .3129 .4060 .1857 .2621 .2126 Figure 5. Zero-Order Correlations of Perceived Expectations and Evaluations of Others with Self-Concept of Academic Ability and of Self-Concept of Academic Ability with Academic Achievement. the correlations Of Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations with Academic Achievement when controlling for Self-Concept of Academic Ability are smaller than the correlations of Self-Concept of Academic Ability with Academic Achievement when controlling for Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations 13 those cases where Academic Achievement is measured by a standardized measure (reading and composite achievement). 114 Nooa. mcowumnam>m pom mCOHumu nomaxm umsomme Ommfi. mcofiumaam>m new mcofiumu nommxm HosommH amma. acoaumsaw>m cam mcoauwu nomaxm HOfiOOOH cams. meoaumsam>m com mequuooaxm m.ocmwum umom GQNH. mCOHUmDHw>m com mcowumuooaxm m.pcmwum ummm mmNH. mCOwumDHm>m wow mcofiumuooaxm m.m:oaum ummm COHumHmpuou Houuaoo mmw uuo>< ucHom mnmuu Luw3 unmocounmamm acme um>mwno< muwwoaaoo cows uaoocooumaom ucoe uo>mfiso¢ mcflommm cows uaoocooumaom mwm num>< ucfiom muwuo :uHB unmocooumamm acme uo>mwno¢ muwmomEOU spas uamocoo-mamm ucoE uo>mwno< mcfivmmm :uH3 uaoocoonwfiom Hams magmaum> mmqa. ooHN. Gama. «omH. Hoofi. mmHH. cowumfimuuou uaoocoo umamm unmocoo unamm uaoocoo umaom uaoocoo nmaom unmocoo uwfimm umoocou nmamm Houucou Owwpo>< unwom mcmuw saws mcowu nonaw>m can mCOHu umuooaxm umcomoa ucmE m>owco< muwmoafiou nufis m:o«u usuam>m mom mcowu umuooaxm umcomoH acme uo>owco¢ wcflvmom :uw3 mcowu -maam>m cam mcowu -muoomxm pocome own upm>< ucaom momma cuw3 mcoHuOSHw>m was mcoHumuooa uxm m.p:oaum umom ucmE o>oano< OuamanOo sows mcofiumaao>m paw mcofiumuoma uxm m_vcmwum ummm ucmEo>owso< wcfivmom cows mGOqOOSHo>m can mcowuouoom uxm m.ocownm ummm uamm manmfium> 115 .muocuo mo mcofiumzaw>m vow mCOHumuoomxm uo>Hoouom How wcwaaouucoo ucoEO>owso< OfiEmumo< saws wuHHHn< OHEoomo< mo uQOOOOUuMHOm mo 6cm huwawn< owEovwo< mo unmocoonmamm wow wcHHHouucoo ucoem>mano< Oflaommo< saga muosuo mo mcofiumnam>m new mcowuwuooaxm oo>wmoumm mo mcowuwaouuou .o Ouswwm HRNH. nmmH. memo. COwumHOuuoo mcowuwsfim>m was mcoflumu nooaxm .mucoumm mcowuwSHw>m can mcoflumu -ooaxm .mucouwm mcofiuwsaw>m was maoHumu nooaxm .mucoumm Houucoo owm uuo>< unwom owmuw nuflB uaoocooumaom ucoe uo>owno< ouHmOQEOo Luw3 unmoaoouwaom acme uo>owno< wcwomom :uH3 uaooaoonmaom Mama mangaum> Nana. qwmm. quH. cowuwflouuoo unmocoo umamm unmocoo umamm uaoocou uwamm Houucoo owm num>< ucfiom ovmuo no“? mcowu IOSHO>M cam mcowu nmuooaxm .mucmumm puma um>ofico< Ouwmoaaou nuH3 mcowu nmsHm>m cam woowu umuomaxm .muaouwm ucweo>mwco< wowommm cow? mcofiu nwDHm>m can maofiu -muoomxm .mucouwm uwmm mHanum> 116 This is not the case, however, with the more subjective measure of Academic Achievement, grade point average. This finding, then, gives partial support to the assertion that self-concept plays an intervening role between expectations and evaluations of others and academic achieve- ment. The data on Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations and Academic Achievement present the reverse of this. That is, self-concept of academic ability seems to intervene only between perceived teacher expectations and evaluations and academic achievement as measured by grade point average, but not as measured by either of the two standardized measures. Finally, Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations provides the most contrary case of all. Here Self-concept of Academic Ability is ESE found to intervene between Perceived Parents' Expecta- tions and Evaluations and any measure of Academic Achievement! This suggests that, although correlations between Perceived Parents' Expecta- tions and Evaluations and Self-Concept of Academic Ability are relatively good, Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations may have a more direct relationship with Academic Achievement for the Indian children in this study than it did for the non-Indian children in the Brookover and associates' study (1967). Thus, in further work in this area, the possibility must be entertained that self-concept of academic ability may function in a different way for American Indian children and their academic achievement. Hypotheses Tested Examination of the data in terms of the hypotheses posed for testing in this study not only provide an initial test of the tentatively proposed model, but also provides for the further testing of major constructs 117 via the strategy employed in the preceding section of this chapter, i.e., comparison of the functioning of constructs in this study with previous studies. It might also be pointed out at the outset of this section that several of the questions raised in discussion Of the hypotheses to be tested (see Chapter III) have already been considered in previous sections of this chapter and are not discussed extensively here. At the conclusion of this discussion of the hypotheses in terms of our data, one further question is taken up. That question has to do with the identification of significant others for academic achievement. It is taken up last because it is seen as partially dependent upon the outcome of the tests of the hypotheses. The first hypothesis posed for testing in this study asserts that there is a positive relationship between self-concept of academic ability and perceived expectations and evaluations of others. This assertion follows directly from Mead's perspective on the genesis of the self in social interaction with others. Mead asserts that the self is a concept which arises as the individual perceives and assumes the attitudes of others in his social environment toward himself. In testing this hypothesis, the perceived expectations and evaluations of three sets of others have been examined under the assumption that some or all of these are "significant others" for the child in the social context of the school. Tables 5 - 7 diSplay these data. The data indicate that the hypothesis is SUpported. Perceived expectations and evaluations of each Of the three others examined here are found to be positively related to the child's self-concept of academic ability. Correlations between perceived parents' expectations and evaluations and self-concept of academic ability and between perceived 118 Table 5. Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations. Self-Concept of Academic Ability Moderately Best Friend's Moderately Low to Expectations High High Moderate Low Total High 35(14.2) l36(55.l) 72(29.1) 4( 1.6) 247 Moderate 8( 4.1) 56(29.0) 115(59.6) 14( 7.3) 193 Low 0( 0.0) 5(17.9) l4(50.0) 9(32.1) 28 Total 43( 9.2) l97(42.1) 201(42.9) 27( 5.8) 468 N.R.= 13 d.f.= 6 x2: 101.783 p<.001 Kendall's Tau B= .384 Table 6. Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations. Self-Concgpt of Academic Ability Moderately Teacher Moderately Low to Expectations High High Moderate Low Total High 30(13.4) 116(51.8) 75(33.5) 3( 1.3) 224 Moderate 12( 5.3) 79(34.6) 119(52.2) l8( 7.9) 228 Low 1(77.l)7 l( 7.1) 7(50.0) 5(35.7) 14 Total 43( 9.2) l96(42.1) 201(43.1) 26( 5.6) 466 N.R.= 15 d.f.= 6 x2: 61.758 p<.oo1 Kendall's Tau B= .288 best friend's expectations and evaluations and self-concept of academic ability are somewhat higher than the correlation between perceived teacher expectations and evaluations. This suggests that these two sources of expectations and evaluations may be more significant for the child's self-concept. On the other hand, because we are unable to deter- mine causal direction from these data, it is possible that the positive correlations of the perceived expectations and evaluations of others with self-concept of academic ability is a consequence of an attribution 119 Table 7. Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations. Self-Concept Of Academic Ability Moderately Parents' Moderately Low to Expectations High High Moderate Low Total High 31(17.8) 94(54.0) 48(27.6) l( 0.6) 174 Moderately High 9( 5.5) 67(4l.l) 84(51.5) 3( 1.8) 163 Moderate 3( 2.5) 33(28.0) 63(53.4) 19(16.l) 118 Moderately Low to Low 0( 0.0) 2(20.0) 5(50.0) 3(30.0) 10 Total 43( 9.2) l96(42.2) 200(43.0) 26( 5.6) 465 N.R.= 16 d.f.= 9 x2: 96.930 p<.oo1 Kendall's Tau B= .359 process. That is, the individual attributes positive attitudes toward himself to individuals for whom he has positive feelings. Further work is needed in this area to determine causal order. The second hypothesis calls for a test of another basic assertion. Hypothesis 2 asserts that academic achievement varies directly with self-concept of academic ability. Consistent with Brookover and Erickson's contention (1969) that self-concept functions as a threshold variable, it would also be expected that data will reveal some cases of students with a high self-concept of academic ability who do not perform at a high level of achievement. According to Brookover and Erickson, these students may have chosen not to perform at a high level even though they believe that they are capable of doing so. On the other hand, if self-concept of academic ability is a necessary condition for high achieve- ment, the data should reveal_pp cases of students with a low self-concept of academic ability who are performing at a high level. Tables 8 - 10 display the data of interest here. 120 Table 8. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Self-Concept of Academic Ability. Composite Achievement Self- Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Conceppr 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Approp. 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 0(0.0) 1(3.3) l8(60.0) 8(26.7) 3(10.0) 30 Moderately 2(1.4) 10(6.9) 51(35.4) 41(28.5) 40(27.8) 144 High Moderate l(0.9) l(0.9) 28(25.5) 34(30.9) 46(41.8) 110 Moderately Low to Low Total N.R.= 184 d.f.= 12 0(0.0) 0(0.0) l( 7.7) 6(46.2) 6(46.2) 13 3(l.0) 12(4.0) 98(33.0) 89(30.0) 95(32.0) 297 (owing largely to one school which does not routinely administer achievement tests). x2= 29.049 p<.004 Kendall's Tau B= .237 Table 9. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Self-Concept of Academic Ability. Reading Achievement Self- Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Concept 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Approp. 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 0(0.0) 3(10.0) 12(40.0) 10(33.3) 5(16.7) 30 Moderately High 7(4.4) l3( 8.2) 45(28.3) 36(22.6) 58(36.5) 159 Moderate 2(1.4) 4( 2.8) 33(22.8) 42(29.0) 64(44.l) 145 Moderately Low to Low Total N.R.= 130 d.f.= 12 0(0.0) 0( 0.0) 4(23.5) 5(29.4) 8(47.1) 17 9(2 6) 20( 5.7) 94(26.8) 93(26.5) 135(38.5) 351 (again owing largely to one school which did not routinely administer achievement tests). x2= 20.206 p(.063 Kendall's Tau B= .161 121 Table 10. Academic Achievement (Grade Point Average) by Self- Concept of Academic Ability Self- Grade Point Average* Concepp 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 6(14.3) l7(40.5) l7(40.5) 2( 4.8) 42 Moderately High 27(13.9) 71(36.6) 90(46.4) 6( 3.1) 194 Moderate 9( 4.6) 59(30.3) 112(57.4) 15( 7.7) 195 Moderately Low to Low 1( 4.0) 4(16.0) 17(68.0) 3(12pg) 25 Total 43( 9.4) 151(33.1) 236(51.8) 26( 5.7) 456 *GPA based on a 3-point scale with 3= high, l= low. N.R.= 25 d.f.= 9 x2= 24.936 p<.003 Kendall's Tau B= .195 The data show support for Hypothesis 2. The statistical differences in the children's achievement by their self-concept of academic ability are greater than would be expected at the .05 level of Significance in two instances (composite achievement and grade point average) and approach that level of significance in the third instance (reading achievement). Although the correlations are positive, as predicted, they are not very impressive in magnitude. More impressive, however, is the evidence that self-concept of academic ability functions as a threshold variable for academic achievement. As anticipated, there are some students with a high or moderately high self-concept of academic ability who achieve at relatively low levels, and this is particularly shown with respect to the standardized measures of achievement. However, also as anticipated, ‘39 student with a low or moderately low self-concept of academic ability achieved at a high level (one or more grades advanced) of achievement, again looking at the standardized measures of achievement, and very few 122 (one student and four students respectively) of these students with moderately low to low self-concepts even achieved within one grade of the appropriate level on the standardized measures of achievement. Much the same pattern holds for achievement as measured by grade point average -- only one student with a moderately low to low self-concept of academic ability achieved a high grade point average (2.6-3.0 on a 3-point scale). Although these findings are based on a small number of students with a moderately low to low self-concept of academic ability (the latter case discussed above), they are seen as suggesting that Brookover and Erickson's assertion that self-concept of academic ability functions as a threshold variable may also Obtain for American Indian children. If this is the case, then subsequent research should probably be focused on learning why some children with a high self-concept of academic ability do not (choose not to?) perform at high levels of achievement. Some suggestions in relation to this concern have already been made in the discussion of self-investment in the student role (see Chapter III). The third hypothesis is derived from considerations of the first two hypotheses. It suggests that academic achievement is positively related to the academic expectations and evaluations which others have of the individual. Since there are nine tables which display these data, they are presented in Appendix E, Tables 8 - 16. The data support this hypothesis for each of the three sets of Others and for each of three measures of academic achievement. In every case a satistically significant difference in achievement is found by perceived expectations and evaluations The correlations, as predicted, are positive and 123 several are of fairly good magnitude. The highest correlation found in these data is between perceived parents' expectations and evaluations and composite achievement. This seems to suggest two things: (1) parents are significant others in the context of their children's learning; and (2) since it was observed earlier that self-concept of academic ability does not seem to intervene between perceived parents' expectations and evaluations and academic achievement, the academic performance of children may be seen as direct compliance with what they perceive their parents to expect of them. Several other interesting Observations may be made in relation to these data. The correlations between perceived expectations and evalua- tions of others (for each of the three sets) and academic achievement seem to be best when composite achievement is the measure of academic achievement. The smaller correlations with reading achievement may suggest that language problems interfere with achievement in reading, but not necessarily with achievement in other areas. It is also interesting to observe that the correlation of perceived teacher expectations and evaluations with achievement as measured by grade point average is not particularly high. This suggests that grades are not the only sources of student's perceived teacher expectations and evaluations. It seems likely that the teacher's day-to-day expression of attitudes and responses to the child are important sources of these perceptions. The fourth hypothesis, which directs attention more toward the social context of the school, may help interpret why it is that some students who apparently believe that they can achieve (those with high self-concept of academic ability) and who perceive that some others, 124 at least, hold positive expectations and evaluations for them do not achieve at high levels. The fourth hypothesis asserts that there may not be self-investment in the student role because other cues indicate to the child that he really has no control over his environment or his life chances. Hence, it is hypothesized that investment in the student role declines as the child's sense of control over his environment declines and his sense of futility increases. The data relevant to this assertion are diSplayed in Table 11. Table 11. Self-Investment in the Student Role by Sense of Control/Sense of Futility. Sense of Self-Investment Control/ Moderately Moderately Futility High High Moderate Low to Low Total High Control 10(43.5) 8(34.8) 4(17.4) 1( 4.3) 23 Moderate 57(34.l) 51(30.5) 41(24.6) 18(10.8) 167 Control Intermediate 59(26.6) 57(25.7) 69(31.l) 37(16.7) 222 Moderate to High Futi- lity 26(41.3) 13(20.§) 11(12.5) 13(20.6)7 63 Total 152(32.0) 129(27.2) 125(26.3) 69(14.5) 475 N.R.= 6 d.f.= 9 X = 17.539 p‘(.041 Kendall's Tau B= .076 First, two points need to be made with respect to the data on self- investment and sense Of control/sense of futility. In the case of both of these measures, the data are highly skewed to the positive end Of the scale. This make it necessary to group together for analytic purposes: (1) responses which indicated low or moderately low self-investment; and (2) responses which indicated high or moderate sense of futility. 125 Although statistically significant differences appear, particularly when one looks at the negative end of the self—investment scale, between those with high sense of control and those with moderate to high sense of futility, the correlations between these two variables is very low. The low correlation, however, appears to be the consequence of a curvi- linear relationship between these two variables. Curvilinearity is indi- cated by the data on "High" self-investment and "Moderate" self-investment. Children who report high self-investment in the student role are more likely to report not only a high sense of control (as anticipated), but also moderate to high sense of futility. It is not immediately apparent why the latter should be the case. One possibility is that sense Of control/sense of futility follows from self-investment rather than self-investing following from sense of control/sense of futility. If this is the case, it might be suggested that those who have made high investments of self-esteem and effort in the student role experience a sense of control when they see their investment rewarded and experience frustration (sense of futility) when they see their investment fail to bring the anticipated rewards. Another possibility considered was that items measuring sense of control/sense of futility are too vague or general and recalling that other researchers and writers had commented on the pragmatic orientation of Indian peOple toward education, it was decided to look at self-invest- ment in relation to Perceived Future Relevance of School. In a sense, this construct may be seen as a more concrete dimension of sense of control/sense of futility. For example, in responding to an item such as "If I do well in school, it will be easier for me to get the kind of job I want when I finish school," the individual is declaring whether 126 he perceives that through his efforts in school he can affect a subsequent outcome in his life. Table 12 displays the data for self-investment in the student role by perceived future relevance of school. Table 12. Self-Investment in the Student Role by Perceived Future Relevance of School Perceived Self-Investment Future Moderately Moderately Relevance High High Moderate Low to Low Total High l31(37.8) 103(29.7) 79(22.8) 34( 9.8) 347 Moderate 16(17.8) 20(22.2) 34(37.8) 20(22.2) 90 Low 2(77.7)47 4(15.4) 8(30.8) 12(46.2) 26 Total 149(32.2) 127(27.4) 121(26.1) 66(14.3) 463 N.R.= 18 d.f.= 6 x2= 50.691 K .001 Kendall's Tau B= .270 The data here not only Show statistically significant differences in self-investment by perceived future relevance of school, but also a modest correlation. Although the number of subjects reporting a low perception Of future relevance is small (indicating that this is an important orientation for these children), examination of the data dis- played in this table reveals that even those with only a moderate perception of future relevance, and this represents a larger number of respondents, show less investment in the student role than do those who perceive high future relevance of school. These data, thus, seem to indicate that when measured concretely, self-investment does relate to the child's perception that he can control his life's chances. Future research on this question should thus pay particular attention to con- crete vs. abstract measures of this construct. 127 Hypothesis 5 carries the argument a step further by suggesting that academic achievement bears a direct relationship to self-investment in the student role and sense of control and an inverse relationship to sense of futility. Since perceived future relevance of school was also found to relate to self-investment in the student role, the relationship of this construct to academic achievement is also examined. Tables 17 - 23 in Appendix E and Tables 13 and 14 in this chapter diSplay these data and some very curious results emerge. First, the data reveal almost no relationship between academic achievement (no matter how it is measured) and self-investment in the student role at all! Thus, while children report that being a good student is very important to them and that it means much to them when someone negatively evaluates their student role performance, their mea- sured academic performance does not correspond to this attitude. The question of why this might be the case certainly requires further explora- tion. However, two suggestions may be made here: (1) observing that the average level of performance in these schools is very low, it might be the case that the level Of performance which the child perceives to be good within this context may actually be low when compared to some standard outside of that school context (national norms, for example); and (2) other factors not associated with self-investment may be more powerful determinants of academic achievement and academic failure. The proposed model suggests that the action Opportunities which the teachers provide may be one such factor. If a child is not given the Opportunity to learn grade level materials, chances are good that when measured on a standardized test, he will perform below grade level. 128 Table 13. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Sense Of Control/ Sense of Futility. Composite Achievement Sense of Within Control/ Grade Advanced Appro- Grade Behind Futility 2.0+ 1.0-1 9 priate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High Control 2(12.5) 3(18.8) 9(56.3) 1( 6.3) l( 6.3) 16 Moderate Control 0( 0.0) 6( 6.4) 39(41.5) 30(3l.9) 19(20.2) 94 Inter- mediate 1( 0.7) 3( 2.1) 40(27.6) 47(32.4) 54(37.2) 145 Moderate to High Futility, 0( 0.0) 0( 0.0) 10(23.3) 12(2].9) 21(48.8)§ 43 Total 3( 1.0) 12( 4.0) 98(32.9) 90(30.2) 95(31.9) 298 N.R.= 183 (one school missing achievement data) d.f.= 12 x2= 58.699 p(.001 Kendall's Tau B= .277 Table 14. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Sense Of Control/ Sense of Futility. ReadingrAchievement Sense Of Within Control/ Grade Advanced Appro- Grade Behind Futilipy 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 priate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High Control 5(29.4) 4(23.5) 5(29.4) 2(11.8) l( 5.9) 17 Moderate Control 2( 1.7) 11( 9.2) 34(28.3) 33(27.5) 40(33.3) 120 Inter- mediate 2( 1.2) 5( 3.0) 43(25.6) 45(26.8) 73(43.5) 168 Moderate to High Futility 0( 0.0) 0( 0.0)A l2(25.5) 13(27.7) 22(46.8) 47 Total 9( 2.6) 20( 5.7) 94(26.7) 93(26.4) l36(38.6) 352 N R.= 129 (one school missing considerable reading data) d.f.= 12 x2: 76.835 p(.001 Kendall's Tau B= .197 129 Teacher expectations which lead to such a restriction of action oppor- tunities are discussed later. With respect to sense of control/sense of futility, the data reveal that this construct relates quite well to academic achievement when the latter is measured by composite achievement and fairly well when it is measured by reading achievement. Fifty-three and Six tenths percent of those with a moderate to high sense of control achieve at or above appropriate grade level in composite achievement while this is true of only 23.3% of those with a moderate to high sense of futility. In fact, nearly one—half (48.8%) of those with a moderate to high sense of futility achieve two or more grades behind their appropriate grade level (compared to only 18.2% of those with moderate to high sense Of control)! These findings on sense Of control/sense of futility with academic achieve- ment corresponds to the findings of Coleman (1966) and Brookover, et a1. (1973) which indicate that sense of control and sense of futility are important correlates of academic achievement for minority children. Finally, perceived future relevance of school, which related well to self-investment in the student role, shows little relationship to academic achievement. However, it does appear to be the case that those who perceive high future relevance of school are more likely to achieve at or above grade level in composite achievement than are those with a moderate or low perception of future relevance -- 42.7% with high per- ception of future relevance, 31.6% with moderate perception of future relevance, and 20.0% of those with low perception of future relevance achieve at or above grade level in composite achievement. A similar pattern appears when academic achievement is measured by grade point 130 average. Those with high perceived future relevance of school more often achieve in the highest grade category. The data, then, lend some support to Hypothesis 5, with the strongest support coming from the data on sense of control/sense of futility. However, the hypothesis is not supported by the data on self-investment in the student role, and it is suspected that there may be certain inadequacies in the measure of this construct. Since evidence was not found in the achievement data to indicate the presence of a "cross-over phenomenon," the relationship of these variables (academic achievement with self-investment, sense of control/ sense of futility, and perceived future relevance of school) by grade in school was not seen as meaningful as had been suggested in the earlier discussion Of this hypothesis. Hypothesis 6, finally, calls attention to the immediate social environment of the school. It suggests that academic achievement, which may be viewed as a behavioral norm, is related to other norms of the school, namely the value which students place on academic achievement, the amount of competitiveness for achievement in the school, and the concern which others in that social environment express for achievement. Tables 24 -28, Appendix E, and Table 15 in this chapter display the data relevant to this hypothesis. The construct, Perceived Academic Norms of the School, measures such attitudes perceived among others (basically peers, here) in the social environment of the school, as the value accorded academic achieve- ment and concern for good performance in school. These perceived norms seem to have little to do with actual academic achievement, regardless of which measure of that achievement is examined. Most students, looking 131 at the distribution on Perceived Academic Norms, seem to perceive modest (i.e., moderate to moderately high) norms favoring academic achievement in their school. This is consistent with most students' reports that they (themselves) look rather favorably upon academic achievement -- as indicated in their responses to the self-investment items. Yet, actual behavior does not seem to follow these attitudes and the perceived atti- tudes of others. It has been suggested that this incongruity may be related to the context of achievement within these schools whereby what is perceived as high, or even acceptable, achievement within the school is not so evaluated with applying a standard from outside the school (as when performance is measured and compared on a national basis with standardized achievement tests). Alternatively, students in these schools may be seen to have attitudes favoring academic achievement, but such achievement may be blocked by some other factor or factors. Competitiveness, implied by the concept of achievement, may be such an inhibiting factor. If aggressive, competition-oriented behavior is perceived to be required for academic achievement, and if such behavior is not acceptable in the individual's value system, then the individual may still value achievement with its desirable consequences (perceived by the individual) of a "good job," etc., but choose not to engage in the disapproved behavior. In other words, the child may assign a positive value to the end (good performance in school), but a negative value to the means (aggressive, competitive behavior). Earlier it was asked whether competitiveness is an orientation still alien (as it has been reported to have been traditionally) to the Indian children involved in this study. Data on questionnaire items related to "competi- tiveness” and observations of classrooms indicate that there may be some 132 reluctance to engage in competitive behavior -- more so, it seems, when the competition is between individuals rather than of an individual with some standard of excellence or even between groups (noting the popularity of team Sports). Tables 15 (in this chapter) and 27 - 28 (in Appendix E) display data on perceived competitiveness of peers and academic achievement Although no statistically significant differences are found in achievement by perceived competitiveness of peers, the data on the composite measure of academic achievement and perceived competitiveness are interesting. Perception of a moderate amount Of competitiveness appears to be more beneficial in terms of the composite measure of academic achievement than either high or low perceived com- petitiveness. 50.5% of those who perceive a moderate amount of competi- tiveness among their peers achieve at or about grade level while this is true of only 30.6% of those who perceive moderately high to high levels of competitiveness and 40% of those who perceive moderately low to low levels of competitiveness. This would seem to suggest some Table 15. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Competitiveness of Peers. Composite Achievement Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Competi- Appro- tiveness 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 priate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 0(0.0) 1(2.4) 9(22.0) 11(26.8) 20(48.8) 41 Moderately High 2(1.4) 6(4.3) 37(26.6) 50(36.0) 44(3l.7) 139 Moderate 1(1.0) 4(4.1) 44(45.4) 23(23.7) 25(25.8) 97 Moderately Low to Low 0(0.0) 1(4.9) 9(36.0) 9(36.0) 6(24.Q) 25 Total 3(l.0) 12(4.0) 99(32.8) 93(30.8) 95(31.5) 302 N.R.= 179 d.f.= 12 X2= 17.63364 p=(.127 Kendall's Tau B: -.152 133 viability for the argument advanced here that the means to the valued end, academic achievement, may be rejected by many of the Indian students. This observation also lends partial support to the hypothesis that per- ception of a moderate amount of competitiveness is related to academic achievement. Since teachers, as important actors in the school social system, are seen as playing an important part in creating the normative climate of the school, several items on the child's perception of teacher attitudes toward achievement have also been examined in relation to the child's academic performance. The items examined are: (l) Perceived Academic Push from Teachers (Question 40) How many teachers in this school tell students to try and get better grades than their classmates? (2) Perceived Teacher Indifference (Question 41) Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many don't care if the students get bad grades and do bad work? (3) Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement (Question 42) Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many make the students work too hard? Tables 29 - 35, Appendix E, and Tables 16 and 17 in this chapter display this data. Of all these teacher attitude items, only perceived teacher indif- ference shows any relationship with academic achievement, and only when achievement is measured by composite achievement and grade point average. 134 Table 16. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Indifference. Composite Achievement Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Indif- Appro- ference 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 priate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total Low 2(1 6) 7(5.6) 53(42.7) 35(28.2) 27(21.8) 124 Moderately Low l(l.8) 3(5.4) l8(32.l) 16(28.6) 18(32.l) 56 Moderate 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 6(17.6) 10(29.4) l8(52.9) 34 Moderately High 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 8(22.9) 10(28.6) l7(48.6) 35 High ri-I If your father does not live with you or if he is not alive, please answer the following question for the person in your house who earns the most money for your family. 6. What type of work does your father do? Give a short description his job. \ooowo‘m-PwNH nah: Voxm-l-‘wNI-I mummbuNr-I 7. How many brothers do you have? (Please write the number.) How many sisters do you have? (Please write the number.) 191 8. How many Of your brothers and sisters live in your house with you? (Please write the number.) 9. How many Of your brothers and sisters have jobs? (Please write the number of brothers + sisters.) 10. How many Of your brothers and sisters go to school? (Please write the number in each kind Of school.) Pre-school (kindergarten or headstart) Grades 1 " 4 o a o a a o a o e o o o o GradESS'S........ooooo High School . . . . . . . . . . . . College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Are you the Oldest child in your family? Yes . . . . . . . . 1 NO 0 O O O O O O O 2 Are you the youngest child in your family? Yes . . . . . . . . 1 NO 0 O O O O O O C 2 Answer the following questions by circling the number on the right of your best answer. Remember, no one in this school will see your answers, so please tell just what you think. Choose only one answer for each question. 12. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how far would you like to go? Finish grade school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Go to high school for a while . . . . . . . . . . Finish high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Go to college for a while . . . . . . . . . . . . Finish college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPWNH 13. How many Students in your class try hard to get good grades on their school work? Almost all of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Most Of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half Of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almost none of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m-PUONH 14. How many students in your class will work hard to do better work than their friends do? Almost all of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Most of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almost none of them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m-I-‘wNa—I 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. How many students in your class don't care if they get 192 bad grades in school? Almost all of them . . . . . . . . . . Most 0fthem0000000000000 Ha 1 f Of them 0 O O O O O O O O O C C . Some Ofthem..........ooo Almost Home Of them a o o o o O o O 0 If most of the students in your class could go as far wanted in school, how far would they go? Finish grade school . . . . . . . . . Go to high school for a while . . . . Finish high school . . . . . . . . . Go to college for a while . . . . . . Finish college . . . . . . . . . . . . If your teacher told you that you were a poor Student how would you feel? I would feel very bad . . . . . . . . I would feel a little bad . . . . . . It wouldn't bother me very much . . . It wouldn't bother me at all . . . . . How important is it It's It's just It's more It's to you to be a good student? the most important thing I can do . important, but other things are as important . . . . . . . . . . important, but other things are important . . . . . . . . . . . . not very important . . . . . . . 3 If your parents told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? I would feel very bad . . . . . . . . I would feel a little bad . . . . . . It wouldn't bother me very much . . . It wouldn't bother me at all . . . . . If your best friend how would you feel? told you that you were a poor student, I would feel very bad . . . . . . . . I would feel a little bad . . . . . . It wouldn't bother me very much . . . It wouldn't bother me at all . . . . . How do you think most of the students in your class one of you does a bad job on school work? They feel badly and want to help . . . . . . . They feel sorry, but don't say anything feel when They really don't care . . . . . . . . . . . . They are secretly happy that it happened . . . m-PWNH DwNi—I wat—I waI—I Ln-l-‘ri—I bu PWNl-J 193 22. What do you think most students say when a student has done good or better than he usually does in his school work? He was just lucky, he won't do that good next time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Anyone could do it if they Studied . . . . . . . . I wish I could do as well as he did . . . . . . . 3 I'm glad for him and I hope he does as well next time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 N 23. How important do most of the students in your class feel it is to do well in school work? Almost everybody thinks it is the most important thing you can do . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Most students think it iS pretty important to do well in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Doing well in school work is a good thing, but other things are important too . . . . . . . . 3 Most students don't seem to care hOW'Well they do, but it's okay for others to do well . . . 4 Most students don't seem to care how well they do, but they don't like other Students to do well either . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Please answer the following questions by circling the number which best answers the question for you. Choose only one answer for each question. 24. People like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want to in life. Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P‘UJth‘ 25. People like me will never do well in school even though we try hard. Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 26. I can do well in school if I work hard. Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $‘U3h3h‘ 27. In this school, students like me don't have any luck. Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $‘U3h3h‘ 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 194 Think of your friends. Do you think you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your friends? Better . . . . The same . . Poorer . . . . Think of the Students in your class. Do you think you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than the 8 your class? Better . . . . The same . . . Poorer . . . . Do you think you could finish college? Yes, with no problem at all . . . Yes, as long as I work hard . . . Yes, but I will probably have a lot of problems . . . . . . . . No, it will be too hard . . . . . If you went to college, do you think you would be Students, about the same as most of the students, as most of the students? One of the best . . . . . . . . . About the same as most of the stude Not as good as most Of the students Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good your own work is? Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . About the same as most of the stude Not as good as most of the students Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What marks do you think you really can get if you Mostly A's . . Mostly B's . . Mostly C's . . Mostly D's . . Mostly F's . . O O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O O O 2 . . . . . . . . 3 tudents in O O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O O O I 2 O O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O 1 C O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O O 3 O O O O 0 O 4 one of the best or not as good 0 O O O O O O O 1 nts . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 3 do you think 0 O O O 1 O O O O O O O O 2 nts . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . 4 C O O O O O O O 5 try? 0 O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O I O O 4 O O O O O O O O 5 (Note: These response categories were appropriately altered to conform with the grading system of the school.) 195 Now I would like you to answer some questions about people whom you know. Answer these questions by circling the number as 34. 35. 36. When you do good work in school, Who do you most want to know about it? My mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My brother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My sister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My best friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If other, who? you have been doing. 0 \lO‘Ul-I-‘UONH Who is the most interested in your work in school? My mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My brother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My sister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My best friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If other, who? \lO‘U14>WNt-' Sometimes what other peOple think of us is very important to us sometimes it is not very important. Below is a list of peOple whose Opinion of you may or may not be very important to you. Please circle the number important their Opinions of you are to you. A. My parents' Opinion of me is: Very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Somewhat important to me . . . . . . . . . . . Not very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . My teachers' opinions of me are: Very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Somewhat important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . Not very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . The opinions which classmates from my own district have of me are: Very important to me . . . . . . . . ... . . . . Somewhat important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . Not very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . The Opinions which classmates from other districts have of me are: Very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Somewhat important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . Not very important to me . . . . . . . . . . . . and to the right of the answer that tells how 0 p—l 196 Now I would like you to answer some questions about your best friend. StOp for a minute and think who your best friend is. Answer these questions by circling the number as you did in the other questions. Remember, your best friend will Egg see your answers. 37. How good of a student does your best friend expect you to be? One of the best . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Better than most of the students . . . . . . Same as most students . . . . . . . . . . . . Not as good as most students . . . . . . . . . . . He (She) doesn't really care . . . . . . . . . . . UIJ-‘LANH 38. Think of your best friend. Would your best friend say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than other children your age? Better . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The same . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Poorer . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 39. What grades does your best friend think you can get? Mostly A's . . . . . . . . . . 1 Mostly B'S . . . . . . . . . . 2 Mostly C's . . . . . . . . . . 3 Mostly D's . . . . . . . . . . 4 Mostly F's . . . . . . . . . . 5 (See note with Question 33.) Now I would like to ask some questions about the teachers in this school. Answer these questions as you answered the other ones by circling the number. Remember, 32 teacher will see your answers so be as honest as you can. 40. How many teachers in this school tell students to try and get better grades than their classmates? Almost all of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . Most of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almost none of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . m-Pri-I 41. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many don't care if the students get bad grades and do bad work? Almost all of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . Most of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almost none of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . UT-l-‘LJONH 42. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many make the students work too hard? Almost all of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . Most of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almost none of the teachers . . . . . . . . . . . Ln-l-‘ri-I 43. 44. 45. 46. Now I would like to 197 How good of a student does the teacher you like you to be in school? One of the best . . . . . . . . Better than most students . . . Same as most students . . . . . Not as good as most students . He (She) doesn't really care . . Think of your teachers now. Would they say you better, the same, or poorer than other children Better . . . The same . . Poorer . . . DO your teachers think you could finish college? Yes 0 O O 0 Maybe . . . NO I O I O 0 What grades do your teachers think you can get? Mostly A's . Mostly B's . Mostly C's . Mostly D's . (See note with Question 33.) Mostly F's . can best expect do school work your age? ask you some questions about your parents or guar- dians. Answer them the same way you answered the other questions. 47. 48. 49. 50. How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school? Finish grade school . . . . . . Go to high school for a while Finish high school . . . . . . GO to college for a while . . Finish college . . . . . . . . . How good Of a student do your parents expect you to One of the best . . . . . . . . Better than most of the Students Same as most of the students . . Not as good as most of the students They don't really care . . . . . Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and father say be in school? can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your friends? Better . . . The same . . Poorer . . . Do your mother and father think you could finish college? Yes . . . . Maybe . . . No . . . . . WNH UI-PUJNH m-PwNH mbwwn—I you NH NH 51. 52. 53. What grades do (See note with 198 your mother and father think you can Mostly A's . . . Mostly B's . . . Mostly C's . . . Mostly D's . . . Question 33.) Mostly F's . . . If you received a good report card, what would your likely do? Nothing Special . . . . . . . . . . Praise me O C O O O O O I O O O O 0 Give me Special privileges . . . . Give me money or some special reward . other C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 If other, what? . . . U1$~uah>ha O U1$~u3n>ha If you received a poor report card, what would your likely do? Nothing special . . . . . . . . . . Scold or talk to me . . . . . . . . Take away privileges . . . . . . . . Punish me severely in some way . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If other, what? parents 0 O U1¥~uah>hl I have just a few more questions for you about school. them in the same way as you have been answering the others by circling the number of the answer which is best for you. 54. 55. 56. Please answer When I do a good job on my school work, I am more popular with the other students. If I do well in school, it will be They like me more. Ye S O O O O O O N0 0 O O 0 C O 0 Doesn't make any difference . of job I want when I finish school. Sometimes what Yes 0 O O I O O NO 0 0 O O O O O H N L») easier for me to get the kind . . . 1 N Doesn't make any difference . 3 you want to happen is not what you think will really happen. How far do you think you really will go in Finish grade school . . . . . . . . Go to high school for a while . . . Finish high school . . . . . . . . . Go to college for a while . . . . . Finish college . . . . . . . . . . . school? 0 O UIP‘UJBJFJ 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 Think about your school. 62. 199 How important do you think Very important . . . . Somewhat important . . Not very important . . Not at all important . How important do you think Very important . . . . Somewhat important . . Not very important . . Not at all important . How well would you say you get along with classmates from district? I get along with most of them very well . I get along with some of them . . . . . . I don't get I don't get along with them very well . . along with them at all . . . . How well would you say you districts? get along with classmates from with most of them very well with some of them . . . . . . along with them very well along with them at all . . . . I get along I get along I don't get I don't get Would you say that your School friendly place? Very friendly . . . . Somewhat friendly . . Not very friendly . . Very unfriendly . . . Do you ever think of yourself as being different, in some way, from other students in this school? NO . . . . . . . . . . Yes . . . . . . . . . If you answered Yes, please tell in what way you think Of as different. it is for you to finish high school? Pri—I it is for you to finish college? war-I . . . . . . . booms—t wan—I . . . . #ri—I yourself 200 63. DO you ever feel that other pe0p1e think of you as being different in some important way? No C O O I O O I C O O O O O 0 Yes 0 O O O O O C O O O O 0 If you answered Yes, please tell in what way they (other pe0p1e) think of you as different: THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. IF THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE TO WRITE ABOUT THE SCHOOL OR THESE QUESTIONS, YOU MAY WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. APPENDIX B INVENTORY OF VARIABLES INVENTORY OF VARLABLES School in which the child is enrolled. "School was coded to identify the three types of schools -- BIA, public, and mission. Age of the child. Sex of the child. Grade in which the child is enrolled. Number of years the child has been attending the school in which he is presently enrolled. Occupation of the Father or other head of household. Socioeconomic Status --based on Father's occupation. Number of siblings in the child's family. Number of Siblings residing in the home of the child. Number of employed siblings. Number of siblings attending school -- recorded separately for preschool, lower elementary (grades 1 - 4), upper elementary (grades 5 - 8), high school, and college. Number Of potential role model siblings -- index based on siblings in high school, college, or employed. Birth order of reSpondent. Educational aspirations of the child. Self-investment in the student role. Perceived educational aspirations of peers. Self-concept of academic ability. Other perceived as most important in evaluating school work. Other perceived as most interested in school work. Reported importance of parents' evaluations of self. Reported importance of teacher's evaluations of self. 201 202 Perceived importance of classmates' evaluations of self. Perceived best friend's expectations and evaluations. Perceived parents' expectations and evaluations. Perceived teacher expectations and evaluations. Perceived parents' educational aSpirations for child. Expected response Of parents to good report from school. Expected reSponse of parents to poor report from school. Expected esteem from peers for good academic performance. Reported quality of social relations with classmates. Perceived "friendliness" of school. Educational expectations of child. Perceived competitiveness of peers. Reported response Of child to parents' evaluation of child as Student. Reported reSponse of child to teacher evaluations of child as student. Reported response of child to best friend's evaluation of child as Student. Perceived reSponse of classmates to another's success. Perceived response of classmates to another's failure. Perceived academic norms of school. Sense of control over own life. Sense of control in school. Perceived efficacy of hard work in school. Sense of control/sense of futility. Perceived academic push from teachers. Perceived teacher indifference to academic achievement. Perceived teacher demand for academic achievement. Reported expectation of "good job" following good performance in school. Perceived importance of finishing high school. 203 Perceived importance of finishing college. Perceived future relevance of school. Perception of self as different from others. Perceived other's judgment of self as different from others. Reading achievement -- standardized measure. Composite achievement -- Standardized measure. Grade point average. APPENDIX C INDICES CONSTRUCTED IN THIS STUDY 204 Socioeconomic Status (SES) Data for this index are derived from Question 6 of the Student Questionnaire. 6. What type of work does your father do? Give a short descrip- tion of his job. (In the event that the child did not live with his father or if the father was deceased, the child was directed to answer for "the person in your house who earns the most money for your family.") The following code was employed in the index: 1 = Unemployed. 2 = Low Status -- unskilled and semi-Skilled occupations which require little educational preparation. Occasional workers are included here. 3 = Middle Status -- white collar and Skilled occupations which require some college or technical training. 4 = High Status -- positions of power, prestige, and decision- making which require a college degree. Potential Role Model Siblings Data for this index are derived from Questions 9 and 10 of the Student Questionnaire. 9. How many of your brothers and sisters have jobs? 10. How many of your brothers and sisters go to school? (Here attention focused on those in High School and College.) The sum of such siblings represents the number of potential role model Siblings. Self-Concept of Academic Ability Data for this index are derived from Questions 28 - 33 of the Student Questionnaire. 28. Think of your friends. Do you think you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your friends? 29. Think of the students in your class. Do you think you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than the students in your class? 30. Do you think you could finish college? 31. If you went to college, do you think you would be one of the best students, about the same as most of the students, or not as good as most of the students? 205 32. Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do you think your own work is? 33. What marks do you think you really can get if you try? Responses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high, moderately high, moderate, moderately low, and low self-concept of academic ability. Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations Data for this index are derived from Questions 37 - 39 of the Student Questionnaire. 37. How good of a student does your best friend expect you to be in school? 38. Think of your best friend. Would your best friend say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than other children your age? 39. What grades does your best friend think you can get? Responses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high, moderate, and low perceived expectations and evaluations. Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations Data for this index are derived from Questions 43 - 46 of the Student Questionnaire. 43. How good of a student does the teacher you like the best eXpect you to be in school? 44. Think of your teachers now. Would they say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than other children your age? 45. Do your teachers think you could finish college? 46. What grades do your teachers think you can get? Responses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high, moderate, and low perceived expectations and evaluations. Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations Data for this index are derived from Questions 47 - 51 of the Student Questionnaire. 206 47. How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school? 48. How good of a student do your parents expect you to be in school? 49. Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and father say you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your friends? 50. Do your mother and father think you could finish college? 51. What grades do your mother and father think you can get? ReSponseS to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high, moderately high, moderate, moderately low, and low perceived expectations and evaluations. Perceived Parental Support for Academic Achievement Data for this index are derived from Questions 52 and 53 of the Student Questionnaire. 52. If you received a good report card, what would your parents most likely do? 53. If you received a poor report card, what would your parents most likely do? ReSponseS to these items were interpreted as Showing strong positive support (overt indication of approval), weak positive support (ver- bal approval), no positive support ("Nothing Special"), strong sanction (overt indication of disapproval), weak sanction (verbal disapproval), and no sanction ("Nothing Special"). Responses to the two questions are then combined using the following code: strong +, strong - strong +, weak - weak +, strong - weak+, weak - no +, strong - strong +, no - = no +, weak - weak.+, no - = no +, no - \DWVO‘U’IDWNH llll Perceived Academic Norms of School Data for this index are derived from Questions l3, 14, 21, and 23 of the Student Questionnaire. 207 13. How many students in your class try hard to get good grades on their school work? 14. How many students in your class will work hard to do better work than their friends do? 21. How do you think most of the students in your class feel when one of you does a bad job on school work? 22. What do you think most students say when a student has done good or better than he usually does in his school work? Responses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high, moderately high, moderate, moderately low, and low perceived academic norms. Social Relations in School Data for this index are derived from Questions 59 - 61 of the Student Questionnaire. 59. How well would you say you get along with classmates from your own district? 60. How well would you say you get along with classmates from other districts? 61. Think about your school. Would you say that your school is a friendly place? ReSponses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent good social relations, moderate social relations, and poor social relations. Sense of Control/Sense of Futility Data for this index are derived from Questions 24 - 27 of the Student Questionnaire. 24. PeOple like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want to in life. 25. People like me will never do well in school even though we try hard. 26. I can do well in school if I work hard. 27. In this school, students like me don't have any luck. The numerical order of the reSponses to items 24, 25, and 27 were reversed in coding to maintain consistency in polarity (i.e., l = most positive; 5 = most negative). 208 Responses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high sense of control, moderate sense of control, intermediate control/futility, moderate sense of futility, and high sense of futility. Perceived Future Relevance of School Data for this index are derived from Questions 55, 57, and 58 Of the Student Questionnaire. 55. If I do well in school, it will be easier for me to get the kind of job I want when I finish school. 57. How important do you think it is for you to finish high school? 58. How important do you think it is for you to finish college? Responses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high perceived relevance, moderate perceived relevance, and low perceived relevance. Identification of Significant Others for School Work Data for this index are derived from Questions 34 and 35 of the Student Questionnaire. 34. When you do good work in school, who do you most want to know about it? 35. Who is the most interested in your work in school? Essentially this index identifies the other who is consistently identified by the child on these two questions. Thus, the values in the index corre3pond to the reSponse selections provided with these two questions. Index value 9 indicates inconsistent choice of others. Self-Investment in the Student Role Data for this index are provided by Questions 17 - 20 of the Student Questionnaire. 17. If your teacher told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? 18. How important is it to you to be a good student? 19. If your parents told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? 209 20. If your best friend told you that you were a poor student, how would you feel? ReSponses to these items were summed and divided into categories to represent high investment, moderately high investment, moderate investment, moderately low investment, and low investment. Perceived Competitiveness among Students Data for this index are derived from Questions 13 - 15 of the Student Questionnaire. 13. How many Students in your class try hard to get good grades on their school work? 14. How many students in your class will work hard to do better work than their friends do? 15. How many students in your class don't care if they get bad grades in school? ReSponses to item 15 were reversed in coding in order to maintain consistency in polarity. ReSponses were summed and divided into categories to represent high perceived competitiveness, moderately high perceived competitiveness, moderate perceived competitiveness, moderately low perceived competitiveness, and low perceived com- petitiveness. APPENDIX D INTERCORRELATION MATRICES INTERCORRELATION MATRICES Self-concept of Academic Ability Item 28 1.000 Perceived Item Perceived Item Perceived Item Perceived Item Perceived Item 29 .313 1.000 30 .063 .148 1.000 31 .226 .222 .293 1.000 32 .259 .265 .216 .285 1.000 33 .066 .133 .148 .161 .212 1.000 Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations 37 1.000 38 .333 1.000 39 .193 .166 1.000 Teacher Expectations and Evaluations 43 1.000 44 .171 1.000 45 .208 .194 1.000 46 .072 .146 .117 1.000 Parents' Expectations and Evaluations 47 1.000 48 -.225 1.000 49 -.170 .367 1.000 50 -.390 .259 .258 1.000 51 -.089 .310 .179 .156 1.000 Parental Support for Academic Achievement 52 1.000 53 .244 1.000 Academic Norms of School 13 1.000 14 .416 1.000 21 .145 .054 1.000 23 .114 .142 .218 1.000 210 211 Social Relations in School Item 59 1.000 60 .178 1.000 61 .186 .118 1.000 Sense of Control/Sense of Futility Item 24 1.000 25 .193 1.000 26 -.020 .026 1.000 27 .058 .305 .164 1.000 Perceived Future Relevance of School Item 55 1.000 57 .338 1.000 58 .231 .438 1.000 Self-Investment in Student Role Item 17 1.000 18 .273 1.000 19 .566 .199 1.000 20 .531 .156 .500 1.000 Perceived Competitiveness among Students Item 13 1.000 14 .416 1.000 15 .118 .031 1.000 APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF INTERCORRELATION MATRICES OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTS, HENDERSON STUDY (1972) AND HESS STUDY COMPARISON OF INTERCORRELATION MATRICES OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTS, HENDERSON STUDY (1972) AND HESS STUDY Self-Concept of Academic Ability Henderson Study Item 31 1.000 32 .434 1.000 34 .149 .164 1.000 35 .212 .236 .231 1.000 37 .257 .293 .208 .307 1.000 38 .159 .194 .211 .243 .342 1.000 Hess Study Item 28 1.000 29 .313 1.000 30 .063 .148 1.000 31 .226 .222 .293 1.000 32 .259 .265 .216 .285 1.000 33 .066 .133 .148 .161 .212 1.000 Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations Henderson Study Item 42 .000 43 -.146 1.000 47 .245 .337 1.000 H Hess Study Item 37 1.000 38 .333 1.000 39 .193 .166 1.000 Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations Henderson Study Item 58 1.000 59 .273 1.000 61 .235 .240 1.000 63 .319 .295 .296 1.000 Hess Study Item 43 1.000 44 .171 1.000 45 .208 .194 1.000 46 .072 .146 .117 1.000 212 213 Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations Henderson Study Item 64 1.000 Item Perceived Item Item 65 66 68 7O 47 48 49 50 51 -.229 1.000 -.225 .414 1.000 -.306 .282 .254 1.000 -.281 .337 .352 .306 1.000 Hess Study H .000 -.225 1.000 .170 .367 1.000 .390 .259 .258 1.000 .089 .310 .179 .156 1.000 Competitiveness of Peers 13 14 15 13 14 15 Henderson Study 1.000 .362 1.000 -.144 .073 1.000 Hess Study 1.000 .416 1.000 .118 .031 1.000 Self-Investment in Student Role Item Item 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 Henderson Study 1.000 .244 1.000 .552 .305 1.000 .424 .138 .405 1.000 Hess Study 1.000 .273 1.000 .566 .199 1.000 .531 .156 .500 1.000 Perceived Academic Norms of School Item Item 19 22 21 23 Henderson Study 1.000 .275 1.000 Hess Study 1.000 .219 1.000 214 Sense of Control/Sense of Futility Item 26 27 28 29 Item 24 25 26 27 1.000 .347 -.035 .281 1.000 .193 -.020 .059 Henderson Study 1.000 -.116 1.000 .359 -.125 1.000 Hess Study 1.000 .026 1.000 .305 .164 1.000 APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES AND FIGURES SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES AND FIGURES Table El. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Sex of ReSpondent. Composite Achievement Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Sex 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total Male 2(1.2) 4(2.4) 49(29.2) 52(31.0) 61(36.3) 168 Female l(0.l) 8(§.0) 50(37.3) 41(30.6), 34(25.4) 134 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.0) 99(32.8) 93(30.8) 95(31.5) 302 d.f.=4 X2=6.978 n.s. Table E2. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Sex of Respondent. Reading_Achievement Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Sex 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total Male 6(3.1) ll(5.6) 49(25.1) 51(26.2) 80(41.0) 195 Female 3(1.9) 9(546) 48(29.6) 43(26.5)_ 59(36.4) 162 Total 9(2.5) 20(5.6) 97(26.6) 94(26.3) 139(38.9) 357 d.f.=4 x2=2.055 n.S. Table E3. Academic Achievement (Grade Point Average) by Sex of Respon- dent. Grade Point Average Sex 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total Male 19( 7.5) 79(31.3) 131(52.0) 23(9.l) 252 Female 24(11.0) 81(37.2) 110(50.5) 3(1.4) 218 Total 43( 9.1) 160(34.0) 241(51.3) 26(5.5) 470 d.f.=3 x2=15.591 p(.Ol 215 216 Table E4. Composite Achievement by School. Composite Achievement Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind School 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total A l(0.9) 3( 3.0) 30(29.7) 29(28.7) 38(37.6) 101 B 2(1.8) 6( 5.4) 43(38.7) 27(24.3) 33(29.7) 111 C 2(5.4) 5(13.5) 11(29.7) 8(21.6) 11(29.7) 37 D 0(0.0)_ 1(72.0), 23(45.l) ll(21.5) 16(3l.4) 51 Total 5(1.7) 15( 5.0) 107(35.7) 75(25.0) 98(32.7) 300 Table E5. Reading Achievement by School. ReadingrAchievement Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind School 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 ApprOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total A 3( 3.0) 5( 4.9) 25(24.8) 28(27.7) 40(39.6) 101 B 7( 6.4) 6( 5.4) 42(38.2) 23(20.9) 32(29.1) 110 C 4(10.8) 7(18.9) 9(24.3) 10(27.0) 7(18.9) 37 D O( 0.0) 3( 5.9) 18(35.3) 11(21.6) 19(37.3) 51 E 2( 2.4)_ l( 1.2) 8( 9.6) 27(32.5) 45(54.2) 83 Total l6( 4.2) 22( 5.7) 102(26.6) 99(25.9) 143(37.4) 382 Table E6. Self-Concept of Academic Ability by Ethnicity. Self-Concept of Academic Ability Moderately Moderately Ethnicity High High Moderate Low Low Total Indian 44( 9.1) 199(41.4) 202(44.l) 25(5.2) 2(0.4) 472 Non-Indian 5(17.2) 15(51.Z) 8(27.6)7 O(Q.0), l(3.4) 29 Total 49( 9.8) 214(42.7) 210(41.9) 25(5.0) 3(0.6) 501 d.f.=4 x2=8.859 n.s. 217 Table E7. Self-Investment in the Student Role by Ethnicity., Self-Investment Moderately Moderately Ethnicity High High Moderate Low Low Total Indian 155(32.2) 129(26.8) 126(26.2) 59(12.3) 12(2.5) 481 Non-Indian 11137.2) 12(41.4)7 4(13.8) 2( 6.9) O(0.0) 29 Total 166(32.5) 141(27.6) 130(25.5) 61(12.0) 12(2.4) 510 d.f.=4 x2=5.489 n.s. Table E8. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations. Composite Achievement Friend's Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Total Expectations 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ High 3(l.7) 9(5.2) 70(40.5) 47(27.2) 44(25.4) 173 Moderate 0(0.0) 3(2.7) 27(24.3) 37(33.3) 44(39.6) 111 Low 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(11.1), 1(11.1) 7(77.8)y 9 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.1) 98(33.4) 85(29.0) 95(32.4) 293 N.R.=l88 d.f.=8 x2=22.154 p(.oos Kendall's Tau B=.224 Table E9. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations. Reading Achievement Friend's Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Exppctations 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 ApprOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 8(4.1) 12(6.2) 63(32.3) 48(24.6) 64(32.8) 195 Moderate 1(O.7) 8(5.9) 27(19.9) 42(30.9) 58(42.6) 136 Low 0(0.Q), O(Q,Q) 4(25.0) 2(12pé) 10(62.5) 16 Total 9(2.6) 20(5.8) 94(27.1) 92(26.5) 132(38.0) 347 N.R.=134 d f,=8 x2=16.631 p(tos Kendall's Tau B=.156 218 Table E10. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Best Friend's Expectations and Evaluations. Friend's Grade Point Average Expectations 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 35(14.6) 87(36.2) 105(43.8) l3(5.4) 240 Moderate 8( 4.3) 59(32.l) 105(57.1) 12(6.5) 184 Low 0( 049) 2( 7.1) 25(89.3) 1(3.6) 28 Total 43( 9.5) l48(32.7) 235(52.0) 26(5.8) 452 N.R.=29 d.f.=6 X2=32.846 p<.OOl Kendall's Tau B=.l99 Table E11. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations. Composite Achievement Teacher Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Expectations 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 ApprOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 3(2.0) 9(6.0) 65(43.0) 38(25.2) 36(23.8) 151 Moderate 0(0.0) 3(2.3) 31(23.5) 45(34.1) 53(40.2) 132 Low 0(0.0) 0(0.Q) 2122.2) 1(11.1) 6(66.7) 9 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.1) 98(33.6) 84(28.8) 95(32.5) 292 N.R.=139 d,f,=8 x2=25-940 p<.oo1 Kendall's Tau B=.251 Table E12. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Expecta- tions and Evaluations. Reading Achievement Teacher Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Expectations 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 ApprOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 8(4.5) 15(8.5) 55(31.3) 43(24.4) 55(31.3) 176 Moderate 1(0.6) 5(3.1) 38(23.7) 47(29.4) 69(43.1) 160 Low 0(Q,0) Q(Q.Q)V 1(11.1)_ 2(22.2), 6(66.7) 9 Total 9(2.6) 20(5.8) 94(27.2) 92(26.7) 130(37.7) 345 N.R.=136 d.f.=8 X2=18.573 p<.01 Kendall's Tau B=.187 219 Table E13. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Teacher Expectations and Evaluations. Teacher Grade Point Average Expectations 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 31(14.3) 78(35.9) 100(46.1) 8( 3.7) 217 Moderate 12( 5.5) 68(30.9) 124(56.4) l6( 7.3) 220 Low 0( 0.0) 2(15.4) 9(69.2) 2(15.4) 13 Total 43( 9.6) l48(32.9) 233(51.8) 26( 5.8) 450 N.R.=3l d.f.=6 X2=19.872 p<.003 Kendall's Tau B=.179 Table E14. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations. Composite Achievement Parents' Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Expectations 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprgppiate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 2(1.8) 6(5.3) 58(51.3) 28(24.8) 19(16.8) 113 Moderately High 1(1.0) 6(5.9) 27(26.5) 33(32.4) 35(34.3) 102 Moderate 0(0.0) O(0.0) 12(16.7) 22(30.6) 38(52.8) 72 Moderately Low to Low 0(Q.0) O(0.0), 1(20.0) l(20.0) 3(60.0) 5 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.1) 98(33.6) 84(28.8) 95(32.5) 292 N.R.=189 d.f.=12 x2=44.498 p<.001 Kendall's Tau B=.325 220 Table E15. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Parents' Expec- tations and Evaluations. ReadinggAchievement Parents' Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Expectations 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 5(3.8) l4(10.6) 46(34.8) 28(21.2) 39(29.5) 132 Moderately High 3(2.4) 6( 4.8) 32(25.8) 37(29.8) 46(37.1) 124 Moderate l(l.2) 0( 0.0) 14(16.7) 27(32.1) 42(50.0) 84 Moderately Low to Low 0(0.Q) 0( 0.0) 2(40.0), 0( 0.0) 3(60.0), 5 Total 9(2.6) 20( 5.8) 94(27.2) 92(26.7) 130(37.7) 345 N.R.=136 d.f.=12 X2=29.356 p(.003 Kendall's Tau B=.214 Table E16. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Parents' Expectations and Evaluations. Parents' Grade Point Average Eapectations 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 25(15.0) 62(37.1) 75(44.9) 5( 3.0) 167 Moderately High l3( 8.2) 58(36.5) 83(52.2) 5( 3.1) 159 Moderate 4( 3.5) 27(23.9) 67(59.3) 15(13.3) 113 Moderately Low to Low ,1110.0) O(y0.0)yfi 8(80.0) 1(10.0) 10_ Total 43( 9.6) 147(32.7) 233(51.9) 26( 5.8) 449 N.R.=32 d.f.=9 x2=37.034 p<;001 Kendall's Tau B=.215 221 Table E17. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Self-Investment in Student Role. Composite Achievement Self- Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Investment 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprgpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 0(0.0) 3(3.3) 35(38.0) 27(29.3) 27(29.3) 92 Moderately High 1(1.3) 5(6.4) 22(28.2) l9(24.4) 31(39.7) 78 Moderate 2(2.6) 3(3.9) 23(29.9) 29(37.7) 20(26.0) 77 Moderately Low to Low 0(Q.0) l(1.§) 19(34.5), 18(32.7), l7(30.9)__ 55 Total 3(l.0) 12(4.0) 99(32.8) 93(30.8) 95(31.5) 302 N.R.=179 d.f.=12 X2=11.9O6 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=.010 Table E18. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Self-Investment in Student Role. Reading,Achievement Self- Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Investment 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprgpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 2(1.8) 5(4.4) 30(26.5) 31(27.4) 45(39.8) 113 Moderately High 3(3.2) 6(6.5) 20(21.5) 24(25.8) 40(43.0) 93 Moderate 3(3.2) 5(5.4) 29(31.2) 25(26.9) 31(33.3) 93 Moderately Low to Low l(l.7) 4(6.9) 16(27.6) 14(24.l) 23(39.Z) 58 Total 9(2.5) 20(5.6) 95(26.6) 94(26.3) 139(38.9) 357 N.R.=124 d.f.=12 X2=4.365 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=-.O38 222 Table E19. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Self-Investment in Student Role. Self- Grade Point Averaga Investment 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 17(11.3) 50(33.3) 73(48.7) 10(6.7) 150 Moderately High 13(10.5) 37(29.8) 66(53.2) 8(6.5) 124 Moderate 10( 8.1) 39(31.5) 69(55.6) 6(4.8) 124 Moderately Low to Low 3( 415), 29(43.3), 33(49.3) 2(3.0) 67 Total 43( 9.2) 155(33.3) 241(51.8) 26(5.6) 465 N.R.=16 d.f.=9 x2=7.507 n.s. Kendall's Tau 32.007 Table E20. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Sense of Control/Sense of Futility. Control/ Grade Point Average Futility, 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High Control 6(26.1) 7(30.4) 9(39.1) 1( 4.3) 23 Moderate Control 18(ll.1) 49(30.2) 91(56.2) 4( 2.5) 162 Intermediate 16( 7.5) 77(36.3) 106(50.0) 13( 6.1) 212 Moderate to Higerutility 3( 4.8) 19(3Q.6) 32(51.§) 8(12.9) 62 Total 43( 9.4) 152(33.1) 238(51.9) 26( 5.7) 459 2 N.R.=22 d.f.=9 X =20.97O p(.05 Kendall's Tau B=.(B5_ Table E21. 223 Relevance of School. Comppsite Achievement Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Future Future Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Relevance 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprppriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 3(1.4) 9(4.2) 79(37.1) 58(27.2) 64(30.0) 213 Moderate 0(0.0) 3(5.3) 15(26.3) l9(33.3) 20(35.l) 57 Low 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 4(20.Q)7 §(30.0) 10(50.0) 20 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.1) 98(33.8) 83(28.6) 94(32.4) 290 2 N.R.=191 d.f.=8 X =7.846 n.S. Kendall's Tau B=.118 Table E22. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Future Relevance of School. ReadingiAchievement Future Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Relevance 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 7(2.7) 16(6.2) 71(27.4) 68(26.3) 97(37.5) 259 Moderate' l(1.6) 4(6.3) 19(29.7) 17(26.6) 23(35.9) 64 Low 1(5.0) 0(0.0)_, 4(20.0), 6(30.0) 9(45.0) 20 Total 9(2.6) 20(5.8) 94(27.4) 91(26.5) 129(37.6) 343 2 N.R.=138 d.f.=8 X =2.910 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=.Ol9 Table E23. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Future Relevance of School. Future Grade Point Average Relevance 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 40(11.9) 113(33.6) 165(49.l) 18(5.4) 336 Moderate 3( 3.5) 23(26.7) 53(61.6) 7(8.1) 86 Low 0(_Q.0) 9(36.0) 15(60.0) l(4.0) 25 Total 43(9.6) 145(32.4) 233(52.1) 26(5.8) 447 N.R.=34 d.f.=6 x2=12.130 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=.125 224 Table E24. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Academic Norms of School. Composite Achievement Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Norms 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 0(0.0) 2(5.4) 8(21.6) 14(37.8) 13(35.1) 37 Moderately High 1(0.8) 3(2.5) 35(28.7) 40(32.8) 43(35.2) 122 Moderate 2(1.7) 6(5.2) 46(39.7) 32(27.6) 30(25.9) 116 Moderately Low to Low 0(0.0) 1(4.3) 9(39.1) 4(17.4) 9(39.1)p, 23 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.0) 98(32.9) 90(30.2) 95(31.9) 298 N.R.=l83 d.f.=12 x2=11.263 n. Kendall's Tau B=-.105 Table E25. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Academic Norms of School. Reading7Achievement Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Norms 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 ApprOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 1(2.2) 0(0.0) 9(20.0) 16(35.6) 19(42.2) 45 Moderately High l(0.7) 8(5.8) 37(26.6) 34(24.5) 59(42.4) 139 Moderate 6(4.4) 10(7.4) 41(30.l) 34(25.0) 45(33.1) 136 Moderately Low to Low 1(3al) 2(§,3) 7(21.9) 9(28.1) 13(40.6)y 32 Total 9(2.6) 20(5.7) 94(26.7) 93(26.4) l36(38.6) 352 N.R.=129 d.f.=12 X =12.162 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=-.087 225 Table E26. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Academic Norms of School. Perceived Grade Point Average Norms 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 4( 6.7) 18(30.0) 34(56.7) 4(6.7) 60 Moderately High 17( 9.1) 59(31.6) 99(52.9) 12(6.4) 187 Moderate 19(11.1) 65(38.0) 79(46.2) 8(4.7) 171 Moderately Low to Low 3( 7.3) 10(24.4)__ 26(63.4) 2(4.9) 41 Total 43( 9.4) 152(33.1) 238(51.9) 26(5.7) 459 N.R.=22 d.f.=9 X2=6.77O n.s. Kendall's Tau B=-.044 Table E27. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Competitiveness of Peers. Perceived Reading Achievement Competi- Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind tiveness 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 ApprOpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High l(2.0) 2(4.0) 12(24.0) 11(22.0) 24(48.0) 50 Moderately High 6(3.8) 8(5.0) 39(24.5) 45(28.3) 61(38.4) 159 Moderate l(0.9) 8(6.8) 37(31.6) 28(23.9) 43(36.8) 117 Moderately Low to Low 1(3.2) 2(6.5) 7(22.§)§ 10(32.3) 11(35.5), 31 Total 9(2.5) 20(5.6) 95(26.6) 94(26.3) 139(38.9) 357 N.R.=124 d.f.=12 x2=7.321 n. S. Kendall's Tau B=-.OS3 226 Table E28. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Competitiveness of Peers. Perceived Grade Point Average Competitive- ness 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 6( 8.5) 22(31.0) 39(54.9) 4(5.6) 71 Moderately High 19( 9.4) 62(30.5) 109(53.7) l3(6.4) 203 Moderate 14( 9.2) 56(36.6) 75(49.0) 8(5.2) 153 Moderately Low to Low 4(10.5) 15(39.5) 18(47.4) 1(2.6) 38 Total 43( 9.2) 155(33.3) 241(51.8) 26(5.6) 465 N.R.=16 d.f.=9 X2=3.150 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=-.057 Table E29. Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Push for Achievement. Perceived Reading Achievement Teacher Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Push 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprppriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 4(2.9) 10(7.1) 34(24.3) 37(26.4) 55(39.3) 140 Moderately High 1(1.3) 6(7.7) 20(25.6) 21(26.9) 30(38.5) 78 Moderate O(0.0) l(2.3) 14(31.8) 13(29.5) 16(36.4) 44 Moderately Low 2(4.3) 3(6.5) l6(34.8) 9(19.6) l6(34.8) 46 Low 2(5.3) O(0.0) 10(26.3) 12(31.6), 14(36.8) 38 Total 9(2.6) 20(5.8) 94(27.2) 92(26.6) 13l(37.9) 346 2 N.R.=135 d.f.=16 X =10.826 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=-.018 227 Table E30. Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Push for Achievement. Perceived Composite Achievement Teacher Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Push 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 2(1.7) 4(3.3) 39(32.5) 37(30.8) 38(31.7) 120 Moderately High 0(0.0) 3(4.8) 23(36.5) 13(20.6) 24(38.1) 63 Moderate 0(0.0) 1(2.4) 11(26.8) 18(43.9) 11(26.8) 41 Moderately Low 0(0.0) 3(7.7) 13(33.3) 12(30.8) 11(28.2) 39 Low 1(3.3) 1(3.3) 12(40.0) 5(16.7) 11(36.7) 30 Total 3(1.0) 12(4.1) 98(33.4) 85(29.0) 95(32.4) 293 2 N.R.=188 d.f.=16 x =14.265 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=-.017 Table E31. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Teacher Push for Achievement. Perceived Grade Point Average Teacher Push 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 23(12.5) 62(33.7) 90(48.9) 9( 4.9) 184 Moderately High 9( 9.5) 36(37.9) 46(48.4) 4( 4.2) 95 Moderate 5(10.2) 11(22.4) 28(57.l) 5(10.2) 49 Moderately Low 6( 8.6) 18(25.7) 41(58.6) 5( 7.1) 70 Low 0(_0.0)7 21(39.6) 29(54.7) 3( 5.7) 53 Total 43( 9.5) l48(32.8) 234(51.9) 26( 5.8) 451 2 N.R.=3O d.f.=12 X =15.088 n.s. Kendall's Tau B-.088 Table E32. 228 Reading Achievement Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Indifference. Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Indifference 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprppriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 6(3.8) 10( 6.4) 50(31.8) 35(22.3) 56(35.7) 157 Moderately High 3(4.7) 4( 6.3) 15(23.4) 17(26.6) 25(39.1) 64 Moderate O(0.0) O( 0.0) 7(18.4) 10(26.3) 21(55.3) 38 Moderately Low 0(0.0) 1( 2.6) 10(26.3) l4(36.8) 13(34.2) 38 Low 0(0.Q)_ 5(10.2) 12(24.5) 16(32.7) 16(32.7) 49 Total 9(2.6) 20( 5.8) 94(27.2) 92(26.6) l31(37.9) 346 N.R.=135 d.f.=16 X2=19.669 n.s. Table E33. Kendall's Tau B=.O60 Readinquchievement Academic Achievement (Reading) by Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement. Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Demand 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Apprgpriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High 4(5.4) 7(9.5) 20(27.0) 21(28.4) 22(29.7) 74 Moderately High 2(2.6) 3(3.9) 21(27.3) 25(32.5) 26(33.8) 77 Moderate 0(0.0) 4(8.2) 11(22.4) l4(28.6) 20(40.8) 49 Moderately Low 1(1.8) 3(5.5) 14(25.5) 12(21.8) 25(45.5) 55 Low 2(2.2)7 ,3(3.3)_ 28(30.8) 20(22.0) 38(41.8) 91 Total 9(2.6) 20(5.8) 94(27.2) 92(26.6) 13l(37.9) 346 N.R.=135 d.f.=16 X =13.573 2 U.S. Kendall's Tau B=.O78 Table E34. 229 Academic Achievement (Composite) by Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement. Comppsite Achievement Perceived Grade Advanced Within Grade Behind Demand 2.0+ 1.0-1.9 Appropriate 1.0-1.9 2.0+ Total High l(1.6) 6(9.5) 28(44.4) 12(19.0) l6(25.4) 63 Moderately High 2(3.3) 0(0.0) 20(32.8) 23(37.7) 16(26.2) 61 Moderate O(0.0) 3(6.8) 13(29.5) 12(27.3) 16(36.4) 44 Moderately Low 0(0.0) l(2.3) 13(29.5) 13(29.5) 17(38.6) 44 Low 0(0.0) 2(2.5), 24(29.6), 25(30.9) 30(37.0) 81 Total 3(l.0) 12(4.1) 98(33.4) 85(29.0) 95(32.4) 293 N.R.=188 d.f.=16 x2=23.540 U.S. Kendall's Tau B=.136 Table E35. Academic Achievement (GPA) by Perceived Teacher Demand for Achievement. Perceived Grade Point Average Demand 3.0-2.6 2.5-2.1 2.0-1.6 1.5-1.0 Total High 12(10.9) 38(34.5) 57(51.8) 3(2.7) 110 Moderately High 10( 9.7) 30(29.1) 53(51.5) 10(9.7) 103 Moderate 4( 6.3) 22(34.4) 37(57.8) l(1.6) 64 Moderately Low 6( 9.0) 26(38.8) 33(49.3) 2(3.0) 67 Low 11(10.3) 32(29.9) 54(50.5) 10(9.3) 107 Total 43( 9.5) l48(32.8) 234(51.9) 26(5.8) 451 N.R.=3O d.f.=12 x2=12.961 n.s. Kendall's Tau B=.026 230 Qpestion Number Resppnse 28 29 30 32 33 l 167(34.7) 135(28.1) 62(12.9) 81(16.8) 65(13.5) 361(75.1) 2 280(58.2) 305(63.4) 283(58.8) 316(65.7) 161(33.5) 81(16.5) 3 25( 5.2) 31( 6.4) 89(18.5) 74(15.4) 172(35.8) 30( 6.2) 4 38( 7.9) 57(11.9) 5 17( 3.5) NR 9( 1.9) 10( 2.1) 9( 1.9) 10( 2.1) 9( 1.9) 9( 1.9) Figure E1. ReSponses of Indian Subjects to Self-Concept of Academic Ability Items. yQuestion Number Response 13 14 21 1 173(36.0) 100(20.8) 130(27.0) 2 121(25.2) 136(28.3) 190(39.5) 3 85(17.7) 91(18.9) 126(26.2) 4 88(18.3) 128(26.6) 35( 7.3) 5 14( 2.9) 26( 5.4) Figure E2. Question Number ReSponses of Indian Subjects to "Competitiveness" Items. Response 17 18 19 20 l 230(47.8) 272(56.5) 225(46.8) 178(37.0) 2 108(22.5) 126(26.2) 121(25.2) 112(23.3) 3 67(13.9) 47( 9.8) 72(15.0) 88(18.3) 4 75(15.6) 36( 7.5) 63(13.1) 103(21.4) NR 1( 0.2) 0( 0.0) O( 0.0) 0( 0.0) Figure E3. ReSponses of Indian Subjects to Self-Investment Items. 231 Question Number ReSponse 34 35 Mother 228(48.3) 201(42.8) Father 85(18.l) 79(16.8) Brother 17( 3.6) 17( 3.6) Sister 19( 4.0) 22( 4.7) Teacher 59(19.5) 88(18.8) Best Friend 45( 9.5) 40( 8.5) Other 19( 4.0) 22( 4.7) Figure E4. ReSponses of Indian Subjects to Significant Other Items. Question Number Reaponse 17 19 20 l 230(47.8) 225(46.8) 178(37.0) 2 108(22.5) 121(25.2) 112(23.3) 3 67(13.9) 72(15.0) 88(18.3) 4 75(15.6)y_ 63(13a1) 103(21.4) 36A 36B 36C 36D 1 327(68.0) 226(47.0) 158(32.8) 139(28.9) 2 105(21.8) 162(33.7) 214(44.5) 189(39.3) 3 38( 7.9) 80(16.6) 97(20.2), 141(29.3) Figure E5. Responses of Indian Subjects to Items on Evaluation by Others. APPENDIX G EDUCATION (PROBLEMS OF THE INDIANS) EDUCATION (PROBLEMS OF THE INDIANS)* What I basically like to write is the most serious problems and they are involved in the education of the Indians. Some of these prob- lems may sound serious and simple. I think they sound serious to my point of view. I have quite a large number of cousins who are not get- ting their education. I talk to them and ask them why they are not getting their education and I get a large number of answers from them. I'm not the worst or the best topic writer I guarantee that I'm doing well a sensitive and understandable one. There is all kinds of schools all over the world in U.S.A. for every cripple and abled person. I think not even one school says that an Indian is welcome unless it is strictly for whites or blacks. There is all kinds of Mission and Indian schools for the Indians to attend. The staff may have a few Indian teachers but if the school is named after some great Indian leader of dedication or some famous Indian, you can surely find its an all Indian school and maybe a few white students. You see, these teachers work almost exclusively on the Indian students, and they make sure the students maintain a good passible education. Okay now, let's talk about the problems that are among the Indian Students and if people get down on their can, the problems can be easily solved within an hour or so. The problems can't be solved without the assistance of the student. The student will be needed to answer questions and also give various reasons for the difficult future he has or is in now. *This is a term paper which was presented by a young man who was enrolled in the sociology class which this researcher taught in a reservation high school. The paper is presented here in the exact words of the young writer. 232 233 What I mean by this is that he has his problem right now and doesn't need help anymore. Unless the problem is faced the human being can't fear nor run away, but have a bright future. Mostly all the problems is caused by the person themselves rather than the parent. The per- son's main problem is drinking and being a drug addict so the school has no longer use for them because the teacher or professer is talking to a person who doesn't care to listen or study. The person no longer cares to listen or work because he thinks the work is too hard. This is caused by lack of studying and learning. During class the person may fake work, but he gets bored on this job or class, whatever subject he participates in seems like its not worth trying for. If only the person knows how to study, he can be a great success to himself in the future. This person can't study because he makes an excuse that education is not for him, unless it is about a person's problems. This is not really the type of education you Should get and it is probably against the law to study on one subject day after day. Yeah, an Indian can be just as good as the white man if the Indian can im- prove his studies. As it is, only a very few people, the Indians, have reached the tOp and get a Master's degree, or something like that. I plan to be one of these few Indians who have reached the top. A problem is with the small kids also in elementary schools. This is always talked about with parents and teachers on how to keep the child in school or let him be. The problem is jealousy and prejudice. Although this happens among whites and Indians, it is also happening between the Indians. I overheard one of the High School teachers say‘ that Indian Education is a National Tragedy and this is very true indeed. A few months ago, I visited one of my younger cousins up in 234 St. Francis to keep him in school. The parents asked me to because the young man wouldn't listen to one word what the parents say. It took me about four hours at least to talk some common sense into his head. He told me about his problems and I gave him facts that are possible to ignore to keep on with his school work. He told me his problems that could hurt everybody's feelings. He said that the school he attends are mixed with whites and Indians. The Indians was all they could was fight him just because his pa is a big man of the town. AS you know, this is known as jealousy. He fights back but it only gets him into deeper trouble. He is eXpelled from the school and he attends another school in a different town. This time it is a white school and only a few Indians in it. The cousin of mine is not a wealthy kid, but lives on welfare and disable money with his parents and other relatives. The white students give him a rough time during meals, breaks, and classtime. He said during a meal, the other kids will slop it up and the teacher only says a few polite words to the hell-raisers. They don't give up until a fight is started and blood is wasted. The Indian student defends himself and he really gets in trouble while the others say he started it and the Indian student is outnumbered 10 - 1. So he can't talk himself out of the trouble. The folks come over to talk about it with the principal and frustration rises up in the folk's conversation. Although the parents are being dominated by the staff with enough fake proof about the boy, the father said there was a lack of understanding and that the white students' parents should be here to talk about it. This wasn't done but the ten boys were departed from any place near the Indian boy and other white boys come to do the same thing. This happens mostly everywhere and no matter where you go in a white school, 235 the trouble is always the same. Usually, like my cousin said, they'll call him stink, filthy, black Indian and funny looking. This is not true at all, because all the white Students want is trouble. This happens everywhere and also money is one of the big problems. Also, the staff is too harsh on some of the students. A good education cannot be deserved unless every man and woman treats each other very nice in cooperation and respect one another. I guess I bragged enough, but what I really wanted to say is some of us Indians are lazy to get an education. Some of us are bashful because of our looks and some say they can't make it because they say they are dwmb. This is not true at all, they haven't tried at all. Also, tranSportation and health are another big problems. Buses are provided but a lot say they can't make it to school because they overslept. This means that homework piles up and we don't care to finish so we fail our courses and don't care for school from then on. Health is serious. Some have T.B. and can't attend a regular school but you can attend a school for the sick or something. Its probably a government money aid, but the parents or the person themselves don't want to go because they'll miss each other. If one person dies in a family, the person no longer cares for school because the deceased usually makes him get an good education. Now let me write what the big serious problems are among the Indians. There is a serious lack of social and recreational activities in BIA schools. These problems are taken from the book. Student activities are closely regulated and little interaction between the sexes is allowed. Week- ends are noted for their boredom. Some students resort to drinking and glue-sniffing to relieve the boredom. Students have little privacy, are locked into rigid schedules, and are placed under an Oppressive 236 number of rules and regulations. In South Dakota, the subcommittee found suicide attempt rates more than twice the national average, delin- quency rates for Indian adolescents nine times the national average, extensive and severe alcoholism problems on every reservation, an alarm- ing amount of glue and gasoline sniffing among prepubertal Indian chil- dren, almost one in five adolescents had no adult male in the house, and the number of Indian children in foster homes was almost five times the national average. In a study of high school students in a plains tribe, 84 percent of the boys and 76 percent of the girls claimed they drank. 37 percent claimed they drank frequently. Another survey of Indian high school students found 339 our of 350 who disliked their hometown because of excessive drinking. On this reservation 70 percent of all juveniles Offenses involved alcohol -- a total of 420 in a recent year. Psychologically, excessive drinking originates in feelings of worthless- ness and powerlessness which are closely related to socio-economic and educational failure. Drinking is an eXpression of individual anger and serves as a vehicle for acting out aggressive and hostile feelings. Here are some complaints I get from parents just in recent months. SOphia (7th grade) complained to me that her back hurt, and I looked and found a piece of pencil lead sticking in her back. She said that two girls were quarreling at her. When She was reading in class out- loud, one of them walked behind her and poked her with her pencil. SOphia'S mother then complained to the teacher, but the girls threatened to get even with SOphia who then refused to go to school because she was afraid and she thinks this might happen in other schools so she is now attending a Public School at the age of fourteen in the sixth grade. My cousin, Louise, dropped out of school. She said the Mixedblood girls 237 called her a "Dumb Squaw" and kept laughing at her because she doesn't do anything to help herself. Absalom is having such a hard time. He has played hookey so much that now he is thirteen years old and only in the fourth grade. All the little kids pick on him and make fun of him -- even on the bus they all pick on him and throw Spitballs with rubber bands at him. He refuses to go to another school. Researchers have found that the Indian was a great poignancy. They thought they'd find better stuff, instead they found difficult reasons. Beginning with the Jesuit mission school for nationwide Indians in 1568, formal education of Indians was dominated by the church for almost 300 years. Jesuits and Franciscans were the first groups to try to remake the Indians in the mold of the white man, but the cause was taken up vigorously by Protestants when they gained a foothold in America. Education was adOpted as the best means of accomplishing the task, and as early as 1617, King James called upon Anglican clergy to provide funds for educating children of these Barbarians in Virginia. The eventual result of his request was the establishment of the college of William and Mary, a college for the children of the infidels. Other schools for Indians were also started, but none were completely suc- cessful in achieving their civilization goals. For though the Indian students often left school with an understanding of the principles of Christianity and a solid grasp of reading and writing skills, they still shied away from the white man's way of life. One observer of the times noted, with obvious frustration, that after the Indians returned home, instead of civilizing and converting the rest, they have immediately relapt into infidelity and barbarism themselves. Prejudice, racial intolerance, and discrimination towards Indians is far more wide- 238 spread and serious than generally recognized. I guess I've written enough and besides I ran out of information and I was using a small pamphlet and my own words. As you know, I'm not the worst or best term paper writer. I deserve a C-. ": .-RJ‘. n.HWY :1 .n‘ '5- ' 3'?“ In 4W"- _~ ‘ . . "I7'1111111'1111111I