99899 I 1AM?" MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wil] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. Woéfit . 100 A768 ”6“” 1"” I ’1779 @9995 “ - Vi THE IMPACT OF THE SCHOOL AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM, AND OF FAMILY BACKGROUND, ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SELECTED SCHOOLS IN THE WESTERN PART OF SAUDI ARABIA by Abdullah Ayed Al-Thubaiti A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements. for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Socioloqy 1983 Copyright by ABDULLAH AYED AL- THUBAITI 1983 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF THE SCHOOL AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM, AND OF FAMILY BACKGROUND, ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SELECTED SCHOOLS IN THE WESTERN PART OF SAUDI ARABIA BY Abdullah Ayed Al-Thubaiti This study examined the extent to which family background, school social structure, and school social climate each account for variance in students' academic achievement and self-concept between schools in the cities of Jeddah, Makkah, and Taif in Saudi Arabia. Thirty inter- mediate schools were selected randomly from among the 66 urban schools for males in those cities. Participants in the study were 1,914 students, 394 teachers, and 30 principals. An exploratory pilot study was conducted in the summer of 1981 to provide an appropriate basis for adapting three instruments developed originally by Brookover et al. (1973, 1975, 1977, 1979), in the form of questionnaires for students, teachers, and principals. Thus, the data was gathered via "self-administered questionnaires." Factor analysis was utilized to explore the data and obtain data reduction. This technique was applied to Abdullah Ayed Al-Thubaiti school social structure items and to students', teachers‘, and principals' academic climate items. Twenty-two factors emerged. Using one-way analysis of variance, significant differences were found between the means of school academ- ic achievement and of self-concept. Simple correlations calculated between the independent indicators and the de- pendent variables showed most of the independent variables, particularly family background and school climate indica- tors, to be significantly correlated with academic achievement and self-concept. The seven null hypotheses were rejected in favor of the alternative hypotheses at a = 0.01. Thus, the associations of socioeconomic status in students' family backgrounds, school social structure, and school social climate with mean school achievement and mean self-concept of academic ability were found to be positive and signif- icant. Multiple regression and stepwise techniques showed that, overall, school social system and family background accounted for 74.3 percent of the variance in academic achievement and 78.3 percent in self-concept. School climate alone explained 74 percent of the variance in achievement and 72.8 percent in self-concept; school Abdullah Ayed Al-Thubaiti structure alone explained 30.7 percent of the variance in achievement and 32.1 percent in self-concept; and family socioeconomic background alone explained 33.7 percent of the variance in achievement and 33.8 percent in self-concept. To my parents, my wife Khadijah, and my lovely daughters, Kholod, Samah, and Waffa. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to express his sincere appre- ciation and gratitude to his major advisor and guidance committee chairperson, Dr. Wilber Brookover, for his time, comments, suggestions, and continuous support and encouragement to the author. This research could not have been successfully completed without his enlightening di- rection and professional guidance. The author would also like to express his thanks and appreciation to the other members of the guidance committee--Dr. Philip Marcus, Dr. Don Olmsted, and Dr. John Useem--for their suggestions and beneficial comments, which helped the author to successfully complete this research. Further, the author wishes to express his thanks and appreciation to everyone who contributed helpful efforts toward the accomplishment of this research. Particularly appreciated are the Director of the Director- ate of Education for the western province of Saudi Arabia, Dr. Abdullah Al-Zaid, who gave the researcher full support and access to the schools under his administration, making this research possible. The author wishes to extend his appreciation to every school principal, teacher, and iv student who contributed time to participate by responding to the questionnaires. Finally, the author wishes to express his thanks to his parents, his wife and his children for their patience and support. List of Figure . Chapter I II III TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Objectives of the Study . . . . . Contributions of the Study . . . . . Theoretical Approach of This Study . . . Research Questions and Hypotheses . . . OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Section 1: Student's Family Background and Achievement Section 2: Related Cross-Cultural Studies . . . . Section 3: Historical Background of the Education Structure in Saudi Arabia . . . . . METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Study Setting . . . . . . . . Exploratory Pilot Study . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . Instrument . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . Operational Definition of Variables . . Independent Variables . . . . . . Dependent Variables . . . . . . Analysis Procedure . . . . . . . vi viii xi 16 17 17 26 30 30 31 36 45 57 57 57 59 61 63 66 71 72 78 82 Chapter IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION . . . Introduction . . . . . . . Factor Analysis . . . . . . Reduction of the Data . . . . . Simple Correlation . . . . . . Regression Analysis Technique . . . V FINDINGS, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS . . Findings . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS . . . . . QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS COMPRISING EACH SET OF VARIABLES . . . . . CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSLATION . . . . . . CORRELATION MATRIX FOR MEAN SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE, CLIMATE, AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES IN THE 30 SCHOOLS CHOSEN RANDOMLY IN THE SAMPLE . . vii 89 89 90 102 105 119 145 145 157 160 166 178 243 254 255 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Population Data: Random Sample Sizes in Male, Urban, Public Intermediate Schools in Jeddah, Makkah, and Taif, Saudi Arabia . . 62 2 Total Number of Teachers, Students, Third Grade Students, and Classes in Each School and Total Numbers of Teachers,-Students, and Classes Chosen . . . . . . . . 64 3 Percentages of Teachers' Questionnaires Returned in Each School . . . . . . 70 4 Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations of Input Variables . . . . . . . . 84 5 Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations of School Social Structure Variables . . . 85 6 Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations of Student Climate Variables . . . . . 86 7 Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Climate Variables . . . . . 87 8 Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations of School Output . . . . . . . . 88 9 Student Climate Variables and Self-Concept of Academic Ability Variables: Item Loadings Derived from Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . 94 10 School Social Structure Variables: Item Loadings Derived from Teacher and Principal Questionnaires Using Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis . . . . . . , , 97 11 Teacher Climate Variables: Item Loadings Derived from Teachers' Questionnaires Using Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis . . . 100 viii Table 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Principal Climate Variables: Item Loadings Derived from Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . One-Way Analysis of Variance Among the Means of Academic Achievement in the 30 Schools in the Sample . . . . . . . . One-Way Analysis of Variance in the Means for Self-Concept of Academic Ability in the 30 Schools in the Sample . . . . . Simple Correlations Between Input Variables and Output Variables . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Input Variables and Academic Achievement and Self-Concept of Academic Ability Variables . . . . . Simple Correlation Between School Social Structure Variables and School Output Variables . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix of School Social Structure Variables and School Output Variables . . . . . . . . . Simple Correlation Between Mean School Social Climate Variables and Mean School Output Variables . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix of Mean School Social Climate Variables and School Output Variables . . . . . . . . . Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effect of Mean Climate Variables and Family Background Variables on Variance in School Academic Achievement (School Climate Variables First and Input Variables Second) in 30 Schools in the Western Part of Saudi Arabia . . . . Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effects of Mean Family Background (First) and School Climate Variables (Second) on Variance in Mean School Achievement in 30 Schools in the Western Part of Saudi Arabia . . . . ix 102 104 105 108 110 111 114 115 118 129 131 Table 23 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effects of Mean Climate (First) and Family Background (Second) Variables on Variance in Mean Self-Concept of Academic Ability in 30 Schools in the Western Part of Saudi Arabia . . . . 133 24 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effect of Mean Family Background (First) and Climate (Second) Variables on Variance in Mean Self-Concept of Academic Ability in 30 Schools in the Western Part of Saudi Arabia . . . . 135 25 Summary of Reliability Coefficients of the Indicators Comprising Each Main Variable . 137 26 Summary of Multiple-Regression Analysis Showing the Contribution of Three Clusters of Independent Variables to the Variance in Achievement and Self-Concept . . . . 138 27 Summary of Multiple-Regression Analysis Showing the Contribution of Three Clusters of Independent Variables (Input, Structure, and Climate) in Various Sequences to the Variance in Mean School Achievement and Self-Concept of Academic Ability in 30 Schools in the Western Part of Saudi Arabia. 140 28 Percentage of Variance in Mean School Achievement Removed by Three Clusters of Variables and Combinations of These Clusters, the Partitions of the Variance Uniquely Attributable to Each and Common to Combinations, in 30 Schools in the Western Part of Saudi Arabia . . . . . . 143 29 Correlation Matrix of Five Independent Clusters of Variables and Two Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . 146 D-l Correlation Matrix for Mean School Input, Social Structure, Climate, and Dependent Variables in the 30 Schools Chosen Randomly in the Sample . . . . . . . . 255 Figure 1 FIGURE School Social System Model Representing the Relationship Between Input and Output Variables . . . . . . xi 27 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The role of school in society is one subject in the field of sociology of education that has been re— searched considerably in terms of understanding and con- ceptualizing the relationship between formal education in schools and the entire society. For Durkheim, school is "only like an image and reflection of society" (Durkheim 1956). Thus, Durkheim saw education as a social creation, as the means by which a society assures its continuity by socializing the young in its image. This implies that formal education in schools is a reflection of the larger society, and tends to perpetuate existing structures of behavior and norms. To understand the education system of any society, one should understand first the society itself, including its values, institutional interrelations, and the techniques by which children are socialized. In this regard, the functional paradigm viewed schooling "as an essentially rational device for sorting and selecting talented individuals in an increasingly com- plex and expert society transmitting consensual values to the young" (Hurn 1978, p. vii). The contrary conflict para- digm viewed the relationship between school and society as closely linked, but what has been going on is stressing the links between schools and the demands of elites rather than the needs of the whole society (Hurn 1978). Boocock stated that "Marxian theory is the basis of a body of empirical research on schooling that posits the educa- tional system as shaped and manipulated by elites who use the schools to justify their own privileges and to maintain the status quo" (Boocock 1980, p. 310). Sociological studies of educational systems and processes have been rooted in the conception of educa- tion as a means of maintaining cultural continuity and improving productivity. In general, "the major functions of education were perceived as (a) accumulation and trans- mission of knowledge; (b) development of personality, main— ly in the sense of capacity for adjustment to future roles and status; (0) promotion of identification and solidarity with the value system of the society and its transmission from generation to generation" (Aran et a1. 1972, p. 30). As the result of the above conceptions of educa- tion's function in society, the research of the 19503 and mid-19603 in the sociology of education was dominated by the structural-functional paradigm. An example of this is Parson's analysis of the elementary and secondary school class as a social system which performs the process of educational output by labeling, selecting, and allocating the students to fit their adult roles in the entire society. A school class would function as "an agency through which individual personalities are trained to be motivationally and technically adequate to the performance of adult roles" (Parsons 1959, p. 297). Clearly, sociological research of this period was focused on the role of the school as a social agent for socialization and allocation without paying much attention to the social and psychological characteristics within the class or school as a whole. In contrast, psychological research was focused on individual students within a very limited number of classes in one or two particular schools, in order to investigate the importance of various factors of individuals which may or may not influence the school output. From the mid-19608 through the late 19705, researchers in the sociology of education viewed the school as a social system. Lezotte et a1. (1980) stated that a social system is a collection of people who interact with each other to achieve a common goal. Likewise, the school is a collectivity of adult and child members who interact in relatively enduring patterns to meet certain goals (p. 27). This social system includes attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, motivations, expectations, and evaluations of members of the social system. For Katz and Kahn (1978), roles, norms, and values are the basic social-psychological aspects that characterize a social system, including the school as a social system. The literature of this period reveals two different foci of research. The first body of research was led by the report of Coleman et al. (1966), which concluded that schools have less impact on students' performance than fam- ily background. Thus, the focus of this body of research indicates what students bring with them into the school de- termines their level of achievement. The second body of research emerged as a reaction to the findings of Coleman and others. Contrary to those researchers' emphasis, this second group of studies focuses on more qualitative factors in the school, such as administrative role and style, class- room information patterns, peer influence, quality of in- struction, teacher experience, school social-psychological climate, etc., rather than focusing only on such quantifi- able school factors as class size, per-pupil expenditure, teacher experience and training, and family background socio- economic status. This group believes qualitative factors make substantial impact on achievement. Both groups look at achievement and do not question its importance in the role of the school. The debate between the two groups of researchers has led to studies on what contributes more influence to school output-~fami1y background or school as a social sys- tem. This debate has not been limited to the United States: Studies have been carried out on whether family background has more or less effect on school outcome in less-developed countries. Further discussion of this topic will be presented in Chapter II. Statement of the Problem It is well known that student achievement, or school output, is influenced by a number of factors which cause variancejxxachievement among students and among schools. These factors include family background,students' characteristics, school social structure, and school climate. Past studies have produced different findings concerning the extent to which family background, student characteris- tics, and school characteristics account for variance in achieve- ment among schools and among students within a given school. Examples include the studies of Coleman et al. (1966), Hauser (1971), Jencks et a1. (1972), Hauser et a1. (1976), Brookover and Schneider (1975), Brookover and Lezotte (1977) , Lezotte and Passalacqua (1978), and Edmonds (1979). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the literature reviews in these studies show that there are two contradict— ing views concerning whether or not the school itself makes a difference in student achievement. Coleman, Jencks, and-« others argue that the school makes less difference in stu- dent achievement, implying that internal factors within the school makes less difference. Therefore, external factors outside of the school must account for much of the variance in achievement. On the contrary, Brookover et al. (1975, 1977, 1979), Bloom (1976), McDill et al. (1967, 1969, 1973), Hauser (1971), and others argues that schools do make a difference (implying that internal factors in the school system affect variance in achievement when factors outside of the school are equal)- The author's awareness of the two contradicting schools of thought concerning how much family background accounts for variation in school achievement in the United States led him to test the question ineadifferent culture. In order to learn whether family background (as opposed to school social structure and climate) explains more or less of the variation in academic achievement among schools in a different society, 30 schools were selected randomly from cities in the western part of Saudi Arabia, namely, the cities of Taif, Makkah, and Jeddah. - School outcome has been examined in terms of students' academic success in school; the number of years they spend in school; their status attainment in later life; and their pursuit of higher levels of occupation. It is not easy to design a comparable study of school youtcome in Saudi Arabia in terms of length of years in school, status attainment later in life, or attaining of higher occupational levels, but it seems feasible to undertake a comparable study of school outcome in terms of students' academic achievement. This is how the present study is designed, in terms of measuring school outcome. In the last few decades, some investigators have worked. at the individual level, focusing on the differences between individuals within the school. (Examples include Sewell et a1. 1969; Jencks 1972; Hauser 1971; Hauser et al. 1976; and Alexander & Eckland 1975.) Meanwhile, other investigators have been interested in the whole school as a social structure affecting academic achievement differ- ences among schools. (E.g., Brookover & Schneider 1975; Brookover et al. 1977, 1979; and McDill, Rigsby & Meyers 1969). The question of "school effect"--whether or not the school can make a difference—~is historically related to the conceptualization of the basic theories of learning: how they understand and define the process of learning. Therefore, it seems relevant to discuss, in brief, the basic assumptions of the theories of learning and their consequences for the school social system. we shall focus on the social-interaction and mastery-learning theories, which have been developed in the last two decades. Basic Assumptions of Learning Theories Most people in general, and teachers and principals in particular, widely share the assumption that there are vast differences among people in regard to academic ability. The belief is that individuals' academic abilities are dis- tributed on a normal curve. PeOple thus expect differences in academic outcome among students. One of the basic theories of human learning which has contributed to inequality of academic outcomes has been biological determinism. Simply stated, this view holds that an individual is born with a fixed, measurable level of intelligence, and that there is wide variation in intelligence levels between individuals. Brookover and Erickson (1969) argued that "the prevailing conceptions of intelligence in our society are: (1) that the ability to learn is relatively fixed or unchangeable, and (2) that it is predetermined by heredity" (p. 3). These beliefs include two assumptions: (1) that each individual has a limited ability to learn and this ability is unaffected by external social forces; and (2) that the fixed ability of individuals can be measured with reason- able accuracy by intelligence tests. There are some who believe that most people are initially and essentially equal in innate learning capac- ities, but that individuals acquire different levels of skill and motivation for learning. Nonetheless, many people still hold that there are vast differences in human ability to learn and that educators can identify these unchangeable differences in abilities. For Brookover and others, this principle has been, and continues to be, the basis for much educational policy in spite of the lack of substantive supportive research. "Society and science have brought us to the stage where the concept of fixed intelligence is no longer func- tional" (Brookover & Erickson 1969, p. 13). Many psychologists concerned with research on learning avoid the question of fixed intelligence altogether, and instead concentrate their efforts on the problems of learning which can be managed in the laboratory and in other controlled situations. Faris concludes that educators are "no longer bound by the concept of fixed abilities, and that society essentially creates its own levels of human ability" (Brookover & Erickson 1969, p. 14) Consequences of These Theories for Schoo1 Systems and Educational Practices The characteristics of learning theories discussed above have the following consequences for educational policies in the schools: (1) an emphasis on individual differences in the kinds and amount of learning achieved in school, based on the belief that social equality is fitting and desirable; (2) the presumption of innate ability of students as a basis for expectations; (3) differences in presumed innate ability as measured by intelligence tests; (4) grouping by ability within a course or curric- ulum using intelligence scores as a measure of ability and differential role expectation; (5) the belief that each student in the school is unique and should not be taught a fixed set of academic and 10 vocational skills without allowing for individual differ- ences; (6) compensatory education provided in the belief that failure to succeed in school results from the limita- tions of the individual student or of the methods of teaching; (7) differentiated curricula, which function to differentiate the children of the upper social strata from the children of the lower social strata; (8) penalizing children of the lower socio- economic strata within school systems because they do not possess the symbols, attitudes, and behavior characteristics valued by the dominant social-class segment of the society; and (9) an allocation function: a screening system which keeps upward mobility to a minimum. (These consequences have been discussed in detail in the following studies: Persell 1977; Leacock 1969; Massey et al. 1975; Rosenbaum 1976; and Bowles & Gintis 1976.) Social-Interaction Theories As a reaction to the consequences of learning theories for educational practices, on the one hand, and to those who argue that schools make little if any 11 difference, on the other hand, contrary views have been developed, insisting that schools can make much difference (e.g., McDill, Rigsby, & Meyes 1967; Hauser 1971; and Brookover et al. 1975, 1977, and 1979). To Brookover and Erickson (1969), the theory of human learning most appro- priate for maximizing the achievement of all students is the social-interaction theory. This theory emphasizes the social environment (rather than an individual's genetic makeup) as the causal factor determining an individual's learning ability. Brookover and Erickson set forth five principles of the social-interaction theory as conditions that produce its results: (1) There is no functional limit on what an indiv- idual can learn. (2) "Social norms and expectations of others de— fine the appropriate behavior for persons in various social situations." (3) "Each person learns the definitions of appro- priate behavior through interaction with others who are important or significant." (4) "The individual learns to behave in the ways that he or she perceives are most appropriate for him or her." (5) "The individual acquires conceptions of his or her ability to learn various types of behavior through interaction with others whose evaluations are important to that individual." 12 (Brookover & Erickson 1969: PP- 15-16-) Mastery Learning Theory The mastery learning theory is based on the assump- tion that schools would produce different results if the schools were interested in equalizing outcomes instead of processing students. According to this view, schools can develOp rather than select skills. Indeed, Bloom (1978) has found through repeated experiments that "most students become very similar with regard to learning ability, rate of learning and motivation for further learning when pro- vided with favorable learning conditions" (p. 566). Bloom believes that most students can learn what the schools have to teach if the problem is approached sensitively and systematically. Bloom's concept of mas- tery learning stresses mastery of each unit of instruction by all; mobilization of the entire schooltnfixn developing in all involved (teachers, administrators, and students) the expectation that every student can and will learn; and providing appropriate reinforcements, instruction, and evaluation. Although Bloom believes that the history of the learner is important, he expresses confidence that modification of the learner, as well as of the school, is possible. Brookover, Rosenbaum and Persell could also be 13 expected to state that Coleman's and Jencks's studies might have produced different results regarding the impact of the school on educational achievement if they had not only estimated the average effect of variables like school composition but also described the social mechanisms by which these variables exercise their influence. There may be intervening variables, and previous research may not have identified all the characteristics of the school that create inequality. Research which has concentrated on school climate rather than on school inputs has resulted in different findings. Brookover et al. (1975, 1977) found--after they controlled for family background-- that there are differences between students in terms of achievement. Persell and others also believe that studies like that of Coleman and Jencks overlook the possibility of internal variations in the availability of resources (who gets the good teachers, which schools and which classes get the most funding, etc.). The work of McDill and associates (1967, 1973); Brookover and associates (1975, 1977, 1979); Bloom (1976); and Rutter and associates (1979) led to the same con- clusion: that school characteristics contributed the most to the variance in achievement among students and among schools, compared to the contribution of family background to the variance in academic achievement. 14 This research tests the relationship between students' achievement in selected Saudi Arabian schools and the following variables: school social climate, school social structure, and family-background charac- teristics. The most important objective of the study is to test to what extent differences in family back- ground, school social structure, and school social climate explain differences in school-wide achievement levels in Saudi Arabia. Such variation is present even though the Ministry of Education provides for each school the following: (1) The same type of cur— riculum and subject matter--in other words, each student in each school has the same textbooks and studies the same materials. (2) Similar facilities in each school. (3) Timetable and course schedule-- each subject is taught during the same set time at all schools. (4) Expenditures--all teachers and prin- ciples are government employees, with similar salaries at each level of education, based on teachers' certifica- tion. Considering the systemic differences between Michigan schools and those in the western part of Saudi Arabia, some of Brookover's variables will be modified to make them relevant to the Saudi Arabian school context. Not all of Brookover's three main independent variables and three dependent variables 15 were adaptable for use in the present study. Also, since this study is adapted to the Saudi Arabian envi- ronment, some school social system aspects of that nation are important. (These will be discussed in Chapter II.) Brookover's independent variables include: (1) school social inputs; (2) school social structure; and (3) school social climate. The dependent variables are: (1) academic achievement; (2) self-concept of academic ability; and (3) self—reliance. The first three independent variables will be adapted; the dependent variables, except "self-reliance," will also be adapted. The scale used to measure this variable is not well developed. In Brookover's study, each independent variable is associated with several indicators to measure the main variables. Not all of these indicators can be used to measure these variables in Saudi Arabia, though, because some of these indicators do not exist in that country's system of education. Examples of such indica- tors that cannot be used in Saudi Arabia are percentage of white or black students in the school, and mean differences between teachers' preference for white or black schools. 16 Objectives of this Study The main objective of this study is not to find the cause-effect relationship between related variables; rather, it is to identify the types of relationships between independent and dependent variables in a different cultural setting. Accordingly, in adapting Brookover and his associates' study, "School Can Make a Difference," to be carried outvfiifldn the centralized school system of Saudi Arabia, the following objectives will be considered: 1. To examine the possible generalization of the findings of Brookover et al. to a dif- ferent cultural setting To test the amount of variance in academic achievement in Saudi Arabian schools To determine to what extent differences in family background account for the variation in students' achievement levels between the schools To examine to what extent differences in school social structure as well as social climate explain differences in students' achievement between the schools To determine to what extent the combination of school social structure and social cli- mate variables accounts for variances in students' achievement 17 Contributions of the Study This study is a very important step in the develop- ment of further understanding of the relationship be- tween academic achievement and other variables in a different cultural setting, particularly in a less- develOped country. This knowledge will be useful in efforts to develop manpower for the increasingly complex world of the developing societies. Furthermore, it is important to understand whether differences in culture affect the importance of differences in family background in accounting for variation in achievement independent of the school social system, and vice versa. Finally, it is very important to the field of sociology of education to add more empirical studies to test the concept of whether schools can make a difference in students' achievement in different cultural settings and thus to provide confidence in generalizing the findings for different societies. Theoretical Approach of Thfs Study The original theoretical approach deve10ped by Brookover and his associates at Michigan State 18 University between the 19605 and the present will be carried out as much as possible. The main theory used to explain the social—psychological behavior of students, teachers, principals, and others in the schools is derived from symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interactionism Approach This school of thought views human nature not as something that exists innately in individuals, but as something that is developed and experienced in face-to- face interaction among groups existing in every society. Humans are participants in activities which are charac- teristics of social systems. Humans, as symbol-using creatures, respond to the world as they conceive and believe it to be, and act in terms of emergent defin— itions and meanings (Warriner 1970). The ways in which members interact with their groups and their beliefs in social unity are important for an understanding of the kinds of processes they seek to create. In effect, the social realist "sees the individual as inhabiting a world of events and objects which, though they may have certain basic physical properties, are fundamentally social in nature" (Gamson 1974, p. 219). Blumer (1969) identified the term symbolic interaction as follows: 19 . . . The worlds that exist for human beings and for their groups are composed of "objects" and those objects are the products of symbolic inter- action. .. . The nature of an object . . . of any and every object . . . consists of the meaning it has for the person for whom it is an object. This meaning sets the way in which he sees the object, the way in which he is prepared to act toward it, and the way in which he is ready to talk about it. . . . The meaning of objects for a person arises fundamentally out of the way they are defined to him by others with whom he inter— acts (Blumer 1969, p. 11). According to this school of thought, in order to understand the way an individual interprets the world around him/her, it is necessary to single out variables which will be overwhelming in their influence on an indi- vidual's behavior. There are, of course, a multitude of variables to explore, but from the point of view of a symbolic interactionist, three concepts or variables are significant in determining an individual's behavior: society, self, and mind. The interactions between society, the individual self and the mind provide the basis for social order. Each provides a collective social force which reSponds to and interprets the symbolic nature of life. Symbolic interactionists such as Mead, Cooley, Blumer, Kuhn, and Goffman were vividly aware of the way in which the symbolic capacity names an organism the con- troller over its own environment. Through the eye of symbols the environment is designated and brought within 20 the manipulation of the organism rather than the organism merely reacting to it. For symbolic interactionists, meaning is "anchored" in behavior; that is, the meaning of an object is determined by the way in which individuals act toward it. All objects, including ourselves, are socially constructed by this symbolic process. It is this process that frees humans from being determined by their environment. Therefore, the way we define ourselves, and consequently, the way we interpret through the workings of our minds "definitions of the situationfl'leads us to respond to objects not in determined ways but probabilisti- cally. For Mead,an individual learns what is eXpected from him/her by taking the roles of others, by viewing him/herself as do others. Also, for Mead an individual is able to take the role of the other without being in an actual interaction situation. That means an individual can decide what type of action to take in a given situa- tion by evolving the possible alternatives from the point of view of others. In Mead's point of view, a significant other is an individual whose opinions, evaluations, and expectations are valuable to an individual. Johnson (1970) discussed education in terms of the symbolic interactism approach, when he stated that: Education, from a social-psychological point of view is carried on in an organized social environ- ment largely through interpersonal process. How a 21 student responds hithe classroom, for example, will depend upon such factors as the organiza- tional structure and climate of the school, the nature of the student's goals and goals of his teacher and the reaction he thinks his peers, parents, and friends will have to his behavior. It is primarily within the extended student- teacher and student-student interaction in the classroom that education takes place (p. 231). Thus students in the school as a social system are interacting bathe process of learning, an inter- action influenced by the way in which students perceive evaluations and expectations of significant others in the school. Teachers, principals, and classmates could be considered as significant others whose evaluations and expectations are especially valuable for the students in the school in terms of the way they perceive and interpret that evaluation and expectation in the process of learning through the interactions (Lightfoot 1978). In the light of symbolic interactionism theory, to Brookover et al. (1979),"behavior of children in school, especially their achievement in academic subjects, is partly a function of the social and cultural characteris- tics of the school social system" (p. 6). They found that differences between schools in norms, rules, beliefs, eXpectations, and evaluation explained the differences between students' performance. That is, "the members of the school social system become socialized to behave dif— ferently in a given school than they would in another 22 school" (p. 6). This means, basically, that both the socio-psychological climate and social structure of the school affect the students' performance. The general hypothesis that guided this study, the hypothesis Brookover used in his research, states that "the cultural or social-psychological normative climate and the student status-role definitions which characterized the school social system explain much of the variance in achievement and other behavioral outcomes of the schools" (Brookover et a1. 1979, p. 136). It is recognized that the original study cannot be replicated without some difficulty. In the process of developing this adapted, cross-cultural study, issues related to equivalent concepts and definitions, equivalent sampling, and equivalence of measurement will have to be faced. The first question is, "Do the concepts of school climate, self-concept of academic ability, and academic achievement have the same or different meanings in the two nations-—United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?" In attempting to answer this question, these concepts will be examined relative to their original theoretical and operational definitions in Brookover's study. The term climate has been used to characterize a variety of psychological, social, or leadership dimensions 23 of the school, such as satisfaction, morals, trust, open- ness, and c00peration (Lezotte et al. 1980). Brookover and his associates defined the school learning climate as "the norms, beliefs, and attitudes reflected in institu- tional patterns and behavioral practices that enhance or impede student achievement" (Lezotte et al. 1980, pp. 3-4). Brookover and Erickson (1975) define climate as follows: Our conception of school academic climate may be expressed as follows: The school social climate encompasses a composite of variables as defined and perceived by the members of this group. These factors may be broadly conceived as the norms of the social system and expectations held for vari- ous members perceived by the members of the group and communicated to members of the group (p. 364). Operationally, Brookover and associates defined the school- climate variables in terms of calculated means of responses of students, teachers, and principals on questionnaires designed for this purpose. It is possible to adapt this concept for Saudi Arabian schools in order to determine, by using the same instrument, to what extent school climate dif- ferences account for the variation in achievement between the schools. Self-concept of academic ability is defined by Brookover and his associates as the behavior in which one indicates to him/herself his/her ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared to others involved in the same tasks (Brookover et al. 1967). Operationally, this will 24 be further defined as the mean responses of students on the basis of an adapted scale developed by Brookover et a1. It is not hard to find the equivalent of this con- cept in Saudi Arabian schools. Each student has certain feelings about his ability to do well or poorly in academic tasks in comparison with other students at the same school. The concept of academic achievement is not well defined, even in the United States. The question which has been examined for a long time is: How does one define student achievement? Is it defined as individual produc- tion independent from others, or as a social- psychological process? Lezotte et al. (1980) argue that "one . . . belief is that learning is a psychological process rather than a social process; another is that innate ability determines individuals' learning" (p. 13). Many educators criticize the use of standardized test scores as the sole measure of achievement because the important outcomes of education cannot be so readily measured or observed (Madaus, Kellaghan, Rakow, and King 1979). Brookover et al. ". . . would quickly acknowledge that tests and other assessment devices are far from per- fect, but they believe that tests and similar assessment procedures represent a useful basis for making judgments about educational outcomes"(Lezotteeflzal.1980,p.6L.Opera- tionally, Brookover measured academic achievement using the 25 average of the percentage of students mastering each of the 49 objectives in the Michigan School Assessment Test (MSAT). The concept of academic achievement used by Brook- over can be seen to be equivalent to the concept of aca— demic achievement in Saudi Arabia measured by the grading and scoring system for evaluation of achievement. The specific instrument that Brookover used to measure achieve- ment cannot possibly be used in this study because it is a standardized test based on Michigan school objectives, which are different from those in Saudi Arabia. Further, Saudi Arabia does not have any equivalent standardized tests constructed on the basis of that country's curricu- lum. A possible solution to the problem is the following. Since Saudi Arabia does not have other standardized tests which canlxaused in this study, national examination scores in school subjects are used to measure school achievement. The national examination is usually offered in all schools by the Ministry of Education at the end of the academic year. This type of exam is offered specifically for the third grade in the intermediate schools. As a matter of fact, using the national examination score serves the purpose of the study better than using standardized test scores. In this regard Madaus et al. (1979) question the use of standardized achievement tests as a measure for comparing 26 the quality of different schools. The results of their research conducted in secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland indicate that "curriculum-based tests are more sensitive to differences in school characteristics than are standardized teSts" (p. 207). Overall, the model which guides this study is derived directly from the original study by Brookover et al. (1979). This model emphasizes that there are four sets of composition variables--three are independ- ent and one is dependent. The first set of independent variables constitutes the input variables which influence the dependent variables, directly and indirectly, through the school social structure variables and school social climate variables. The school social structure variables influence the outcome variables directly,and through the school social climate variables indirectly. The latter, in turn, influence the outcome variables directly,as can be seen in Figure 1. These four sets of variables will be discussed in more detail in Chapter III. Researchguestions and Hypotheses From the theoretical basis and literature review, a study was designed in order to test the following assump- tions and to answer some related questions: 27 School Social Structure Family A Background 1. Academic Achievement > 2 . Self-Concept of Academic Ability Input Variables//////;Z7 Output Variables School Input Climate J \ \V . _ I School Soc 1aj Figure l.--School social system model representing the relationship between input and output variables. 28 l: Socioeconomic status of family background is not significantly related to the level of school achievement. H2: Socioeconomic status of family background is not significantly related to the level of students' self-concept of academic ability. H3: The school social structure is not sig- nificantly related to the level of school achievement. 4: The school social structure is not sig- nificantly related to the level of a school's students' self-concept of aca- demic ability. H : The school social climate is not signif- icantly related to the level of school achievement. H6: The school social climate is not signif- icantly related to the level of students' self-concept of academic ability. : The level of school achievement is not significantly related to the level of a school's students' self-concept of academic ability. In addition to the above hypotheses, various questions which were raised by the issues in this study will be addressed: 1. To what degree do differences in socioeconomic status account for the variation among schools in terms of achievement, on the one hand, and their self-concept of academic ability, on the other hand? 2. To what degree do variations in school social structure account for the variation among schools in terms of achievement and self-concept of academic ability? 3. To what extent do the differences in school 29 social climate account for the variation among schools in terms of achievement and self-concept of academic abil- ity? CHAPTER II OVERVIEW_OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE Introduction The body of past and current literature in the area of sociology of education that studies family back— ground and school variables to determine to what extent any one of these factors, independent of the others or combined, is accountable for more of the variation in ac- ademic achievement within or between schools is too wide to be reviewed in this chapter. Since this research is an attempt to replicate the study of Brookover et a1. (1979) ("School Can Make a Difference," originally done in the United States) for testing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it seems appropriate to review the main body of related literature in three sections. 1. The first section reviews briefly the body of relevant literature in the United States. 2. The second section reviews briefly the body of relevant cross-cultural literature. 3. In the third section, some aspects of the edu- cational structure in Saudi Arabia will be discussed, in brief, in order to provide a 30 31 better basis of understanding of the system of education under which this research has been carried out. Section 1: Students' Family Background and Achievement Past studies related to the present research can be divided into two groups. The first consists of those studies that focus more on family background in terms of socioeconomic status, measured by level of education and type of occupation. These studies show that much of the difference in achievement is explained by family-background variables--that different schools do not make much differ- ence in students' achievement. In such studies, the rela- tionship between socioeconomic status and achievement is well documented. The positive correlation between these two variables is confirmed. (See Coleman et al. 1966; Jencks et al. 1972; Hauser 1971; Hauser et a1. 1976). Mosteller and Moynihan (1972) and.Mayeske et al. (1969) concluded that individual schools have little effect on student achievement outcome independent of family background and student-body composition of the school. Jencks et al. (1972) concluded that schools have little or no effect on student achievement, adult income, or future social status. In the studies by Coleman et al., teacher qualifi- cations, facilities, and expenditures did not eXplain much 32 of the variance in achievement between schools or between individuals. In this regard, Brookover and Schneider (1975) stated that "evidence from previous research indicates that many school input variables such as facilities, teacher's educational qualifications and current ranges in class size are not likely to explain the differences in outcome" (p. 83). A re-analyses of Coleman's data by Smith in 1972 and Mayeske et al. in 1969 showed that per- ceptions of schools, students' sense of control, and stu- dents' self-concept accounted significantly for the varia- tion in student achievement. The re-analysis also indicated that the schools did, indeed, make a difference independent of the effect of family background. In agree- ment with Coleman, they found that family background makes a difference independent of the schools' effect. Rutter and his associates (1979) viewed the school as a social organi- zation that may influence its students through the cli- mate and activities of the school. Thus, their study was designed to measure different school variables, including academic achievement, teacher and Student participation, norms, teacher concern for students, and teacher expecta- tions, and to relate these characteristics to school out- put. The results indicated that the school characteristics of climate and activity were accountable for more of the 33 variations independent of family background (Rutter et al. 1979). Furthermore, the findings of Rutter et al. indi- cated that "successful schools" have effective educational strategies, have more commitment to student learning, and provide a high climate of expectations and more respect for their students. Obviously, these findings are con- sistent with other studies carried out in the United States. Brookover et al.(l975, 1977, 1979) are some examples. School Social System and Achievement The second group of relevant studies is concerned with the school characteristics as a social system with its own values, norms, beliefs, expectations, and evalua- tions which, in turn, influence, to some common degree, all members in the school as a whole to make the school more or less successful. The results of most of these studies designed to investigate the school factors and their impact on schools' achievement indicate that the school does make a difference in students' achievement once the researcher controls for family background variables. These studies include Brookover and Lezotte (1977), Brook- over et al. (1975, 1977, 1979), bkflfill et al. (1967, 1973). Edmonds (1979), and Rutter et al. (1979). The re-analyses of Equality of Educational Opportunity data indicate, as 34 previously mentioned, that the school input variables of teacher qualifications, teacher experience, school facilities, and eXpenditures added little explanation to the difference between schools' achievement beyond the explanation of the differences of socioeconomic composi- tion of the schools. The work of McDill, Rigsby, and Meyers in 1967 and McDill and Rigsby in 1973 examining the academic cli- mate of a small number of high schools suggested that "much of the variance in academic achievement explained by socio- economic composition of schools was more appropriately explained by the academic norms and expectations which characterized the student body." The work of Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker in 1979 compared two effective low socioeconomic status schools to two ineffective ones, concluding that . . . the more the teachers and administrators believe that their students, regardless of race and family background, are capable of higher achievement, and the more this belief is trans- lated into real and observable classroom and school behavior, the higher the resulting mean achievement is likely to be (Lezotte et al. 1980, pp. 23-4) 0 In a more general sense, many studies in the United States reveal that schools with predominantly low- achievement students are characterized by low eXpectations and institutional practices that define low levels of achievement as being apprOpriate for their students 35 (Brookover and Schneider 1975). Confirming the above findings is the work of Rutter, Maughan, Martimore, Ouston, and Smith (1979) in London concerning the secondary schools and their effects on children which indicated that school factors are very important in influencing school output and these factors account for more of the variation between schools' output. Clearly, the works of Rutter et a1. (1979), McDill et a1. (1967), and Brookover et al. (1979) examine school factors in terms of their relation to school output and these factors are identified as school learning climate. The studies of academic climate by McDill et al. (1967) and McDill and Rigsby (1973) reveal that variance in achievement can be explained by the academic norms and expectations which characterize the student body. In addition, Brookover's study indicates that school learn- ing climate explains differences in school achievement, as does the racial or socioeconomic level of the student pOpulation. Overall, school climate and social structure of the school explained approximately 80 percent of the variance in achievement between black and white schools studied (Brookover et al. 1979). Addressing the controversy resulting from those researchers who hold that schools make little difference and thosexdm>hold.that schools make a significant differ- ence,Parelius and Parelius (1978) state the following: 36 There are a few things that seem to be emerging fairly consistently. . . . School characteristics, including funding, seem to explain much less about educational success than we previously believed. On the other hand, the internal dynamics of educa- tional institutions seem capable of explaining much more. The expectations of teachers and counsel— ors, role models provided in instructional mate- rials, and tracking or curriculum divisions have been studied, but not extensively enough to provide definitive answers (pp. 324-5). Finally, it seems clear enough that the above body of literature in the United States shows that schools can make a difference in student achievement even though studies of social family background consistently indicate that socioeconomic status makes a great difference in academic achievement independent of school variables. Section 2: Related Cross-Cultural Studies The debate about whether school or family back- ground accounts finrmore or less of the variation between schools in achievement has not been limited to only the developed nations; it: has been carried over to the less developed countries in order to determine a more appro- priate way of testing and generalizing the results for different sets of culture. Before dealing with the body of research in this regard, it is appropriate to focus on the question of doing cross-culturalstudies,amdrelevant issues. The purpose of doing cross-cultural studies stems from research- ers' desire to find a universal empirical basis for 37 generalizations as Armer and Grimshaw (1973) wrote: The particular importance of comparative social research is that it permits the discovery of possi- ble universals, the specification of which empiri- cal regularities are system-specific, the reassignment of rules not only as intrasystemic or extrasystemic but within those categories (e.g.-- substantive universals can become metatheoretical; categorical rules can become semicategorical or variable rules), and finally, the re-examination of concepts and methodologies that is mandated by the discovery of exceptions (p. 15). From the above quotation, one can see that one of the important goals of cross-cultural studies is to allow for testing of certain concepts or hypotheses in different cultures to see whether the same results or different results are obtained and, if different, to what extent they differ from culture to culture. Gezi (1971) cites Noah and Eckstein (1969), who argue that some generalizations simply cannot be tested by using data from one country alone since there is not sufficient variation in the single case. . . . A test of the hypothesis that there is a relation between centralization of national educational administration and students' achievement levels inevitably requires cross-national inquiry (p. 83). Furthermore, Kandel (1970) argues that "cross- cultural research permits us to explore the degree to which generalizations operate transculturally or only within the boundaries of a particular society or a set of environmental combinations" (p. 273). The most common and important issues facing researchers who are doing cross-cultural studies are, in 38 brief, (1) cultural differences in the way norms, values, beliefs, interests, and goals are perceived and conceptu- alized; (2) the level of development between nations in terms of the appropriate way of stating the research ques- tion, theoretical conceptions and operational definition, and methodology and procedures; (3) the organizational differences hmschool systems between nations that vary from highly centralized to highly decentralized systems or organizations. Husen in 1967 mentioned that one of the major difficulties faced in doing an international study of achievement in mathematics was that of obtaining com— parable data from one country to another because the cate- gories of educational classification differed from one country to another. Also,Boocock (1980) states that national school systems differ not only in the structure or classification of schools and the content of the curriculum but in starting age and minimum school-leaving'ageand the proportion of the total population in school at various levels (p. 278). The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) took the first initiative in predicting the effect of schools and student family background across nations. In general, IEA data show that students' background accounted for great variation in thirteen-year-old student achievement. Father's education was significantly related to student's mathematic scores in all areas. Also, father's occupation had a similar 39 significant correlation with student's performance. For the older students the correlations are smaller and occasionally in the opposite direction (e.g., in Finland, Sweden, and Germany the lower SES students had higher achievement than the higher SES students [Husen 1967]). Furthermore, the IEA data findings suggested that the small effect of school and the large effect of student background on school achievement in the United States may not be generalizable to all nations (Farrell 1974). Inkeles (1977) argues that school resources in the United States make little or no contribution to academic achievement. That may not be the case in less-developed countries because it seems likely that "poverty of resources in the school, itself a reflection of the poverty of resources available in the society at large, puts the students at marked disadvantage in competition with those from more develOped countries" (p. 167). Inkeles also indicates that quality a schooling received plays a sub- stantial role in determining the scores children obtain on standard tests. Schwille, working with the civics test, showed that when home background entered first it produced an 18% increment in variance explained, but when entered third or fourth it added a mere 2% of vari— ance explained! Meantime, the "learning conditions" block which had accounted for only a 12% increment 40 in variance when in its usual third place, shifted to being responsible for 32% of variance eXplained when entered first (Inkeles 1977, p. 188). In addition, Farrell (1974) indicates that Schiefelbein and Farrell's study had found that "substantially more of the explained variances in scores on national eighth grade achievement tests was attributed to educational policy variables than to personal background characteristics of students, including social class" (p. 434). Simmons and Alexander, in their review of the determinants of school achievement in developing countries, conclude that "increasing the quality or quantity of most of the traditional inputs, such as teacher training or expenditures per student is not likely to improve student achievement" (Simmons and Alexander 1978, p. 341). The Ryan study in Iran (1973) indicated that school and teacher variables combined account for more of the variance in achievement scores than do home and peer group variables. The Carnoy study (1971) in Puerto Rico concluded that "home background has a smaller influence and schooling variables zalarger influence on achievement compared to the reduced form results" (Simmons and Alexander 1978, p. 348). A study in Uganda showed a negative association between economic development and school achievement "contrary to the belief that economic develOpment of the community would be positively associated with a school's academic perfor- mance" (Heyneman 1977) . Also, Heyneman (1976) reported: 41 There is a weak relationship between socieconomic background and academic achievement scores on the primary leaving examination. The correlation between achievement and paternal schooling was only .07; maternalschooling, .02; the number of modern possessions in the home, .03; paternal occupation, .06; and the summary measure of the four SES variables only .05. Selecting only males with low, medium, or high intelligence, also yielded consistently low relationships between all five SES measures and PLE performance (p. 202). A study done in Ghana showed that school character- istics are more important than family background by the time students leave secondary school, while family variables are more important in the early years of secondary school (Bibby 1974). Clearly,from the foregoing brief review concerning to what extent student background and school factors are capable of contributing more to an explanation of academic achievement variation in less develOped countries (LDC), it appears that student background accounts for less of the variation in academic achievement. However, social background of the students in LDCs often determines whether children will be able to get into school in the first place, but it becomes less important in influencing how far child- ren would go in school and what school they like. Foster (1977) compares LDCs with developed countries. In contrast to a good deal of work in developed nations, very little research in LDCs has measured achievement in terms of performance in some types of standardized verbal and quantitative tests. What 42 has been done suggests that the relationship between social background, conventionally measured, and performance is significantly lower in most LDCs (p. 224). To compare developed and less developed nations, the most important finding is that "home background accounts for less of the variation in student performance in less- developed countries than in the deve10ped countries" (Simmons and Alexander 1978, p. 349). Heyneman (1976) reported that "the more industrialized a society, the more achievement in school is apt to be affected by a pupil's socioeconomic environment and other out-of-school influ- ence" (p. 205), while in LDCs, school characteristics may be considered to be universal predictors of academic achievement. That means that the association between socio- economic status and academic achievement is weaker in LDCs, while schools have stronger effects on cognitive achievement in those countries(Heyneman 1976). Boocock (1980) elabor- ates: The relative effects of home and school quality seem to differ from one society to another. The importance of additional school resources may be greater ix: developing nations than in developed ones, and the experience of at least a few societies suggests that the effects of family background may not be so overriding and irreversible as American research often implies (p. 304). The Problem of Inconsistency in Research Conclusions One could conclude that there is consistency among the findings that indicate that school can 43 account for much of the variation in academic achievement in both developed and less developed countries. Lezotte et a1. (1980) stated that the results of three studies in England and Ire- land give crcss—cultural confirmation to the find- ing that differences in quality of school or classroom learning climate account for achievement differences and (lend further support to) the con- clusion that the school learning climate has effects independently of students' family back- ground characteristics (p. 50). H However, there is a contradiction between whether family background or school characteristics explain more or less of the variation in academic achievement. This contradiction stems from four methodological issues, stated by Lezotte et al. in 1980 as follows: [There are] four methodological issues that can significantly alter the impressions we receive from studying a school or group of schools. These include (1) the existence of contextual effects, (2) the use of a proxy for the school learning climate, (3) disagreement over the prOper unit of analysis, and (4) the appropriateness of the measure of achievement (p. 43). The issue of school contextual effect on student achievement has not been well solved because of the diffi- culty and complexity of separating contextual effects of the overall school from the students'characteristics them- selves. Indeed,this. issue raises a problematic ques- tion about whether the differences in academic achievement between schools are a function of overall school effects or a function of having different individuals in one school 44 than in another. It should be noted, also, that the contradiction in researchers' findings is, in part, a result of using only students' family background to measure school learning rather than using school climate variables. When McDill et al. (1967) used school climate variables, measured by students' and teachers' attitude toward mathe- matic achievement, they found that learning climate accounts for much of the difference in students' achievement even after social background is accounted for. Contradictions also appear when using different measures. Coleman et al. (1966), Smith (1977), and Cohen (1972) used a verbal ability test, while Mayeske et al. (1972) used an overall achievement composite basedcxlfactor analysis of five standardized tests of ability and attainment; Brookover et al. (1977-1979) used 49 objectives in the Michigan School Assessment Test; and Rutter et al. (1979) used national examination scores in school subjects. Other controversies in researchers' conclusions may occur as a result of using different units of analysis. Coleman et a1. (1966) used the individual child as a unit of analysis; Jencks et a1. (1972) focused on differences between individuals in various schools; while Brookover et a1. (1977, 1979) and Rutter et al. (1979) used the school as unit of analysis. Persell (1980) explains: The conflicting results obtained by Rutter, Cole- man, Jencks and their colleagues, and the 45 conclusions drawn from them, may be explained by differences in the initial purposes of their research, the units of analysis, sample, design, methods of data collection, and measure of key variables (p. 294). Finally, considering the above issues, Brookover et al. (1979) addressed the four methodological issues in their analysis of School Social System and Student Achieve- mgpp study. Brookover and his colleagues were interested in the relationship between school inputs, school structure, school climate variables, and the mean of school output variables. By testing these relations they found that school climate variables explained school achievement as well as the racialannisocioeconomic level of student family background, anui overall school climate variables accounted for much of the variation in output variables. Despite the inconcistency in some of the research- ers'conclusions, one can see that socioeconomic status has a significant influence on student achievement in the United States, even though schools can make a difference in student achievement, while in less-developing countries, socioeconomic status has less effect than schools on stu- dents' performance. Section 3: Historical Background of the Education Structure in Saudi Arabia No attempt has been carried out prior to this study to investigate to what extent students' family background or 46 school characteristics account for the variation in academic achievement between schools in Saudi Arabia. Most of the studies done in Saudi Arabia so far were performed by graduate students studying abroad and were the basis of theses and dissertations. These studies range in their scope from focusing on a narrow tOpiC to those focusing on the whole educational system. None of the studies, as far as this author knows, were concerned with testing the impact of school or family background on academic achieve- ment. Examples of these earlier studies include one done by Mohamed A. Hammad in 1973 concerned with the educational system and planning for manpower development. Another is a study of the relationship of school district size and administrative practices in schools done by Al-Salloom (1974). Third is a study investigating the educational goals for secondary education as determined by principals and teachers,done by Abo-Ali in 1975. Finally, there is a study concerned with teacher-principal perceptions of the school organizational climate,done by Manuie in 1976. This last study is most relevent to the research topic, al- though it did not examine the relationship between school organizational climate and school output. Manuie carried out the dimensions of organizational climate (devel- oped by Halpin and Crofts [1963] in the United States), to investigate 47 the perceptions of teachers and principals of the eight dimensions of the organizational climate of schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in relation to the location of school, type of school building, type of education (boys or girls) and the type of nationality (Saudi or non-Saudi) of the teach- ers (p. 5). According to Halpin and Crofts (1963) there are six dimensions of organizational climates in their study of elementary schools: (1) open climate, (2) auton- omous climate, (3) controlled climate, (4) familiar climate, (5) paternal climate, and (6) closed cli- mate. Manuie reached several conclusions drawn from his replicating study concerning school organization climate: 1. The relationship of principals and teachers can be described as reasonably satisfactory, but relatively formal in character. 2. The interactions among teachers in the schools located in low socioeconomic areas were lim- ited when compared with the relationships among teachers in the schools located in higher socioeconomic areas. 3. The schools in high socioeconomic areas and in nonrented buildings were characterized by a more flexible school environment than schools in low socioeconomic areas and schools housed in rented buildings. 4. Weak leadership and poor morale characterized both the central educational system and the local schools. (Pp. 177-8.) The foregoing reported studies and others not reported because they are too numerous give a good basis 48 of understanding the educational structure in Saudi Arabia and to make further study and further investigation into a variety of tOpics. It would be most beneficial to discuss briefly the school social system in Saudi Arabia in order to understand the structure of the system that creates the school social-psychological climate which, in turn, influ- ences the level of school output in Saudi Arabia. Historical Background and Schooling Development Saudi Arabia is one of the Middle East countries sharing a similar background of history, language, culture, and religion (Islam) 'with the rest of the Arab nations. The religion of Islam which Saudispractice influences their culture, values, and beliefs astx>way of life. The edu- cational system has been no exception in being influenced by the cultural basis of Islamic principles. Prior to 1932 the educational system of the Arabian peninsula was not sufficiently organized to yield a formal school organization. Rather, it comprised a diverse type of teaching “called "Kuttab," focu'Sing more or less on religious materials. After l932,when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was united, the educational system began to develOp and formal schools were established. Schools were no longer very small and simply organized. The system of school organization has expanded from one or two schools in 49 each district in the nation to several schools, from one classroom in each school to several classrooms, from one or two subjects taught to many varied subjects, from one method of teaching to multiple ways of teaching, and from general schools to more specialized varieties of school organizations. This expansion was based on the necessity for specialization.and greater efficiency to meet the ongoing development of the school organization. This development led the Ministry of Education to separate administrative and teaching responsibilities which, in turn, led to a hierarchical division of labor that starts at the tOp, from the Ministry to Superintendent to principals of schools and, at the bottom level, to assistant school principals and their teachers. Hierarcy of authority in the educational system is based more on traditional than on rational authority because most of the rules and regulations of legitimacy are based on and are justified by Islamic principles and law. In addition to traditional authority, there is also a highly bureaucratic authority manifested in the official hierarchy with its formal order system of super- and sub- ordinate. The lower offices are supervised by the higher ones in the educational system. However, the development of a hierarchy of authority in Saudi Arabian schools is based on the schools' develOpment. As they have become 50 more differentiated internally through the institutionaliza- tion of grading and subject matter specialization at each level, it has become necessary to develop a hierarchy of authority inside the schools, such that some teachers gain authority over others: principals, assistant principals, teachers, assistant teachers. The definition of staff roles of officers is based on the way in which the educational system was established, seeking to develop the qualifications of individuals. This was greatly encouraged by educational leaders and social reformers who wished to increase expertise by giving stu- dents examinations, setting standard requirements, develOp- ing the use of modern techniques and increasing objectivity. In order to allocate people in the hierarchy of the school systems as it became a complex organization, the Ministry sought qualified individuals. This led, in turn, to the necessity for career advancement opportunities, develOpment of more complex roles and controls which are based on different rules and regulations for different types of school jobs and establishment of individual files and records in school administration. Principals are responsible for diverse, yet limited, tasks, such as assigning teachers' schedules, evaluating school teachers and other personnel, and carrying out decisions affecting teachers and students in the school, rather than to make decisions. 51 Centralization of the Schools' Operational Systems According to the educational structural develOp- ment, in general, and schools as social organizations, in particular, the Ministry of Education became the cen- tral office for policy and decision making, for giving order and distributing responsibilities throughout the nation's districts and schools. Thus, the Ministry of Education chooses subject matter and materials, defines objectives, and selects textbooks for every level in each school. In this sense, curriculum, prescribed by government authority is uniform for each type of school, public or private, in the whole nation. Akrawi and El-Koussy (1971) indicate: Curricula are usually worked out by committees. A central committee set up by the Ministry of Education lays down the basic directives, the sub- jects to be taught and the time to be given to them. Specialized committees, then, decide the content of each subject. The result is generally a compart- mentalized and overloaded curriculum (p. 188). In fact, the curricula of Saudi Arabianschools devote more than 50 percent of the time to the study of Islamic religion and Arabic subjects. Faheem (1982) stated that ". . . the curriculum is loaded with religious and Arabic subjects. At the lower level half to two-thirds of the schedule is allocated to these topics with remaining time given to the general sciences and history" (p. 77). Further, these subjects are taught in a traditional manner, 52 considering the child as a passive recipient rather than a creative learner: Despite marked progress in the development and provision of curricula, Saudi education generally has been criticized for the quality and style of instruction, which observers believe adversely influence the students. Instruction at all levels emphasizes rote learning and memorization of lectures and assigned readings. Students reportedly show little curiosity, initiative, or critical ability (Walpole 1977, pp. 111-112). Consequently, educational development in Saudi Arabia is bonded with social attitude on the basis of preferring a general education and government job rating rather than having technical training or attending voca- tional schools. Tibawi (1972) stated that "the traditional system with its spirit, methods, and even curriculum sur- vived in the modern Saudi system as nowhere else in the Arab world" (Walpole 1977, p. 99). These aspects still char- acterize the educational structure in Saudi Arabian schools despite the great and rapid growth of education in the 19605 and 19705. Many schools have been established at each level throughout the nation; student enrollment has increased rapidly,particular1y in the lower levels of education; many types of schooling (technical, vocational, and general schools) have been provided for the public; and also, the expenditure for education has been increased. For example, the government in 1979 spent about $7.1 billion on education, which represents 10 percent of its 53 Gross National Product (GNP) (Athubaity 1981, pp. 19—20). In 1982-83 the government spent about $9.132 billion out of the estimated $91.70 billion GNP (Al-Riyadh 1982). Thus,even though the country has gained a considerable improvement in educational system develOpment over the past two decades, the nation still faces the issue of a wide- Spread illiteracy. "The general level of literacy in Saudi Arabia is still among the lowest in the Arab world" (Wal- pole 1977, p. 92). Furthermore, Faheem (1982) reported: It is estimated that functional literacy among the Saudis is only 30 percent of the adult population according to 1974 statistics. The literacy rate among females is even lower because they were not provided with public education until the 19605; the number of literate among them is estimated to be around 16 percent of adult women over 15 years of age. The low literacy among women and the exclusion of thousands of them from participating in the market economy have serious ramifications for the Saudi development plans (p. 96). The centralized system of education has been pro- viding similar treatment for all schools in the educational system: 1. Schools throughout the country are provided with equal curriculum and subject matter in terms of quality and quantity to be taught. All students in public and private schools use the same textbooks for each subject matter. 2. Each subject matter is designated an equi- valent time of teaching in each school based on what has been established for it by the Ministry of Education. 54 3. All schools are provided with similar, if not equal, supplies and facilities depending sometimes on how much a principal could bring to his school. 4. All principals and teachers are appointed by the Central Office of the Ministry of Education. They are distributed between schools based on certain rules and regulations established by the Central Office in the Ministry. 5. All schools are completely funded by the government. The school social system in Saudi Arabia is char- acterized by a hierarchy of authority. Centralization of rules and regulations and formality in school participants' relations impact on the school social-psychological cli- mate. This impact affects the way in which each school participant evaluates and perceives the schools ' norms , roles, and regulations which govern principals', teachers' and students' perceptions, evaluations and expectations for academic performance which, in turn, influence stu- dents' output. So far, the discussion has concentrated on the system of education in Saudi Arabia. Since the original study was done in the United States by Brookover and his associates and will be carried out in a different culture, this systemwill be compared with that of the United States. 55 It is incredibly difficult to compare the system of education in America with that of Saudi Arabia. This difficulty arises from a number of factors. In brief, Saudi Arabia and the United States are different in size and population; in historical background; in political and social systems; in social organization of beliefs, norms, and values; in basic philosophical views which determine all systems ofbelief in any institution, whatever it may be. In the United States, the educational system and school organization follow the American philoso- phy of democracy as a general rule. More particularly,they follow individual educators' theories and views in many ways, rather than being controlled by the government. Finally, the basic factors or principles which differentiate one education system from another in the two nations can be summarized as follows: 1. Historical background. Saudi Arabia has a background based on Islamic principles, which determine most of the society's values and cultures. Traditional education still influences the educational system in many ways, as well as curriculum structure, system of beliefs, and types of norms and values of the school structure. In the United States, the historical back- ground is based on an entire nation comprising a variety of different values, methods, ideas, religion, beliefs, and 56 different schools of thought such as "learning theory" which dominate the American educational system. This theory is reflected in the school system through its varied norms, values, and systems of beliefs. 2. School structure. In the United States, this is more modernized than in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the United States has become an industrialized society which leads to a decentralized system of education in order to provide more alternative subject matter and different kinds of schools. In Saudi Arabia, the system is highly centralized and based on standard subject matter without alternatives. All these principles make the two nations differ— ent from each other in terms of ways of thinking, systems of belief, norms of behavior, perceived evaluation and judgment of things, and means of choosing and building school structures and climates for students at school. Thus, this study is designed to investigate to what extent family background, school structure, and school climate explains the variation in students' achievement in Saudi Arabia, taking into consideration the different aspects of the educational system in both nations. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION Introduction This chapter contains a discussion of the way the researcher has collected data related to the research ques- tion. The first feature discussed is the study setting, containing the conditions under which the study was carried out. Second, the pilot study is discussed as part of the basis for selecting the items and concepts appro- priate to the study setting. The third area of discussion is basic background about the population, sampling, and data collection procedures, as well as clarification of the Operational definitions of the variables used in this study. Finally, a brief discussion of the analysis procedure concludes the chapter. (This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter IV.) Study Setting The thirty schools under examination for this study are all-male, urban public intermediate schools. The schools are located in three major cities in the western part of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Jeddah, Makkah, and Taif. Based on the government census for 1974, the popula- tion of each city is estimated as follows: Jeddah, 57 58 561,104; Makkah, 366,801; and Taif, 204,857 (Faheem 1982). The Ministry of Education's 1979-80 census shows that there are about 12,854 students enrolled in 26 intermediate schools in Jeddah; 9,403 students enrolled in 25 inter- mediate schools in Makkah; and 5,926 students enrolled in 15 intermediate schools in Taif. These schools are well distributed geographically in each city. In a general sense, the populations of these cities are homogeneous: they speak the same language (Arabic) and practice the same principles of faith and belief (the Islamic religion). Most of the pOpulation is composed of Arabs and originally non-Arab Muslims who came to these cities for religious purposes--particularly in Makkah. Recently, according to many observers, the hetero- geneity of the population in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has begun to increase as a result of rapid economic growth and social development, leading, in turn, to the emergence of a new middle class (Rugh 1973). The populations of Jeddah, Makkah, and Taif are not exceptions to this trend. Owing to a lack of concrete data on socioeconomic classes in Saudi Arabia, the author has been forced to rely upon his own observations to judge that the populations of these three cities have the characteristic of including few peOple who occupy the upper and upper-middle classes, while the majorities occupy the middle and lower classes. 59 All of the school principals in the schools studied at the time the research was being conducted were Saudi Arabians; only 53.8 percent of the teachers were Saudis, however, while 44.9 percent were non-Saudis. The sample student bodies were 71.3 percent Saudis and 28.7 percent non-Saudi students, enrolled in the third grade of inter- mediate school (essentially equivalent to the ninth grade in American school systems). According to the author's observations, the body of students in each school he visited reflected the social structure of the location in terms of socioeconomic mix. In a general sense, then, the composition of these schools is a reflection of the pOpula- tion structures in the three cities. Exploratory Pilot Study Prior to the initiation of this research, a pilot study was conducted, in the summer of 1981. The main goal of that study was to test the extent to which the assump- tions and concepts used in Brookover's study (1979) are applicable to a study to be carried out under a different set of cultural conditions. Initially, the author con- tacted two of his friends working in the Taif education district, both of whom have master's degrees earned in the U.S. The author and his friends translated into Arabic the questionnaires for teachers and students used by Brookover et al. (1977, 1979) as tools to measure school social 60 structure and school social climate variables. Because no schools were open that summer, the author could not find large numbers of students or teachers to test: Only 19 students and 17 teachers responded to the questionnaires in the pilot study. Both teachers and students were in- formally interviewed to determine the degree to which the items of the questionnaires were clear, and applicable to the context of the education system in Saudi Arabia. Interviewees were asked to explain the meaning and the concepts of selected items to determine whether or not these items were understandable. Subjects were also asked for comments and suggestions. Owing to the very limited number of respondents, statistical analysis of the findings of this pilot study was not undertaken, except that the author used his own judgment, on the basis of the observations collected and the comments and suggestions obtained from the respon— dents, to identify the items and concepts considered understandable and applicable to the school system in the western part of Saudi Arabia. This pretest of concepts and items originally used in the United States provided guidance for the selection and adaptation of the indicators which are reasonably adaptable to examining the Saudi Arabian system of education. 61 Population In discussing the identification of the population for this study, it seems important to start with the def- inition of the universe, because such discussion will allow for greater clarification of the population and the ultimate sample, increasing the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the definition of the universe for this study is important for possible replication and for comparison with other studies that might be conducted in the future. The universe for this study is Saudi Arabia's intermediate schools, defined as the three grades of edu- cation after elementary school. Under this definition, the population is specified as intermediate-school students, teachers, and principals in Saudi Arabia; specifically, the sample frame is the intermediate schools in the western part of Saudi Arabia. In the major cities in this part of the kingdom (namely Jeddah, Makkah, and Taif), there are 66 urban intermediate schools for males containing 1,698 teachers and 28,183 students. Sampling Procedure Thirty schools were selected randomly from among the 66 urban schools for males in the sample frame. The number of schools in each city was randomly determined on the basis of the proportion of the total number of schools in each city. Operationally, 11 schools in Jeddah were 62 randomly selected out of the city's 26 schools; 11 schools in Makkah were randomly selected out of 25 schools; and in Taif, 8 schools were randomly selected out of 15. After selecting the sample schools in each city, 50 percent to 66 percent of the third-grade classes in each school were randomly selected on the basis of the prOportion of classes in each school. All students in the chosen classes who attended school on the day of the re- searcher's visit to that school were asked to respond to the students' questionnaire. At the same time, the prin- cipal and the third-grade teachers were asked to respond to the respective questionnaires. Table 1 shows the sizes of the random samples in terms of the numbers of schools, classes, students, teachers, and principals. TABLE 1 POPULATION DATA: RANDOM SAMPLE SIZES IN MALE, URBAN, PUBLIC INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS IN JEDDAH, MAKKAH, AND TAIF, SAUDI ARABIA Content Sample Size Schools in Universe (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) 951 Schools in Population 66 Sampled Schools 30 Sampled Classes 76 Students Participating 1,914 Teachers Participating 394 Principals Participating 30 63 Table 2 indicates the total number of teachers and students in each school chosen in the sample. It also shows the total number of students and classes in the third grade in each school. The table presents the total numbers of teachers, students, and classes chosen to participate in the study. (The reason for choosing third-grade students, as men- tioned in Chapter I, is that they are the only students who take a national examination in school subjects, offered by the Ministry of Education, which can be considered to be an appropriate equivalent to the standardized test used by Brookover et al. (1977) to measure school achievement; there are no other comparable standardized tests in Saudi Arabia.) In Table 2, all third-grade teachers are included in the study (N=394). Only 55 percent of the third-grade classes were taken; 50 percent of the total number of third-grade students in the schools participated in the study (N=l,914) . Instrument Conducting a survey study is the appropriate method for collecting comprehensive information concerning various variables to be adapted for investigation in different cul- tural settings. The investigator used three sets of instruments developed originally by Brookover et al. (1973, 1975, 1977, 1979). These instruments were adapted by the author for the present study on the basis of a pretest. Some of the items and concepts were found inapplicable to Saudi Arabian students, and were either adapted or eliminated. 6 4 TABLE 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF TEACHERS, STUDENTS, THIRD GRADE STUDENTS, AND CLASSES IN EACH SCHOOL AND TOTAL NUMBERS OF TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND CLASSES CHOSEN Total Tchrs. Total Total Total 3d Gr. Total School Tchrs. Chosen Stu's Third Stu's Classes 3d Gr. Number in the for in Grade Chosen in Classes (1) School Sample School Stu's (6) School Chosen (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) 1 28 17 493 94 43 4 2 2 28 9 339 112 66 5 3 3 43 17 572 115 55 6 3 4 35 18 664 154 65 6 3 5 ..... 15 ..... 8... 142... 32....14 ...... 2 ......... 1 6 32 12 544 106 62 4 2 7 24 13 388 135 69 5 3 8 54 17 1,120 195 97 6 3 9 24 11 401 127 58 4 2 10 ..... 26 ..... 9... 473...1l6....50 ...... 4 ......... 2 ll 26 13 527 153 92 5 3 12 24 12 330 96 49 4 2 13 24 12 371 91 51 4 2 14 24 13 468 107 51 4 2 15 ..... 24 ..... l6... 343...155....62 ...... 5 ......... 3 16 25 13 520 169 80 5 3 17 13 10 209 58 28 2 l 18 32 17 366 113 47 6 3 19 18 13 220 63 39 3 2 20 ..... 36 ..... 16... 705...140....78 ...... 5 ......... 3 21 37 15 631 157 85 5 3 22 23 10 272 67 42 3 2 23 24 11 510 113 62 3 2 24 26 18 590 156 90 5 3 25 ..... 34 ..... l4... 565...159....80 ...... 6 ......... 3 26 33 12 661 136 77 5 3 27 28 18 657 212 84 6 3 28 25 16 450 156 66 6 3 29 31 18 480 157 87 5 3 30 ,,,,, 25 ..... 16... 548...147....78 ...... 5 ......... 3 Totals 841 414 14,559 3,791 1,914 138 76 NOTE: Unabbreviated column titles are as follows: (1) School Number; (2) Total Number of Teachers in the School;(3) Total Number of Teachers Chosen for Sample; (4) Total Number of Students in the School; (5) Total Number of Third Grade Students in the School; (6) Total Number of Students Chosen for the Sample; (7) Total Number of Third Grade Classes in the School; (8) Total Third Grade Classes Chosen. 65 The first instrument was a questionnaire admin- istered to students which contained 18 items develOped by the researcher to measure students' family backgrounds, and 59 items derived from Brookover and associates' instrument to measure students'climate variables. The second instrument was a questionnaire administered to teachers which contained 16 items developed by the investigator to measure school in- put and centralization of authority. It also contained 35 items derived from the original instrument of Brookover et al. to measure teacher-climate variables. The third instru- ment was a questionnaire administered to principals which included 15 items developed by the author to measure school input and centralization of authority, and 25 items derived from the original questionnaire developed by Brookover et al. to measure principal climate variables. These three primary instruments were used to meas- ure the socioeconomic status, school structure, and social climate of the schools in terms of these variables' asso- ciation with self-concept of academic ability and achieve- ment. (The questionnaire items for students, teachers, and principals are presented in Appendix A.) Questionnaire translation from the English version into Arabic was accomplished in three sequential stages. The first stage of translation was undertaken by the researcher and his two friends in the summer of 1981, prior to pilot-study application. The second stage of translation was accomplished by the investigator in the 66 light of the results of the pilot study. The researcher carefully rechecked the meaning of each translated item to remove any discrepancies in the meaning between the two versions (English and Arabic). In the final stage of translation, the author gave the two versions of the instruments to the Instructor of Arabic Language in Michigan State University's Department of Linguistics for review of the translation from English into Arabic. The results of his review were in agreement with the resear- cher's translation. (A document expressing approval of the translation of the instrument was obtained from the Department of Linguistics at Michigan State University; see Appendix C.) Data Collection On March 13, 1982, the author left the United States for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to collect the data for the present study. The author had made advance contact with the Umm Al-Qura University and had obtained approval for conducting the research with the University's support. Fifteen days were spent at the Umm Al-Qura Uni- versity in order to get questionnaires printed in the Arabic version and to obtain an official letter to the Director of the Directorate of Education for the Western Province requesting his permission for and cooperation in the gathering of information from schools under his 67 administration. The Director of Education, in turn, wrote for the author letters directed to the superintendents of the Jeddah, Makkah, and Taif school districts, asking for their participation and cooperation by providing the re- searcher with information he would need and with official letters directed to the principal of each school chosen for the sample, to allow the researcher access to the school for the purpose of administering the questionnaires. Seven weeks were spent in gathering the data from 30 schools distributed in the three districts. The pro- cedure used was that of the'belf-administered question- naire." The following schedule for gathering the data was develOped. 1. Two to 2% weeks were allowed for self- administration of the questionnaires in each district. 2. It was decided which district was to be sur- veyed first, which would be second, and which would be third. 3. One day, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., was set for surveying each school in each district. 4. The first contact made in each school con- sisted mostly of discussions with the principal, since the principals had had no advance information about the researcher's visit. 5. After reporting to the principal the purpose and importance of the study, arrangements for choosing the classes to be surveyed and gaining access to them were made. 68 6. Because of limited time and access, not all third-grade classes were sampled; rather, 50 percent to 66 percent of these classes in each school were randomly selected. (If the total number of third-grade classes was an even number, then 50 percent were chosen--e.g., two out of four; if the total number was odd, then 66 percent were chosen--e.g., two out of three. In this way, the per- centage of the sample chosen in each school was 50 percent or more, allowing for collection of a good quantity of data.) 7. Because of limitations on access, the research- er had to avoid any possible interaction between students and teachers during the time the questionnaire was ad- ministered, but could not administer the questionnaire for all classes during the same period of time on the day he visited a particular school. He arranged with the prin- cipal the appropriate time to visit each class independently on the same day, so that the researcher could administer the questionnaire by himself and obtain the completed forms at the same time. 8. Principals' and teachers' questionnaires were administered by the researcher at the time he was in the school administering the students' questionnaire. Most students attended their classes at the time when the research was being conducted, responded to the questionnaire, and returned it to the researcher in the classroom. No students refused to participate or did not 69 respond. Thus, all of the distributed students' question— naires were returned directly to the researcher in the entire sample, which contained 1,914 individual cases. In addition, most of the distributed principals' and teachers' questionnaires were returned to the researcher on the day he visited their schools, except for a few collected in the days following the visit. Eventually, all of the cases surveyed returned their questionnaires, except for a few teachers. Only 394 of these were returned out of 414 dis- tributed, which represents a 95-percent return rate. Table 3 represents the percentages of return of teachers' ques- tionnaires in each school in the sample. The data-gathering procedure was accomplished in two stages. Stage One. The first stage started when the author left the United States for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from the 13th of March, 1982 until the 20th of May, 1982 (the date when he finished the procedure of admin- istering the instruments in the last school in the sample). The data was gathered from three main resources: 1. Students' questionnaires, obtained from 1,365 Saudi Arabian students and 549 non-Saudi students enrolled in the third grade in 30 intermediate schools in 1982 in three major cities in western Saudi Arabia. 2. Teachers' questionnaires, obtained from 215 Saudi Arabian teachers and 179 non-Saudi teachers in the same 30 schools. 70 TABLE 3 PERCENTAGES OF TEACHERS' QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED IN EACH SCHOOL Percentage of Number of Number of . . SChOOI Questionnaires Questionnaires Questionnaires Number Distributed Returned Returned 1n Each School 1 l7 16 94 2 9 8 89 3 17 17 100 4 18 18 100 5 ........... 8 ............... 8 ............. 100 6 12 12 100 7 13 12 92 8 l7 16 94 9 ll 10 91 10 ........... 9 ............... 8 ............. 89 ll 13 13 100 12 12 12 100 13 12 12 100 14 13 12 . 92 15 ........... 16 ............... 16 ............. 100 l6 13 13 100 17 10 9 90 18 l7 16 94 19 13 12 92 20 ........... 16 ............... 16 ............. 100 21 15 15 100 22 10 10 100 23 ll 10 91 24 18 14 78 25 ........... l4 ............... 14.. ........... 100 26 12 9 75 27 18 18 100 28 16 15 94 29 18 18 100 30 ........... l6 ............... 15 ............. 94 Totals 414 394 95% 71 3. Principals' questionnaires, obtained from the principals of the 30 schools in the sample. Stage Two. The second stage of data collection started in the middle of June 1982, when the students' national examination results were announced. The overall grade for each student who passed, and the total number of subjects failed by those students who failed, were reported by the superintendent of each district to the researcher. Since the author had asked each student to write his name on the questionnaire, the total grade earned in the national examination, or the total number of subjects failed, could be recorded on each student's questionnaire for all 1,914 cases . Operational Definition of Variables The original theme of this study is theoretically based on the assertion that variation between schools in terms of students' academic achievement and their self- concept of academic ability is related, to some degree, to three sets of variables in the Saudi Arabian schools: school input, structure, and climate variables. These sets of variables are operationally defined as follows. 72 Independent Variables I. Input Variables (a) Family background--socioeconomic status is measured by: (1) size of the family: total number of brothers, sisters, and parents; (2) literacy of the family: total number of members who have been educated; (3) par— ents' (fathers' and mothers') education, on an eight- point scale ranging from point one, have Ph.D. degree, to point eight, have no schooling (illiterate); (4) moth- er's occupation: owing to the limitations on the types of jobs women are allowed to hold in Saudi Arabia, only one question was asked, with five possible options-—teacher, employee in girls' school, employee in hospital, unspec- ified job, and housewife; (5) father's occupational status: two items in the students' questionnaire measured this; the first item, relating to father's current occupa- tion, had 15 response categories, and the second item, relating to what occupational grade level the father occu- pies if he is a government employee, had possible responses ranging from point one, high—status occupation, to point six, low-status occupation. Since there have been no prior studies in Saudi Arabia concerning the classification of jobs in terms of prestige and income, and the nation is characterized as an emerging society in which most job characteristics have not yet taken their final shape, the author found it difficult to accurately classify such 73 work. From Duncan (1961), the idea of classification of occupations in terms of prestige and income was derived; the author of the present study used his own judgment to adapt the idea to combine the 15 response categories in item one and the six in item two, to develop five main occupational categories. This scale ranges from point one, representing professionals, through point two, semi- professionals; point three, semi-skilled; point four, unskilled; to point five, unspecified job. (b) School input is measured by the following indicators: (1) size of the school: total number of students and teachers in the school; (2) teachers' and principal's experience and qualifications: the number of years spent serving in the school, the levels of degrees obtained, and further training they have had; and (3) the capacity of the school in terms of tools, equipment, teaching materials, etc., measureh via principal's and teachers' reports regarding the adequacy of the available resources . II. School Social Structure Variables (a) Staff satisfaction is measured by the follow- ing indicators: (1) mean of teachers' reports about the degree of importance of eight factors for job satisfac- tion; (2) mean of teachers' responses about their satis- faction with their professional work; and (3) mean of 74 teachers' reported levels of satisfaction with their social relations. (b) Centralization of authority is measured by (l) extent to which principals have a range of authority, from full to none, over the following: (i) selecting teachers for their schools; (ii) setting school policy; (iii) changing procedures; (iv) planning school budgets; and (v) determining specific teacher assignments; (2) the extent to which the teachers participate in preparing and developing the following: (i) selection of subjects to teach; (ii) selection of the appropriate time for teaching; (iii) setting of teaching schedules; and (iv) determination of appropriate teaching methods and techniques. (c) Formality in the classroom is measured by the means of student reports about the extent to which they behave formally in the classroom, indicated by: (1) having the same seat and being required to sit next to the same students; (2) not being allowed to talk to each other while working on assignments without permission; (3) not being allowed to move about the room without permission; (4) not being allowed to leave the classroom without per- mission; (5) generally working with the class as a whole rather than independently; (6) working on the same lesson as classmates (having no choice in this matter). (d) Parental involvement in the school social system is measured operationally via: (1) mean of teachers' 75 reports of the percentage of the parents who want feed- back on pupil progress; (2) mean of teacher reports of the percentage of parents known by them; and (3) prin- cipals' reports of the percentage of parents who are known to the principal. III. School Social Academic Climate Variables Climate variables were well developed by Brookover et al. (1977, 1979). The researcher in the present study, administering the varimax rotated factor analysis pro- cedure, derived the same sets of variables on the basis of item loading. (This procedure will be discussed in more detail in Chapter IV.) School social academic climate variables are Operationally measured by three cluster variables: (a) Student climate, as measured by five main variables: (1) Student Future Evaluations and Expec- tations (SFEE): this variable refers to how the student perceives his friends', parents', and teachers' expecta- tions for and evaluations of his future performance as a student; (2) Student Perception of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms (SPTPTN): this variable refers to the degree to which students feel that teachers emphasize academic interests and teachers' commitment to push stu- dents to achieve at a high level; (3) Student Present EvaluationsamniExpectations (SPEE): this variable refers 76 to how the student perceives his friends', parents', and teachers' expectations for and evaluations of his present performance as a student; (4) Student Academic Futility (SAF): this variable is an indica- tor of the degree to which students feel that they are capable and can succeed in school, as represented by a low sense of futility, or the degree to which students feel that school impedes their abilities to succeed in schoolwork, as represented by a high sense of futility; (5) Student Negative Academic Norms (SNAN): this variable refers to the degree to which students perceive that there is a tendency among students not to do well in achievement terms because they are afraid of the reaction of their friends and others in the school. (b) Teacher climate, as measured by the following variables: (1) Teacher Future Evaluations and Expec— tations (TFEE): this variable refers to teachers' perceptions of how many of their students will attend and complete high school and college; (2) Teacher Perception of Parental Concern with Student Achievement (TPPISA): this variable indicates how teachers perceive parents' expectations and levels of caring about their 77 students' performance; (3) Teacher Evaluation of Acad- emic School Achievement (TEASA): this variable is an in— dication of how school academic achievement has been evaluated by teachers; (4) Teacher Present Evaluations and Expectations (TPEE): this variable indicates teachers' perceptions as to how many of their students will do well in current schoolwork; (5) Teacher and Student Commitment to Improve (TSCI): this variable is an indication of the degree to which teachers and students are committed to improving the school experience for the students; (6) Teacher Academic Futility (TAF): this variable refers to the degree to which teachers feel they are or are not able to be successful in their jobs and have any impact on students. (c) Principal climate, as measured by the following variables: (1) Principal Perception of Parental Concern and Expectations (PPPCE): this variable refers to the prin- cipal's perception of the degree to which parents expect the school to provide education for their children; (2) Principal Perception of Present School Quality (PPPSQ): this variable is considered to be an indication of school quality; (3) Principal Efforts to Improve (PEI): this variable refers to the principal's evaluation of his commitment and the commitment of teachers to improve teaching procedures so that students in the school will show high levels of achievement; (4) Principal's Perception 78 of his Role in School (PPRIS): this variable refers to how important the principal sees his role in school to be. Dependent Variables Two main dependent variables are examined in this study. They are described below. The School Achievement Variable. This variable is operationally measured by using the student's score on the national final examination in all school subjects. Usu— ally, this variable is measured using standardized achieve- ment tests, but using national-examination scores appears to have significant advantages over using standardized scores to measure academic achievement (Rutter et al. 1979; Madaus et al. 1979). Supporting the use of national- examination scores, Rutter and his associates in 1979 stated that results in public examinations appear to have considerable advantages over scores in standardized intellectual tests as indicators of academic progress at the secondary level. Because the focus is on subjects in the curriculum which are spec- ifically taught, they are likely to pro- vide rather better guides to the effects of schooling (pp. 80-81). In the present study, for students who passed the examination the author used the total value of each stu— dent's scores in 19 subjects. At the level of the individ- ual student, the higher the scores earned, the higher the achievement; at the school level, the higher the total 79 value of the students' scores in the examination, the higher the school's achievement. For students who failed the examination, scores in school subjects were not reported formally and were not provided to the researcher, because these results are classified as incomplete results which should not be reported. The only information reported about those students who failed is the total number of subjects in which each student failed. On the basis of this information, then, the researcher used the total number of subjects in which each student failed to measure achievement at the individual level: the more subjects a student failed, the less achievement he displayed. At the school level, the greater the number of students who failed and the greater the number of subjects they failed in, the lower the school achievement. In order to use the two types of information about school achievement (the actual value of the scores of students who passed the national examination and the actual number of subjects failed by students), the researcher developed a nine-point scale combining these two sets of statistics. This scale was built in two parts. The first part of the scale,derived from students who passed the examination, was established on the basis that the highest score earned in the sample was 1908 and and lowest score was 1131. Since the author had obtained the actual grade for each student in the sample identified by name, he classified each student's grade to fit a 80 five point interval scale which ranged from point one, high achieving, to point five, low achieving. The second part of the scale was derived from students who failed, based on the fact that the highest number of subjects a student failed in was 8 and the lowest was 1. Since the researcher had data about the number of subjects each student failed identified by name, he classified each stu— dent to fit on a four point interval scale ranging from point six, considered high achieving in terms of the failure criterion, to point nine, classified as low achiev- ing in terms of this criterion. Under the assumption that students who passed are generally better achievers than those who failed, the researcher combined the two interval scales on one nine- point scale. This scale ranged from point one, repre- senting the highest grade earned in the sample, to point nine, which represented the highest number of subjects a student failed. Self—Concept of Academic Ability. The self- concept is viewed as a social product developed through social-interaction processes. Self-Concept is not some- thing that one can touch and see: It is a conceptual thing, and the approach to researching self-concept will depend on how the researcher conceptualizes it. For the present study, the basic theory of the self-concept of academic ability is derived from symbolic interactionism, a theoretical framework that conceptualizes the self as 81 a social product which can be tested empirically. Mead (1934) focuses on the development of the self and its significance in social interaction in terms of common symbols. These symbols are behaviorally defined, and the meaning of what we say is derived from the responses to these symbols. Also, the symbols are developed in the context of social acts, enabling people to plan their own behavior and predict others' in order to anticipate the future course of an interaction (Stryker 1980). Starting from the framework of symbolic interac- tionism, Brookover and his associates defined self-concept as symbolic behavior in which the individual articulates a program of action for himself as an object in relation to others. Thus, self-concept of academic ability refers to behavior in which one indicates to himself his assess- ment of his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others engaged in the same task (Brookover et al. 1967, 1969). Rosenberg (1965) mentions that "people act on the basis of their assumptions of what they are like, and these actions, in turn, have character- istic consequences for their lives in society" (p. 187). Thus, to Brookover and his associates, people do not behave according to various factors as others see these factors; rather, they behave in terms of what seems to them to be so. That is, in order to understand the behavior of peOple, we must understand how things seem to them. Following this reasoning, Brookover et al. (1962, 82 1965, 1967) developed and refined a scale to operationally measure self-concept of academic ability. This scale has been adapted for use in the present study. The question- naires include items comprising the measure of the self- concept of academic ability variable (Appendix B). Analysis Procedure For this research, the school was used as a higher unit of analysis, rather than the individual, because the basic hypothesis of this research is that students' achievement and self-concept of academic ability are con- ceptualized as functions of school inputs, including fam— ily background, as well as school social structure and social climate. The analysis of the data was conducted as follows: 1. Descriptive statistics methods were applied at the individual level in order to compute the means, standard deviations, and variances for 47 items from the principals' questionnaire; 51 items from the teachers' questionnaire; and 78 items from the students' question- naire. 2. The data for each school was aggregated by adding each item score at each school to get a school mean for the item. Then, school item means were added to compute each scale for each variable. Thus, the means of each independent cluster and of dependent variables were 83 calculated on the basis of aggregated descriptive statis- tics computed from variables on an input file of 1,914 students' and 394 teachers' cases. This aggregation was built under the assumption that each group in each school is composed of individual cases which are the members of a particular higher-level unit. Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 represent the aggregated means and standard deviations of the input variables, school social structure variables, student climate variables, teacher climate variables, and school dependent variables, respectively, in the 30 schools. 3. A factor-analysis procedure was used to explore the data. 4. Simple correlation and regression analyses were performed to measure the single and joint effects of independent variables on main dependent variables. (Much of the analysis procedure will be discussed in Chapter IV.) 84 TAEHHB 4 AGGREGATED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF INPUT VARIABLES 6 Family Background Variables School quu:Variables z '3 FED FOC MED MOC 1“. SIZE LF TE TQ S. SU. o .5 . 8) M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD 1 w 3 1 65 i 30 1.36 6.65 1.77 4.70 0.94 9.16 3.67 7.09 2.94 3.00 1.67 2.94 0.44 3.25 1.13 _ ~ 4‘ 1.- 3 -1 1.33 7.52 1.07 4.94 0.39 9.52 2.56 6.86 2.35 4.00 1.07 3.00 0.00 2.88 1.25 3 n 73 1.46 I 51 1.51 7.58 0.76 4.85 0.68 8.80 2.44 5.73 2.43 3.56 1.09 2.94 0.56 3.12 1.17 4 6.25 1.5- 3.14 1.39 7.37 1.05 4.94 0.35 9.16 2.51 6.34 2.49 3.56 1.34 2.83 0.51 .28 0.89 : ' " 1.‘3 3.79 1.19 7.79 0.58 5.00 0.00 9.00 3.49 4.64 2.53 3.00 1.60 3.13 0.35 3.50 0.76 L v 7c 1 34 3.61 1.25 7.50 0.97 4.89 0.63 9.10 2.51 5.65 2.11 2.08 1.00 2.92 0.51 3.42 1.08 ' “.3: 1.45 3.39 1.33 7.45 1.00 4.99 0.12 9.12 2.57 6.45 2.66 2.67 1.23 3.00 0.74 3.50 1.09 8 ~ 42 1.4r 4.03 1.25 7.21 1.18 4.98 0.20 9.59 2.93 6.84 2.72 3.38 1.67 3.00 0.00 2.50 1.29 9 5.48 2 Cl 3.: 1.53 6.88 1.81 4.59 1.16 8.40 3.01 6.40 2.57 2.67 1.66 2.80 0.42 2.70 1.16 10 5.90 1.87 3.34 1.44 7.18 1.26 4.86 0.70 8.72 2.74 6.58 2.26 3.13 1.64 3.00 0.53 3.25 1.16 11 6.38 l 25 3.71 1.22 7.10 1.17 4.84 0.69 8.33 2.54 6.49 2.46 3.54 1.39 2.92 0.28 3.54 1.05 12 6.71 1.22 4.06 1.14 7.18 0.88 4.98 0.14 8.86 1.98 6.37 2.56 3.33 1.87 2.92 0.67 2.92 1.44 13 6.00 1.66 3.24 1.39 7.33 1.35 4.82 0.79 8.49 2.84 6.55 2.39 3.25 1.82 2.75 0.45 2.92 1.24 14 6.88 1.30 3.71 1.32 7.82 0.77 4.86 0.69 8.53 2.73 5.04 2.22 3.08 1.50 3.15 0.55 3.62 1.04 15 6.30 1.57 3.27 1.32 7.11 0.99 4.93 0.51 8.72 3.38 6.26 2.68 3.07 1.49 3.00 0.00 2.87 1.06 16 6.41 1.58 3.47 1.31 7.26 0.92 4.94 0.46 8.85 2.40 6.11 2.48 3.31 1.55 3.00 0.41 2.92 1.04 7 4.79 1.42 2.25 1.27 6.14 1.21 4.96 0.19 8.46 2.12 7.44 1.93 3.11 1.27 2.78 0.44 2.33 1.00 18 6.57 1.54 3.85 1.18 7.43 0.88 4.94 0.44 8.68 2.23 6.19 2.16 3.60 1.84 2.94 0.68 2.94 1.24 19 6.49 1.43 3.7 1.28 7.46 0.88 4.92 0.48 8.56 2.78 6.23 1.93 2.75 1.54 3.08 0.51 3.17 1.11 2“ 6 74 1.67 3.03 1.13 7.06 1.27 4.75 0.95 8.50 2.47 6.54 2.36 3.13 1.68 2.94 0.68 2.50 0.97 21 6.78 1.22 3.35 1.43 7.56 0.71 4.96 0.33 8.86 2.40 6.16 2.41 2.93 1.49 3.00 0.38 3.20 1.01 22 6.36 .l.36 3.07 1.33 7.40 1.04 4.98 0.15 9.57 2.39 6.52 2.07 2.50 1.58 2.80 0.42 3.50 1.18 23 6.97 1.08 3.74 1.13 7.86 0.46 4.91 0.51 9.01 2.46 4.97 2.24 3.33 1.66 2.90 0.74 2.30 1.06 24 5.94 1.56 3.44 1.37 7.04 1.30 4.88 0.67 8.80 2.54 6.03 2.14 2.86 1.66 2.86 0.66 2.86 1.01 25 4.79 1.67 2.89 1.39 6.21 1.52 4.84 0.74 7.75 2.34 6.61 2.16 2.15 1.07 3.07 0.47 3.07 1.00 26 6.08 1.55 2.97 1.20 6.83 1.41 4.95 0.45 7.79 2.24 5.64 2.28 1.67 1.00 2.78 0.79 1.67 0.50 27 6.67 1.33 3.59 1.21 7.52 0.92 4.81 0.82 9.36 2.66 6.18 2.66 2.61 1.46 2.89 0.32 2.78 1.22 28 5.74 1.76 3.02 1.33 6.61 1.37 4.89 0.61 7.97 2.75 6.34 2.55 3.07 1.62 2.80 0.68 3.33 0.90 29 6.34 1.63 3.53 1.30 7.41 1.15 4.84 0.76 8.86 2.56 6.08 2.33 3.50 1.92 2.83 0.51 3.11 1.23 30 5.74 1.54 3.15 1.41 7.08 1.26 4.82 0.73 9.00 3.21 6.63 2.58 3.33 1.45 2.93 0.46 2.87 0.63 Mean 6.22 0.56 3.36 0.40 7.21 0.41 4.88 0.09 9.04 0.43 5.71 2.713 3.06 0.46 2.90 0.10 2.99 0.43 NOTE: School No. = School Number LF = Literacy of Family FED = Father's Education TE = Teacher's Experience FOC = Father's Occupation TQ = Teacher's Qualifica- MED = Mother's Education tions MOC = Mother's Occupation S.SU. = School Supplies F. SIZE = Family Size M = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 85 TABLE 5 AGGREGATED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES Satis- . Satis- School faction Formality faction Central- Parental Number With 1n Wit-“h ization lIn- t Professional Classroom Social K70 vemen Work Relations M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD 1 12.98 2.66 13.43 3.84 11.17 3.22 10.75 2.98 7.21 1.46 2 13.38 1.92 12.91 3.84 11.88 2.90 9.13 2.17 7.75 1.75 3 10.12 3.08 12.67 2.96 9.94 3.51 9.65 2.47 7.94 1.20 4 14.32 2.96 12.99 3.09 11.10 2.59 10.33 2.87 7.57 1.59 5. .. .13.50.13.78. ..13.50 4.33.. 9.50 3.12.. 9.00 3.851.7.50 0.93 6 11.58 3.65 13.21 3.72 7.67 2.64 9.42 4.231 7.75 1.48 7 14.50 4.38 13.26 4.06 10.25 3.47 8.42 2.15 8.25 1.60 8 13.75 3.13 13.82 4.24 11.50 4.08 11.19 1.83 8.00 1.21 9 11.10 4.23 13.74 3.45 8.80 2.49 9.40 3.44 7.40 1.96 10. .. .13.13. .3.64. . .13.60 4.69..11.38 3.11..10.50 2.78...8.88 0.64 11 12.62 2.75 14.60 4.36 9.54 3.55 10.77 2.74 8.08 1.19 12 13.58 4.03 14.18 3.90 11.92 2.61 11.75 4.11 8.42 1.44 13 10.33 3.55 14.08 4.78 8.04 3.02 10.50 4.23 8.17 1.34 14 12.85 3.26 13.71 4.69 11.08 2.60 10.77 3.09 7.92 1.38 15. .1 .12.13. .2.56. . .13.50 4.371. 8.67 2.35.. 9.53 3.344 .7.53 1.73 16 13.08 3.04 14.31 4.43 8.77 2.74 9.85 1.72 8.85 1.48 17 12.44 5.34 11.39 3.36 8.22 2.68 7.44 2.07 5.78 2.11 18 11.69 3.11 13.45 4.71 9.06 3.99 10.63 3.32 8.19 1.56 19 12.50 3.66 14.87 4.07 10.25 3.47 9.83 3.01 8.50 1.31 20. .4 .12.13..3.03. . .14.18 4.22.. 9.00 3.39.. 9.75 2.91,.8.06 1.44 21 13.36 2.29 13.09 4.54 10.07 2.25 11.67 2.74 7.93 1.10 22 13.10 2.96 13.17 4.02 12.90 4.53 11.20 3.71 7.80 1.32 23 11.10 2.73 15.45 4.56 8.50 1.78 8.30 2.31 7.50 1.27 24 12.93 2.50 13.21 4.20 9.79 2.58 9.36 2.90 7.71 1.44 25.. ,.13.50..3.37. . .13.66 4.101. 8.29 2.331. 9.36 2.65 .7.43 1.99 26 11.30 3.26 13.55 3.90 8.42 2.45 8.67 3.12 8.20 1.31 27 13.33 3.71 13.29 3.48 8.83 3.20 11.65 2.50 8.39 0.98 28 12.40 3.33 14.02 4.24 9.73 2.28 9.80 2.88 7.67 1.29 29 11.72 3.83 14.56 4.35 8.33 2.03 7.56 3.38 6.72 1.60 30. . 1.12.63. .2.34. . .13.?8 4.17..10.73 3.654. 9.47 2.69..7.47 1.64 Means 12.56 1.08 13.68 0.74 9.77 1.36 9.86 1.13 7.79 0.58 NOTE: M = Mean SD = Standard Deviation 86 TABLE 6 AGGREGATED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF STUDENT CLIMATE VARIABLES Sch. SFEE SPTPTN SPEE SAF SNAN NO. M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD 1 20.10 7.65 15.44 4.70 11.02 3.16 8.84 2.85 5.58 2.58 2 25.05 10.04 15.11 4.03 11.80 3.55 10.02 2.64 5.70 2.30 3 17.69 7.82 15.00 4.56 10.62 2.89 8.82 2.78 5.45 2.09 4 21.64 7.03 15.29 4.13 11.38 2.78 8.85 2.59 5.45 2.31 5.....24.43 7.27 16.57 5.71.11.21 3.38.11.36 2.47.6.93 3.52 6 22.95 7.40 16.10 5.70 11.66 3.20 9.53 3.29 4.95 1.99 7 25.89 9.34 15.68 5.53 11.59 3.58 10.41 3.13 6.68 2.58 8 23.48 7.79 16.33 5.42 11.02 2.86 9.59 2.78 6.09 2.38 9 20.48 7.09 15.83 5.26 10.72 2.92 8.93 2.80 6.26 1.82 10...1.21.72 8.14 17.08 4.61.12.40 3.69.10.26 2.82.5.98 2.20 11 24.88 8.06 14.48 3.96 11.65 3.21 9.89 2.76 5.87 2.17 12 27.53 8.24 18.16 5.26 12.88 3.21 11.10 2.93 5.82 1.94 13 21.39 7.26 15.71 4.75 12.12 3.00 9.75 2.71 6.06 2.60 14 22.49 7.16 17.39 4.82 10.88 3.24 10.73 3.13 6.02 2.32 15.....19.19 5.66.16.92 5.41.11.89 3.89. 9.87 2.73.6.31 2.12 16 23.36 7.02 16.35 4.29 12.08 3.19 10.10 2.82 5.56 1.85 17 17.29 5.13 16.32 5.45 11.04 3.61 8.57 2.63 5.14 1.63 18 24.85 6.94 16.00 5.89 12.06 3.32 9.53 3.01 6.74 2.48 19 29.97 8.51 15.21 4.71 11.41 3.57 9.90 2.95 5.36 2.21 20.....18.19 6.10 14.36 5.11.11.08 2.974 8.72 2.48.4.91 1.90 21 21.61 8.31 13.51 4.54 10.72 3.56 9.29 2.36 5.44 1.98 22 23.98 8.67 14.62 4.52 11.36 3.32 8.57 2.77 4.76 2.05 23 23.99 8.96 13.68 3.97 10.62 3.14 9.94 2.57 6.09 2.50 24 20.66 7.54 14.88 4.42 11.36 3.74 9.99 3.02 5.91 2.04 25.....17.24 5.22 12.51 3.88.10.80 3.404 8.59 2.63.4.59 1.91 26 19.74 6.63 14.29 4.07 10.74 2.97 9.14 2.78 5.81 2.27 27 22.18 8.19 14.37 4.65 10.61 3.26 9.71 2.64 5.26 2.02 28 19.47 5.85 17.73 4.90 11.77 3.09 9.06 3.01 5.98 2.03 29 20.80 7.99 13.41 3.82 10.97 3.24 9.14 3.06 5.41 2.15 30.....21.68 7.56 14.89 5.16.10.87 3.09.10.08 2.64.5.60 2.22 Mean 22.13 2.65 15.43 1.33 11.34 0.58 9.61 0.73 5.72 0.56 NOTE: SFEE = Student Future Evaluations and Expecta- tions SPTPTN = Student Perception of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms SPEE = Student Present Evaluations and Expecta- tions SAF = Student Academic Futility SNAN = Student Negative Academic Norms M = Mean SD Standard Deviation 87 TABLE 7 AGGREGATED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TEACHERS' CLIMATE VARIABLES TFEE TPPISA TEASA TPEE TSCI TAF School Number M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD 1 19.19 6.48 9.83 3.02 5.25 2.79 15.83 3.07 11.75 3.34 11.44 2.78 2 24.50 6.50T10.75 2.92« 6.88 1.55-18.00 2.78" 9.38 3.54»11.62 2.20 3 22.76 5.31 9.06 2.41 6.65 1.97 17.24 2.33 11.29 3.74 11.76 1.95 4 21.06 5.23 9.22 3.12 5.72 1.64 17.50 2.68 10.11 2.27 10.67 2.33 5 ------ »30.25 2.87"10.50 1.691L 8.75 2.03%19.38 1.30“13.00 3.34‘12.13 3.23 6 26.92 7.62 9.91 4.16 8.33 1.92 19.17 4.67 11.92 3.32 9.50 2.81 7 24.00 4.94 10.75 2.34 6.83 1.85 19.08 1.83 11.50 3.26 11.50 1.31 8 23.13 6.75 11.38 2.78 6.88 1.89 19.33 2.04 11.62 3.28 10.63 2.06 9 21.60 5.19 9.20 2.49 5.00 1.49 16.70 2.87 10.40 2.95 11.90 2.51 10 ------ 123.38 4.57“10.37 2.83” 8.38 1.41“17.75 2.43 10.13 2.85"10.75 2.55 11 25.69 4.57 12.23 2.89 8.77 1.88 18.54 2.15 11.77 3.39 10.15 2.70 12 29.00 5.40 10.92 3.29 9.17 2.95 18.17 3.46 11.67 2.84 10.42 2.88 13 20.17 7.02 9.94 3.12 5.83 2.12 15.58 4.48 9.65 3.15 11.25 3.82 14 26.15 5.79 11.15 3.48 10.23 1.83 18.62 2.84 11.92 4.72 10.38 2.29 15 ------ "22.60 5.41» 8.80 2.314 7.40 2.16"16.53 3.44«12.07 3.26 11.13 2.23 16 23.08 5.50 11.15 2.38 8.00 1.96 18.38 2.18 9.08 2.72 11.92 1.32 17 12.78 3.63 7.78 1.30 4.67 1.94 13.78 2.68 9.33 2.96 11.00 1.58 18 27.13 5.76 9.56 3.46 8.50 2.34 18.88 1.93 10.88 2.73 10.59 2.45 19 27.17 5.81 10.33 2.46 8.50 2.43 18.33 2.35 11.42 2.78 10.75 2.96 20- ----- ~24.87 7.22“ 9.44 2.66“ 7.06 1.69717.56 2.22410.44 2.73111.62 1.86 21 24.67 5.47 8.78 1.77 6.20 2.00 18.07 2.74 11.40 2.61 11.27 2.15 22 26.00 6.32 9.90 2.60 7.50 3.47 17.40 3.10 10.10 2.47 10.80 2.74 23 26.30 6.13 9.20 2.15 6.70 2.26 17.80 2.74 10.80 1.99 9.60 3.37 24 22.86 5.10 9.72 2.44 8.00 2.35 17.12 2.04 10.57 2.38 11.29 1.49 25 °°°°° '14.14 3.46' 7.00 2.39“ 4.14 1.46715.23 2.85+11.50 2.35-11.36 2.41 26 19.57 7.52 9.37 2.43 5.07 1.84 16.96 3.95 11.67 2.91 11.32 2.10 27 23.22 4.89 10.17 2.77 7.72 1.90 18.22 2.02 11.33 3.01 11.11 1.68 28 24.07 5.69 9.47 2.56 7.57 2.24 17.53 2.70 11.93 3.13 11.47 1.77 29 19.89 4.61 7.83 2.15 6.05 1.39 15.59 3.28 10.28 3.06 11.61 1.69 30 ------ r24.13 6.15“ 8.47 2.10» 8.07 1.71917.93 2.09 11.07 2.89711.93 2.40 Mean 23.34 3.79 9.74 1.14 7.12 1.46 17.54 1.32 10.99 0.94 11.09 0.65 NOTE: TFEE Teacher Future Evaluations and Expectations llll‘ TPPISA Teacher Perception of Parental Concern With Student Achievement TEASA = Teacher Evaluation of Academic Achievement TPEE = Teacher Present Evaluation and Expectations TSCI = Teacher and Student Commitment to Improve TAF = Teacher Academic Futility M = Mean SD Standard Deviation 88 TABLE 8 AGGREGATED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SCHOOL OUTPUT Academic Achievement Self-Concept 0f School Academic Ability Number M SD M SD 1 4.15 1.71 18.07 4.13 2 4.80 1.55 19.42 5.47 3 4.80 1.78 17.69 4.85 4 4.97 1.41 18.86 3.86 5 ........ 5.29 1.38 ............. 19.14 4.75 6 5.18 1.42 18.58 4.50 7 4.55 1.40 19.96 5.25 8 5.45 1.19 19.14 4.41 9 4.79 1.55 17.93 5.03 10 ........ 5.32 1.68 ............. 19.68 4.85 11 5.57 1.25 19.80 4.71 12 6.20 1.58 22.15 4.06 13 4.45 1.25 19.18 5.38 14 5.45 1.33 18.75 5.21 15 ........ 5.13 1.35 ............. 19.09 4.39 16 5.92 1.36 20.93 5.37 17 3.75 1.53 17.04 4.34 18 5.36 1.21 19.89 4.96 19 6.26 1.14 19.82 4.88 20 ........ 4.36 1.55 ............. 18.06 4.42 21 4.35 1.45 18.64 5.19 22 4.90 1.62 18.93 5.14 23 5.46 1.64 19.45 4.96 24 5.50 1.80 18.60 5.04 25 ........ 4.06 1.92 ............. 17.13 4.54 26 4.75 1.75 18.05 4.77 27 5.04 1.88 18.63 4.77 28 5.12 1.56 17.94 4.58 29 3.99 1.40 18.76 4.84 30 ........ 5.28 1.43 ............. 19.12 4.74 Mean 5.00 0.62 18.94 1.05 NOTE: M = Mean SD = Standard Deviation CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Introduction The aim of this study is not to examine the cause- effect relationship between independent and dependent vari- ables: rather, it is to examine to what extent these vari- ables are associated with one another. To do so, three main statistical procedures were undertaken. The first statistical technique utilized was the factor analysis, conducted in order to obtain data reduction-— reducing a set of intercorrelated variables into a smaller number of factors (Rummel 1967, 1970). This method was used to locate clusters of related variables which are relatively independent of other clusters. The second statistical technique utilized was the simple correlation, applied in order to examine to what ex- tent each cluster's indicators are correlated with one an- other, on the one hand,and with the other clusters' indicators, on the other hand. The third technique utilized was the regression analysis,carried out in order to measure the single and joint effects of the independent variables over the main dependent variables. 89 90 Factor Analysis The factor analysis technique was used to determine whether a set of variables can be reduced to a smaller num- ber of factors (Rummel 1970; Borg & Gall 1979). It is uti- lized to search for clusters of variables that are all cor- related with each other. It is also "an efficient method for discovering predominant patterns among a large number of variables" (Babbie 1973,p-328). Factor analysis is used in social science mostly for exploration and detection of patterning of variables, and for discovering new concepts and possible reductions of the data. Although the factor analysis technique is advantageous for these purposes, it has disadvantages in terms of producing factors which "are generated without any regard to substantive meaning. Often the researcher will find factors producing very high load- ings for a group of substantively disparate variables" (Babbie 1973, p. 328). The factor analysis technique was utilized in this research project to explore the data to discover new concepts and obtain a possible data reduction. The disadvantages of this technique were avoided through careful evaluation to ensure that every item loading would have substantive mean- ing for the factor; those items having no substantive mean- ing were excluded. Also, all the items loaded with 0.29 or less on the factor eliminated. 91 For the present study pals' questionnaire items were factor analyzed in order to identify the combinations of items that would produce sub- stantive, meaningful variables. The varimax rotated factor analyses are discussed below. Factor Analysis Applied to Students' Climate Items The first varimax rotated factor analysis was run using 48 attitudinal items derived from the students' ques— tionnaire on the basis of the responses of students as indi- viduals. A missing value was replaced by the variable's mean; the proportion of missing data allowed in this factor dropped the total number of cases applied for factor anal- ysis from 1,914 to 1,846 subjects. Six factors emerged from the 48 items in the stu— dents' questionnaire. The first factor was comprised of eight items loading highly with one another; their loading ranged from 0.78 to 0.47. These items produced sub— stantive meaning in terms of measuring the way students preceived future evaluations and expectations of them by their teachers, parents, and friends. In fact, the same factor was produced in the original study by Brookover et al. (1979). This factor was called "Students' Future Evalua- tions and Expectations The second factor to emerge was composed of nine items, with loadings ranging from 0.67 t1) 0.30. Eight of these items on the factor were mainly used in the original 92 study to report the students' self-concept of academic abil— ity. These items were used in the present study for the same purpose-—to measure what we called "Self-Concept of Academic Ability." The third factor to emerge consists of seven items with loadings ranging from 0.74 to 0.33. These items refer to the students' perception and feelings about their teachers'commitment to having the students achieve at higher levels. This factor was called "Students' Perception of Teachers' Push and Teachers' Norms." The fourth factor was composed of six items, with loadings ranging from 0.62 to 0.33. These items indicate how students perceived their friends', teachers' and par- ents' evaluations and expectations concerning their capability as students to do their present schoolwork with success. This factor was called, "Students' Present Evaluations and Expectations." The fifth factor to occur was comprised of only four items, with loadings between 0.69 anui 0.36. Basically, these items indicate to what degree students feel that they can succeed in doing schoolwork. As a matter of fact, these items- 'used to measure "Students' Sense of Academic Futility" --are similar to the items used by Coleman (1966) to measure personal "sense of control" with some additional items devel- oped by Brookover et a1. (1975,1977,1979). Most of the items which were loaded on this factor in Brookover's study were not loaded under this factor in the present research, particularly those items focusing on students' perceptions 93 of teachers, and of other students' feelings of hopeless- ness or lack of caring about their academic achievement. This factor is called "Students' Sense of Academic Futility." Finally, the sixth factor was composed of three items, the loading of which ranged from 0.80 to 0.35. These items indicate to what degree students hold negative atti- tudes about performing their schoolwork well because they are afraid of criticism from their classmates and their friends. This factor, called "Students' Perceived Negative Academic Norms" in the study, did not emerge in the Brookover etaflu (1979) study independent of other factors; .rather, these items were loaded on the factor of "Sense of Futility." Table 9 shows the six factors that emerged from stu- dents' questionnaire responses,and contains the number of each item and its loading in each factor. (Appendix B shows the items under each factor.) Factor Analysis Applied to School Social Structure Items The second varimax rotated factor analysis was ap- plied using 28 items derived from the teachers' question- naire, with the same method as used for analyzing the students' questionnaire. All of the individual cases were used, replacing the missing value with the variables' means, with a prOportion of missing data 10.05 allowed. This operation reduced the number of subjects for factor analysis from 394 to 385. Consequently, five factors occurred. 94 TABLE 9 STUDENT CLIMATE VARIABLES AND SELF-CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM VARIMAX ABILITY VARIABLES: ROTATION FACTOR ANALYSIS Student Climate Item Loadings for Each Factor* Factors 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Factor 1: Students' Future Evalu- O ations and Expectations .78 Factor 2: Self—Concept of 0 Academic Ability .67 Factor 3: Students' Perception of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms Factor 4: Students' Present Evalu- 0 ations and Expectations .62 Factor 5: Students' Sense of 0 Academic Futility .69 Factor 6: Students' Perceived 0 Negative Academic Norms .80 0.77 0.67 0.70 0.61 0.55 0.74 0.72 0.61 0.58 0.55 0.49 0.35 0.69 0.65 0.44 0.41 0.36 0.69 0.57 0.34 0.36 0. 0. 0. 0. 55 54 34 33 0.54 0.44 0.33 0.47 .30 N = 1,846 *Each item in factors 1, in Appendix B. 3. 4. 5, and 6 is shown 95 The first factor to emerge was composed of seven items, with loadings ranging from 0.71 to 0.37. These items were used to measure how important teachers perceive the following factors to be, in terms of job satisfaction: (1) salary; (2) level of student achievement; (3) parent- teacher relationships; (4) teacher-teacher relationships; (5) teacher-pupil relationships: (6) teacher—administration relationships; (7) curriculum; and (8) teacher autonomy. This category was called "Factors Important for Job Satisfaction. " The second factor, called "Satisfaction with Professional Work," was comprised of four items, with a loading factor ranging from 0.63 to 0.45. These items were used to measure the extent to which teachers feel satis- fied, presently,wdth their salaries,wdth student achieve- ment, with parent-teacher relations, and with the curriculum. The third factor was composed of four items, with a loading range from 0.80 to 0.53, measuring the present lev- el of satisfaction with social relations in the school. This grouping was called "Satisfaction with Social Rela- tions." The fourth factor that emerged was a centralization factor, composed of four items, with loadings ranging from 0.80 to 0.31. These items were designed to measure to what degree the systemluuscentralized control over the school's operation, as perceived by the teachers in terms of the degree to which they can or cannot participate in decision— making. There is also another variable called 96 "Centralization of Authority," derived from factor analyz- ing the principals' questionnaire results, composed of three items, with loading factors ranging from 0.73 to 0.56, designed to measure to what degree principals have authority over operating their schools. The last factor to occur is comprised of two items. Their loadings were not very high, but they are nonetheless substantively meaningful in measuring to what degree teach- ers and principals observed practical parental involvement -—following up on their children' 5 performance. Table 10 con- tains five factors that emerged from the teachers' question- naire and one factor derived from the principals' question- naire. The table contains the number of item loadings for each factor. (Appendix B shows the items under each factor.) Factor Analysis Applied to Teacher Climate Items The third varimax rotated factor analysis was applied to 27 items in the teachers' questionnaire designed to measure teacher climate variables. The outcome of the factor analysis of these items, following the same procedure as for students' climate and school structure variables, was that total number of subjects fell from 394 to 383 cases and six factors appeared. Factor one was comprised of seven items loaded highly with one another. Their loading ranged from 0.84 to 0.71. These items were designed to explore the teachers' expectations and evaluations as to how many students in the 97 TABLE 10 SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES: ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRES USING VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR ANALYSIS ' * School Social Item Loadings for Each Factor Structure Factors 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 Factor 1: Factors Important for 0.71 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.39 0.38 0.37 Job Satisfaction Factor 2: Satisfaction with 0.63 0.61 0.52 0.45 - - - Professional Work Factor 3: Satisfaction with 0.80 0.59 0.54 0.53 - - - Social Relations Factor 4: Centralization of Authority as Perceived by Teachers Factor 5: Centralization of Authority as Perceived by Principals 0.73 0.72 0.56 - - — - Factor 6: Practical Parental 0,42 0,39 _ _ _ _ _ Involvement N = 385 *Each item in factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is shown in Appendix B. 98 school would go on to high school and college. This factor was defined as "Teacher Future Evaluations and Expectations. " Factor two consisted of four items, with loadings ranging from 0.77 to 0.33. These items focused on teachers' perceptions of parental influence on student achievement. This factor was called "Teacher Perceptions of Parental Concern with Student Achievement." As it happens, the items that became grouped together in this factor did not emerge as parts of one factor in the study by Brookover et al. (1977); the first two items fell in one factor while each of the rest occurred in different factors. Factor three was composed of only three items, with loadings ranging from 0.74 to 0.55. These items rep- present teachers' evaluations of school academic achieve- ment, so this factor was identified as "Teachers' Evalua- tion of School Academic Achievement." Factor four was comprised of five items, with loadings ranging from 0.63 to 0.34 percent. These items were designed to examine teachers' present evaluations and expectations as to how many students would do their present schoolwork successfully. Thus, this factor was identified as "Teachers' Present Evaluations and Expecta- tions." .Factor five was composed of three items, with loadings ranging from 0.79 to 0.33. These items were used as indicators of teachers' commitment to eliciting improve— ment in their students'academic achievement;therefore, this factor is called "Teacher Commitment to Improvement." 99 Factor six was comprised of three items, the loadings of which were not so high, ranging from 0.56 to 0.33. These items were used as indicators of teachers' feelings about their capability to have a positive impact on students' academic achievement. This factor was iden- tified as "Teachers' Academic Futility." ‘ Table 11 gives the statistics for the six teacher climate variables and shows the loadings of items in each factor, ranging from high to low. While six teacher cli- mate factors clearly occurred in the present study, only five factors emerged in Brookover's study. Basically, fac- tors l, 4, 5, and 6 are the same as those in Brookover's study while factors 2 and 3 emerged as slightly different. Factor 2 refers to teachers' perceptions of parental concern with student achievement, and factoriBrefers to the teachers' evaluations of school academic achievement. (Appendix B shows the items under each factor.) Factor Analysis Applied to Principal Climate Items The fourth varimax rotated factor analysis was applied to the responses from the principals' questionnaire. Following the same factor analysis procedure used for stu- dents' and teachers' questionnaires, 29 items in the prin- cipals' questionnaire were factor analyzed. The result was that four factors emerged. The first factor to appear was composed of five items, with loadings ranging from 0.94 to 0.41. These items indicated the principals' perception of parents' concern for and expectations of their children in school, 100 TABLE 11 TEACHER CLIMATE VARIABLES: ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM TEACHERS' QUESTIONNAIRES USING VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR ANALYSIS ' * Teacher Climate Item Loadings for Each Factor Factors l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Factor 1: Teacher Future Evalua- 0.84 0.83 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.71 tions and Expectations Factor 2: Teacher Perceptions of Parental Concern with Student Achievement 0.77 0.67 0.44 0.33 - - — Factor 3: Teachers' Evaluation of School Academic Achievement Factor 4: Teachers' Present Evaluations and Expectations 0.63 0.55 0.43 0.34 0.34 - - Factor 5: Teacher Commitment 0,79 0,50 0,33 - _ - - to Improvement Factor 6: Teachers' Academic 0.56 0.38 0,33 _ - _ - Futility N = 383 *Each item in factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is shown in Appendix B. 101 and is the same factor that occurred in Brookover's study. This factor is called "Principals' Perceptions of Parental Concerns and Expectations." The second factor that emerged was comprised of four items, loading very highly with one another: Their load— ings ranged from 0.75 to 0.58. These items (shown in Ap- pendix B) refer to the principals' perceptions of their own roles in providing quality education. This factor did not emerge in the original Brookover study. This factor has been identified as "Principals’ Perceptions of Their Own Roles in School Achievement." . The third factor to occur consisted of five items, three of them loading very highly and two with low loadings. The five items' loadings ranged from 0.81 to 0.30. These items refer to principals' and parents' evaluations of pres- ent school quality, as seen by the principal. This factor, called "Principals' and Parents' EvaluationscfifPresent School Quality," is in fact consistent with the one that occurred in the original study by Brookover. Finally, the fourth factor to occur was composed of only three items, with loadings ranging from 0.71 to 0.60. These items refer to the principals' efforts to improve their schools' achievement. This factor is consistent with the one that appeared in Brookover's study. Table 12 shows the principal climate factors that emerged from 29 items on the principals' questionnaire, derived via rota- ted factor analysis. (Appendix B shows the items under each factor.) 102 TABLE 12 PRINCIPAL CLIMATE VARIABLES: ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR ANALYSIS ' * principal Climate Item Loadings for Each Factor Factors 1 2 3 4 5 Factor 1: Principals' Perceptions of Parental Concerns and Expectations 0.94 0.83 0.79 0.67 0.41 Factor 2: Principals' Perceptions of Their Own Roles in School Achievement 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.58 - Factor 3: Principals' and Parents' Evaluations of Present School Quality 0.81 0.71 0.67 0.44 0.30 Factor 4: Principals' Efforts to 0.71 0.66 0.60 - - Improve Their Schools' Achievement N = 30 *Each item in factors 1-4 shown in Appendix B. Reduction of the Data On the basis of factor analysis application to students' and teachers' questionnaires,aflJ.items which have substantive meaning were identified for each factor to which they are well fitted. Since the purpose of the present study is not to focus on the differences between the individuals (either students as individuals or teachers as individuals), 103 but rather to focus on the school,composed of students, teachers, and principal, as the unit of analysis in terms of differences between schools' academic achievement, the data was processed using the SPSS aggregate technique, reducing the students' individual cases from 1,914 to 30, and reduc- ing the teachers' individual cases from 394 to 30. As mentioned in Chapter III, the reduction of the data for each school was achieved by adding each item score at each school to get a school mean for the item: then, school item means were added to compute each scale for each variable. (Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 present the aggregated means and stand- ard deviations for the input variables, school social struc— ture variables, climate variables, and dependent variables. See these tables in Chapter III). By examining the means of dependent variables on the basis of data reduction, the mean differences between the thirty schools in the sample were obtained. For academic achievement, the grand mean is 5.00; the possible minimum islq and the possible maximum is9; the standard deviation is 0.62;and the variance is QJYZ The difference between the highest mean and the lowest mean is 2.51. The differences between schools:hiachievementrange from 41.66 percent to 69.55 percent. Table 8 shows the mean and standard deviation for academic achievement in each school in the sample. The ANOVA technique was utilized in order to examine the difference between the means for academic achievement in the thirty schools. The result indicates that there are 104 significant differences between the schools in terms of academic achievement. Table 13 presents the results of the analysis of variance in academic achievement between the thirty schools in the sample. For self-concept of academic ability, the second dependent variable, the grand mean is 18.94; the possible min- imum is 6.00: and the possible maximum is 37.00; the standard de- viation is 1.05; and the variance is 1.07. The range between the highest mean and the lowest is 5.11. The difference in the means for self-concept of academic ability between schools ranges from 46.05 percent to 59.86 percent. Table 8 shows the mean and standard deviation for self-concept of academic ability in each school. The ANOVA technique was utilized to test the dif- ferences in means for self-concept of academic ability be- tween schools. The outcome of one-way analysis of variance indicates that there is a significant difference in the means for self-concept of academic ability among the schools. Table 14 presents the results of this analysis. TABLE 13 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AMONG THE MEANS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN THE 30 SCHOOLS IN THE SAMPLE Source of Sum of DF* Mean. F Significance Variation Squares Square of F Between Schools 679.745 29 23.439 10.082 0.001 Residual 4380.255 1884 2.325 Total 5060.000 1913 2.645 *Degrees of Freedom. 105 TABLE 14 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN THE MEANS FOR SELF-CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC ABILITY IN THE 30 SCHOOLS IN THE SAMPLE Source of Sum of DF* Mean F Significance Variation Squares Square of F Between Schools 1872.508 29 64.569 2.82 0.001 Residual 43142.305 1884 22.899 Total 45014.813 1913 23.531 *Degrees of Freedom. Simple Correlation Simple correlations were calculated for the associa- tion between the aggregated mean of each independent variable and each dependent variable in the 30 schools in the sample. Simple Correlation of Input Variables The input variables, composed of two clusters of variables(family-background variables and school-input variables),were correlated with school academic achieve- ment and with self-concept of academic ability. The outcome of this simple correlation indicates the following: 1. The mean for father's education is positively and significantly correlated with academic achievement and self-concept. Their correlations, respectively, are 0.5158 and 0.5356. These associations indicate that the higher 106 the father's education level, the higher the student's per- formance and self-concept. 2. Father's occupation is significantly correlated positively with both dependent variables (academic achieve- ment and self—concept). Father's occupation is correlated more strongly with achievement than with self-concept, and father's occupation is correlated slightly more strongly with these two variables than father's education. The fig— ures are as follows: father's occupation with academic achievement, 0.7188: with self-concept, 0.6335. These cor— relations suggest that the higher the father's occupational level, the higher the student's achievement and self-concept in school. 3.Mother's education is significantly, positively correlated (0.4127) with achievement and with self-concept (0.4674),though these correlations are lower than those of father's level of education and occupation. These correla- tions suggest that the higher the mother's level of education, the higher the student's achievement and self-concept in school. 4. Family size is correlated significantly with self-concept of academic ability (0.3344), while it is not significantly correlated with academic achievement (the correlation is positive). These correlations indicate that the smaller the family size of the student, the higher the student's self-concept and achievement in school. 5. The number of educated members in the family is correlated significantly with both dependent variables 107 (achievement and self-concept). Their correlations are 0.3884 and 0.3017, respectively. These correlations mean that the higher the percentage of educated members in the family of the student, the higher the student's achieve— ment and self-concept in school. 6. Mother's occupation is significantly correlated --0.3076--with self-concept of academic ability, while it is not significantly related to academic achievement (although correlated positively). The correlation of mother's occupation with academic achievement and self- concept of academic ability indicates that the higher the level of mother's occupation, the higher the student's self-concept and achievement in school. 7. Relatives' education is significantly cor- related to students' achievement, 0.3252, while the cor- relation with students' self—concept is not significant. The correlation among these variables indicates that the higher the relatives' education, the higher the students' achievement. 8. Total number of teachers; proportion of non- Saudi Arabian teachers; teachers' training; principals' ex- perience; principals' training; principals' qualifications: and adequacy of school supplies were not correlated signif- icantly with either academic achievementcn'self-concept of academic ability,a1though the correlations withtflmzdepend-- ent variables were positive. Table 15 shows the correla- tions between input indicators and dependent variables. 108 TABLE 15 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INPUT VARIABLES AND OUTPUT VARIABLES School Output Variables Input Variables Self-Concept Academic . . of Academic Achievement Ability A. Family Background Variables Father's Education 0.5158* 0.5356* Father's Occupation 0.7188* 0.6335* Mother's Education 0.4127* 0.4674* Mother's Occupation 0.2286 0.3076* Family Size 0.1429 0.3344* Proportion of Literacy in the Family 0.3844* 0.3017* Relatives' Education 0,3252* 0.2749 Relatives' Occupation 0.0822 -0.0482 B. School Input Variables Total Number of Teachers in School 3 0.1255 0.1701 Proportion of Non—Saudi Arabian Teachers 0°2746 0°3203* Total Number of Students in School 0'0329 0'1755 Proportion of Non—Saudi Arabian Students 0'1894 0'2690 Teachers' Experience 0.1484 0.3560* Teachers' Training 0.2278 0.0294 Teachers' Qualifications 0,3274* 0.2480 Principals' Experience 0.2365 0.0582 Principals' Training 0,1553 -0.0661 Principals' Qualifications -0.0747 0.1383 Adequacy of School Supplies 0.1302 0.1849 *Significant at a = 0.05. N = 30 109 9. Teachers' experience is significantly correlated with students' self-concept of academic ability, while it is not significantly related to students' academic performance. These relationships indicate that the more experience teach— ers have, the higher their students' self-concept and academic performance in school. 10. Teachers' qualifications are significantly related to students' academic achievement, while they are not significantly related to students'self—concept of aca— demic ability. These relationships indicate that the more qualified the teachers, the higher the students' academic performance. (See Table 15.) Table 16 presents the intercorrelations between input and output variables. This table clearly shows that the intercorrelations between family background indictors are stronger, compared with the intercorrelations between the school input indicators. This means that the family- background variables are more significantly related to one another than are school-input variables. (See correlation matrix, Table 16.) Simple Correlation of School Social Structure Variables School social structure variables were correlated with academic achievement and self-concept of academic abil- ity. The results of the simple correlations, presented in Table 17, included the following: 110 0m 0 z H~ 0N 0H 0A ha 0H mu 0H Mg N“ fig 0a a 0 n 0 m 0 m w H o.~ mn.o vo.o- vo.o- am.o ao.o- va.o sv.o om.o vn.o sa.0 mo.o- H~.c sa.o -.o ~o.o om.o o~.o m~.o mH.o na.o monflaaam Hoocom uo sunzcma< .HN 0.H m~.0 H0.0n 0~.0 m0.0| v~.0u no.0: 00.0 0H.0 00.0 «H.0n no.0: HH.0| 00.0: HN.0I m0.0u no.0 00.0: na.0 50.0: unawuooauwauno .mamaMUCADQ .0~ 0.H mv.0 no.0 m~.0 00.0: 0H.0I HH.0| 0H.0 m~.0 mm.0 no.0 0~.0I «n.0u H0.0 c~.0| 00.0: 0~.0u 00.0: mH.0 vcwcfluua .mHDQMUCMHA .0“ 0.H 0v.0n ma.0u 00.0 0~.0n HH.0| mH.0u m~.0 nm.0 m0.0 0H.0I hn.0n ma.0 FH.0I 00.0- 0H.0n m0.0 m~.0 oocowumdxm .naudducfium .0H 0.H h~.0 00.0 00.0 no.0 00.0 no.0: 0m.0u HH.0 Nm.0 HH.0 m~.0 vm.0 Hv.0 nm.0 v~.0 50.0 w:0wuaufiuflamso .numnouoa .nH 0.H no.0 0a.0 00.0: 00.0 00.0 H~.0I ~H.0 0H.0 H0.0 00.0: v0.0 v~.0 00.0 «0.0 -.0 vcficfluue .muocomma .0~ 0.H vm.0 No.0: no.0 00.0 «0.0: 0~.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 b~.0 00.0 -.0 mm.0 va.0 mocONumaxm .muocomoe .m~ o.H 0N.o 00.0 Ho.01 no.0: mn.0 mm.o 00.0: NN.0 00.0 mm.o nn.o m~.o ma.o n.5um «annulcoz we .uoaoum .VH 0.~ vm.0 m0.0 00.0: «0.0: 00.0 0H.0 0~.0 no.0 mH.0: v0.0: FH.0 00.0 doocom :« nucwvsum aMuOb .nH 0.H v~.0 00.0: m~.0 No.0: 00.0 No.0: HH.0 0H.0 va.0 ~n.0 h~.0 .munoe “psmmncoz.§u.uoaoum .- 0.H MH.0 hH.0 No.0: mH.0 00.0 00.0: -.0I v~.0n ha.0 ~H.0 Hoocom :H muwcomos HauOE .~H 0.H 00.0 No.0 00.0 00.0: 50.0 00.01 «0.0 90.0: 00.0 macauoasuuo .mm>«umaom .0H 0.H 00.0 0~.0| H0.0 vm.0 nn.0 00.0 h~.0 mm.0 nodunuspm .mw>wumawm .0 0.H v0.0: ~m.0 00.0 ~0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .Emm c“ >UDDOUMA mo .uOdoud .m 0.H H~.0 vm.0 ammo no.0 mn.0 va.0 mufim xafiemm .0 0.H v~.0 HH.0 ~m.0 00.0 -.0 :oflumdsouo m.uwcuox .0 0.H 00.0 No.0 00.0 Ho.0 cofluaospm m.uo£uox .m 0.H 00.0 m0.0 ~>.0 coflummsooo m.u0£uum .v 0.H nm.o Hm.o coflumosvm m.uocumm .m o.H as.o .Hfin< .0604 we unaccoouufiom .N 0.H ucwsm>0wco< OMEmpwo< .H AN 3 on E s_ S m1 2 as 2 EH 3 o m a e m e n ~ 1 mmHQmHHm> UDQCH wmqm NBHAHm< UHSMDQUAN .mO BQHUZOUImAm—m 92¢ BZMZMNVmHmUd UHEmn—dud 024 mmqdemflfiw BDmZH mom xHMBé ZOHBgmmmOUmMBZH ma mamfib 111 TABLE 17 SIMPLE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES AND SCHOOL OUTPUT VARIABLES School Output Variables School Social Structure Variables Self-Concept Academic of Academic Achievement Ability Factors Important for Job Satisfaction 0’0005 0’2280 Satisfaction With Professional Work 0°1140 0'1944 Satisfaction With Social Relations 0.2936 0.3415* Centralization, as Perceived * _ * Centralization, as Perceived _ by Principals 0.0699 0.07/6 Parental Involvement 0.5941* 0.5592* Formality of Classroom 0.4157* 0.4610* *Significant at a = 0.05. N = 30 112 1. Centralization of authority asrperceived by teachers is significantly related to school academic achieve- ment and self-concept of academic ability. The correlations are -0.375 with achievement, and -0.3369 with self-concept. These correlations suggest that the higher the centralization of authority, the lower the academic achievement and self— concept. However, centralization of authority as_perceived by principals is not significantly related to any of the dependent variables. (The correlations are 0.0699 with achievement, and 0.0776 with self-concept.) 2. The parental involvement indicator, as perceived by teachers and principals, is correlated significantly (0.5941) with academic achievement and with self-concept of academic ability (0.5592). These associations indicate that the higher the parents' involvement in school, the higher the students' achievement and self-concept in school. 3. Formality of students' behavior in the classroom is significantly correlated with academic achievement (0.4157) and self-concept (0.461). This correlation indicates that the more formally students behave in school classrooms, the more likely academic achievement and self-concept in school will be high. 4. Satisfaction with social relationsimathe school is significantly correlated (0.3415) with self-concept, while it is not significantly related to academic achieve- ment (though, at 0.2936, the correlation is very close to significanceauxx=0.05). These correlations indicate that the more satisfaction the student feels in social relations 113 in school, the more likely the student is to have high self-concept and a high performance level in the school. 5. None of the factors important for job satis— faction and satisfaction with professional work is sig- nificantly related to either of the dependent variables. The correlations of the variables discussed above are shown in Table 17. Table 18 presents the intercor- relation matrix for school social structure indicators and school output indicators. Most of the structure vari— ables are not significantly intercorrelated compared with family-background indicators. (See Tables 16 and 18.) Simple Correlation of School Climate Variables A simple correlation was calculated between school climate variables and school output variables. Table 19 presents the simple correlation between each climate vari- able and school academic achievement and self-concept of academic ability. In the table, there are three clusters of climate variables: students' climate variables: teachers' climate variables: and principals' climate variables. The students' cluster is composed of five indica— tors. Each of these indicators is correlated significantly with both of the dependent variables (academic achievement and self-concept of academic ability). The students' future evaluations and expectations variable had the highest corre- lation with self—concept and achievement, compared with the other students' climate indicators. Its correlation was 114 om “u z m m h m m 0 m N H oo.H mm.o mm.0l HH.o 00.0: om.0: Hm.o 00.0 Hv.o EooummmHU mo NHuHHmEHom .0 oo.H 00.0 mm.on hm.o MH.o wo.o mm.o mm.o usme>Ho>CH Hmucmnmm .m . . . . . . . mHmmHocHHm kn ©w>Hwoumm 00 H 00 on mm 0 mm 0 mm o no 0 oo 0 mm :oHDMNHHmuucmO .0 . . . . muonomma >Q pm>Hwoumm 00 H om on mm on mH on mm 0: 0m on mm COHDMNHHmnusmo .0 . . . . . msoHumHmm HDHoom 00 H mm 0 mo 0 0m 0 mm o £DH3 :oHDUMMMHumm .m . xuoz Hmconmmmoum :oHDUMMMHumm now 00 H mm o oo o How ucmuuomEH muouomm .m suflaflna unamvmoa 00 H H0 0 mo ummocoouMHmm .N 00.H ucmEmeHzofi GHEmpmo< .H m m h m m 0 m N H mmHanHm> mmHm¢Hm¢> BDQBDO Hoomom 02¢ mmHdem¢> mmDBUDmBm HflHUOm HOOmUm m0 meBouQEH 0» 000835500 .0200 .~H 0.H ~00 00.0 00.0 0m.0 00.0 0H0 m~0 ~00 00.0 00.0 .uommxm a .Hm>m 0000000 .0200. .3 0.H 00.0 H00 0~0 ~00 3.0 00.0 H00 H00 00.0 .204 .pmo< .200 00 .320 330.0 .0H 0.H H00 mmé 0.0.0 ~00 3.0 00.0 00.0 8.0 .sHmcH ucmumm mo .awouwm .538 .0 0.H 0m0 00.0 Hm0 .80 00.0 00.0 00.0 00095 a .Hm>m 00:05.0 .0200. 0 0.H 00.0 0N0 00.0 0m0 00.0 H00 9502 0Hewomo< 0330002 .sum .0 0.H 3.0 00.0 0.0 H00 000 00:35.0 6000‘ «o 00:90 .35 .0 o; 35 0.0 $6 $5 .0880 a .130 $0me .snm .m 0.H m~0 0m0 00.0 8002\2090 .0500. 000000 .30 .0 0.H ~00 00.0 .090me a .Hm>m 0.255..” .sum .0 0.H H05 43¢ .0604 00 38:00:33 .N 0.H ucmsm>0H50< 0Hewpmo< .H S S S 3 2 2 d S a m 0 o m e m m H mmHanHm> mumEHHU Hoonom mmqdemxfiw BDnHBDO .Hoomum 92¢ mMHdem<> MBANEHHU HdHUOm HOOmUw zu.11 h,_,:..... 1...,111 .1. r5 "5,.3 9,111,399.11? L.,»,S- n 1- 31:14.31 1.5 1,11. _-.1_.,. ,1. 4,...11 L193 09-4-1“ cre- ‘ ée-fl'ui-z-t ewe--1 (afie-A'ou-Hu’ a—A'M-Y ._.+1111.u..,,1. gnu.“ (”3... 1.,111 ..1.,_,_.,...',.:¢.,;.11;,,..,111,;,. 1.91;-.. 1.13-soda“ at...» Jrn-U . Wm-fllce-e-\ a—A'm-i ce-a-fl'ekn-Y Lea‘fiew“€rh"-° dr-JJ'J-d-I al.... ,1. 1.311.114... 1.11 9,16,? L.,..11.:..,_.' ,..,.3 9,111 91.,111 g, L.,... ,5 - .1 -- .:.1:1.:.111,11.,... -11- (6.) (Cl) (Cl) (C!) (C!) (‘5) 218 139-341'135-4-4 EfiwJJ‘ere-‘ Lu".‘.e-a-“a-a-W—° ge-Jwrrw-V 1: a1,1:.'.11,. M131”. ,1.1,1...._ ,3. L2}? {mud-1' ere-W radium-t oe-a-Nekn—I twine-awam‘l-‘1 cg-aal'J-i-Y Efiw-fl‘ce-e-‘ de-A'uh-e-4 arsJ‘rku-V LBJ-brad'bb‘V-° Le-JJ'M-V .1——+.- as 411-" die: he 0.111-e: ‘1 1.,..11.;..,_a cob-3 awe-.41.;- b.» .S— =1 c. 91.31.5011,} 1219-“..- ”51111.1. rpm 1,.1 ,5 M»fl'¢:~e-‘ ammus-e-t wfl'k-Y War-A'a-a-W-° bra-“'M-Y : 1.11“ .. ”as. 14.-a war—.111 91.1.1:- 2.4.» u..- .1— == 11..,:1111.,11.1.:.1- 1 . S.,.ISJI . 29.1...." H.,“ J.:.)- 1 1,,1111111.,11.1.:1_1 .5551." ,1,,-....,.111,1.J,.....11-o 33.3.1! 2,811 .m|-\' ‘2 1.9.11) .u,5.,.111.s.1,11,,.,.11._.._.1.-r....1,:,,111,,:..11,. 1... 0‘1 A“IJJJI¢.¢,S\¢I-\ emlfhafilgfilol-t WIPQM|5§|¢I-Y ‘wimwon-o vw'rhafifiu-“uiofi'o'-V ,1 4.1.1 1,,..., 1,.,.11.111..1,1..:1.1:1s.1., 1:1,”, J.,... ,1“ :,1,: ,1 .12.: J. - 1W 1 o-J' am out-41 4:11., c.- J31 19.-11 .1 19.-11' u-n- —\- (5‘) ('1) (Q) (a) (7.) (71) 219 ce-eJ'o-J-H'iw-H-‘ W?J§li9fi-£ ”athJéfllefi-Y «14.-11.1111...“ ”an-111.811...” é‘———.-.;4 o- J—i‘ .1' 19.14“ ,..'.. 311'.» JI-N‘OJ-S 4.11- .51.... 1'13 .-....,... Jag.» - “A ‘1 3:le 31.,“ $4.53.; .13. 3.1L.“ '3“ 91.9,...“ M'O‘éfih- \ w1,1....-.1,.,..,..111,,s-..-1 ENHIwagywwlafih_Y 919,111 .1...I;,.;,§1..-o erhabyfi.gfii.-r 1 .51...11.,.:1.11:...1...1.,.11..1. ,1 “.9.“ 11,1... ,. 1. - M A “'4 W1... “‘41-..- \ "S”L-ghbaU-l 34h fiifihh‘ublgg-" W1 thJMY-9 ,fiphqu1...1_r 1 ,,'.~11,.,1..11...>1., ,.1:,131a11..,.11.:._. ,. ,.1.11 1311.11 ..1...: ,5... 1. - '1- “31%-: Aw1w-1 J91,,1.1,..1,...:-1 gamma-an —.->1—1-...=-..-&..i..4--:-1 5,371,,141 ,__1-....._.1. ,,:_...,:.11,,-...11,. 1.. . ,,.y1,.,1.11 .,)1_1., 41...... .311 11,131.11- \1 - 1,,3111111.,11,. 1.,.11 .911. vm'rk-aodl'wfir—i em|wlaayfir-\ W'metwk-V em'J-é'O-Mfir-° r—hafi-wawfiy-f .31...“ “ix-Jail 198-1L: L34“ .:.. 191-wad ..>1___.11,1.: 1,..11.,. h- ‘1 ,.11,..:11,.,.:.,.1,,:.,-\ 1.1.,,:.,~1-1 l..1...,,;.,-\' .3311!1,1.1.1.,,:.,~1-o 1...,111.1.,,-..,-r u-J‘J' 9".9-“13‘11” J' 4511.41.14.41 “fig-‘2‘“ 1'1' -¢L133 109.112» 141.3,)..-“ -‘.- (72) (73) Card No. 2 (8) (3) (O) (5) 220 .3933? ,1 ,...,,. ,,.1.-., 911.11 ,1: 1.1,,-.~11 Afi|M-\ Mfihfi'afl-' mfihfi'M-1 afiefihJI‘ao-‘e-° wM'Méfie-I €2._...Lyl8_1..,11 .1.“ 413191., «51.11.,» .13.13.}...‘12 étfi..,..:.-\ d121,..1..._.1|J.'...11;,.-£ “19.9-1 4tkfigwé,&$.=‘1"l-° 1.9-7 .J..1.,...,19199919111.,11991Faywfis1plrmuscugaI-u s.11;._5._.1.'..1;1$.1,.;1¢1..,.....n._. Jestfigorfi-\ .11.,,..:,..s._.~11,.z.11,_~,.-z J.:dlo..,.:.-¥ wawfiauusy1wd-o L.,...J_r 1:1,...“ Jr.,." 4313.91.11 ,L‘..3._..L,_.: _..11,,_-,1 .1..:,:.111,..1,..1111.,11 l..- '\'\ 11...,111 11.31.11.131- \ ignngJl ithl|,JLaSl .. t :gJJUUI zhlel,JL.S| .. V obj-Sal! J) “I“ “is J.,..." . 0 25.-,3“ 3.33“ Jul .. T s1.,..11.;..,...1U.S.1,..11,.—1.1. «3,9 ,111,..1,.11 ,j...11 ,. 1..-'\v ell-11185194133161“ ew'pBuo-Ji'oflaul exhirkuo-MWNoI—Y ell-I'dnfloooflolu’ ew'rk-uiwuiaflai-Y ,1,,-._...11,..:,a,1. 4.1.1,,-....,1,...,..11.u1_...1,1..;1.1:1s..1,.:1.».1..11,,,,,.-u mun-18.1115»; .MYIWQMI-\ .u...y1,....,.y1- : .u..~11,1~...,..1.a..1-\' oUuY|tHQoJfl—° thy|rhn5fiuunliui-f M1,)... .21.”. 1‘:- J“ .1' 6.13-1' ,4. J'J—H‘ 1°:- 134‘3- 519.14 13' ‘14-“: 15.): J. - “ s'.,:111111.,11,.,.-.-.:1...-.. (C) (7) (I) (3) (1.) (11) (12) (I!) 221 .ah———-—-——9JH1;,- 34,9..Jni d~£§nfi .. i 1a¢g~rsfl ”1;.“ dr-13453- .. \ .,.>11.11,.1~.... W’PQ‘PJJQ‘M'W—‘ £3L9~rhfl .Jn.au g). gkys._... 0 .,;:1.n tJi-a 4:19,”: ‘r‘g g;,s;.. .. Y S ~.:a.LgJ1~..—.&.HAJ 01.5! aLm$.ig «a1 aLuy; .ufin: .Lo .. v- éfiéz'r-i-\ ww1awg-y-z euJJud1a..f.3,x mldJJVKI-SQQJ'Y—0 ' l—gu-T J1*cpduihtyhyl“.3.“@QIPt-ulgafiflufl-MLJ—abal-V\ ‘1'“[g3h31fl3l5n961d‘lb4flfifl Lat-Jan 4:5“151-95-\ waygvnsey1w1o.-z 41544419..,.3-1 -.1_.S‘G.}1:.:UJ;.§.3".LS..:QJ"J-° 1.”-1' ° GU13g-niflg i;lg-J| min ‘34—‘1‘5aa eel: ggéJlr..__iJJl ‘L,-. EJSLa Crib a 2§73| ‘BKJHFJ' \,3| . 9.91119. .3135.“ m wuu1.m1wsy1¥xu1¢.m1¢1vnsq v-vr t-3L3.. \ L;ali.. i L.*Jhi .. Y lagl... 0 tifiy-J .. Y . “3.1114,. 4,133.1 “*WJH1 .1331 4.111,; MI '33.: 3' .. vr l-ila .. \ L,;L.5 .. t L.;JLE .. Y b.513- ° LIL-unl- Y ol—sfll 9.53.4ng "gfigsudel “Hid—afllu-fiukwluiwlel 91.99...-“ - wad! l-Sla .. \ IJuL3.. l. QQLE .. Y 14%| .. O lifignJ .. Y ' 3.41,; “5., “J45 “Ult’é‘fil 0.530;...” MI". filw-Vo 1:534 .. \ L,al3 .. l I‘JLE .. Y |ag|.. 0 lifiysl .. Y °Qfl|a|§filk laila .. \ L,aL.3 .. l Iglli .. ‘Y lug! .. ° |3§9gJ .. Y ° ftgiaifl 5%,; Cf‘1‘" ‘,Jg ‘anJ ‘,11,,: . gill.” flo|‘}-LH 1.43-1‘,5‘JQJ44| .az,._.1rv L.-3|a .. \ L,al3 .. l l...ngi .. Y higl .. 0 ‘3‘9lu' .- 'Y .- \Y'.. (TEACHERS' QUESTIONNAIRE) em“ ow" 4" I“! 3:51.49”, 39.-fill alfil 4335 1'." fl; MEL-l J.:-Ad." 5H Q3133: “nu-4.1M ’9“ “J “hill “H. “.3 ‘95 ’93 3 1.19-"(.3 e—h: as” 1.5 W- M‘ .r-3 134'“: flaw-w o- “a-‘B J‘: 954' 9*" H5 0' 15,311 ,a 19.5.11 5.31.11 ”11 3,5; 4,1415 1:11;... 15:11.31, - 4.11.114. 3.1.1:, 51111 4,1... nhfifi‘ouwhbflufifiws'N-ukfiefi' :‘w-‘U' 2““ 43.13%? “'3 “4 4“ ch“ 1.5 Hid-3: “NW “xv—“em 43.1“ 0:“ 1.15:“: 155“ 4.15” “M: . PH 24"- efi‘: 9.13 o- 1.9.1.11 4....1 “15h“ ual: ' 9" 515-: vfi' 9.1.11.1“, - 9.1.1.11 4.1.9. :1, 1.11.11, 11.111 4,4511 .5. ,1: 154.111 mum—4,1. ,. 1.1111,... 4,, 5:11 .mm 0' -- 415... 451 ml 998' 1913' J13 33': poise-‘9: “h" b3 0' 625‘ 45039.1“: " ‘wifl' Hz .19.: 4111;119:114. 3.1.1, 1,1,1 431,413.41 13141:. a”: 2,1 .11..“ any-.111 1,31 ' ° ‘2 ran-1 "- JV- ‘2”: ° ‘ 4‘ “Rte-3‘: 99‘9" J" J“: 155" 15:“ J:- 3.13“ 1 Wadi-19:31pm 1191-211 11.1111» 1-1 19112111113411- 1 19.1.41 3.1.,11- r £3,111.11 3.1.411- 1' 21.511 11.411-@ “.1 4,: “(1,113,114, 3431.. c-i “4111,51: 4_-.11 3.1.411 4.. 11.4111 11.411211: 1:11 - 1:15., 41:11 emu-1 aux-v1.1 122-11 .111.- c- 9.» a“ Jan-U *9".- U.» urfl' U49" 1“ «3 "493$!" Lg:- 2131.41 4.1: 1- :...11—u111u1 J. “"0. M'HL-uflkw'q‘ 9fl'M-6fl'r‘h‘e 222 (4.5) (0) (7) (9) (10) 111) kw," \‘Q-O 431,121.12-~1 11..\r,11\\4._o ,xun..u_x 35.-al...." ‘JW' - Y gin-9|." 1...”- I 1,..11A,11\v;,.w.1-.-¢ ,51,11,..:.H:.1.¢.g.r.-o 223 -\- :w-JAIL: ual-'- pull-t 111- 35' J“ .3" éb‘e‘fi” 0- ur." 1111211113..” 1‘;- J|3~ J! n: ‘93“ = u-J-I“ 6525‘ J—-‘-: 153" 15:“ J:- ‘5-‘4 :49: 5“ huh-2L.“ 1‘33 a‘ i"- 13,1511, ° J13- J9 919' 41,211,191“: :m—ufl Lafir'vx'U) :19;,5L.,J1.5a¢z-r Jil-J-M-\ G‘s-Y oa—Q.-Y 43,49,111.-r 54,-.-\ mar-xi-V =wfi'Jh-JMLrS-‘ 2.3.44I.Ja-\ al.,ht'IIY‘}.-\' .:.I.,;..Vu.ll30._\' 11.914.413.11.sz .3;1..1_..a21.,5-o 21.4,1..'u-\ alkt u-“YCP-V al.,hvull 09....1' cabanayjdos-uwxu-w wNW'bJflJ‘b-‘ 'Lbufigwfin‘d‘n‘JLpu‘J'zn-Bhwfi'”wi‘pkgudfiwlcemfi-v 0.39.13“. JBI'J_\ fil‘ufl\b§*fi-Y 224 112) 12.,..11.;._.,111-1121,1.11_._1.;.1..:1,,..:.41s;.,s_11 1....1..,.....-.'.S-\ 1...;1.._....,,.°-...-.1s-1 1.1.,11..,....-.1$-1r z..1...1u11..,..:.1,1-o .4...,..:.1,.1,1,..1..-.°.s_r ”3’ s2..,.11,12.1.2...,2,.,1.211;,__..y1, 911.11, 4:1..,11,.,: 4... 1.-1 Quhu‘fibflfifii-t 1,,2:..1'..:.1.4s2..,...11,1,:,-\ QL-J-fi'uéu‘L-aa-UfifieY-° QWhrh‘wJJH-V L243 1,,32.11.11.....12..,..11 fife-V ‘1‘" 12,11111 .1,...114_., 4. 1...”... "r. W:11 4,...114. 1. - \- .3.11$11.1.22.:.11111_...11-1 3121,4111“ 442.11.. ‘1 _-.11:.11, V1121, 4,~11_.....11_ 1' ”5) :UJL‘JI r.....z:.11....... 1,___.._,..:.,,,°.;v;11 .1,11......1.-\\ 4,.»15a2sm411 4.1.1.-v ,..-.1u1,4,s1.2..11,.;..1,;.1.-1 Jr-U'uéaJJ'ru-iw adj-1 ° flL—‘J'J ”'J 11““5 u‘ ir'rd' 4"“ 1.5 - ° J.:-i“ 1.5-*2 1.5 34".: 34“ - V 116) 1: 1....,,..:.,.2|$'. ,1"; “.211 .1,11,1_.:.r.1,1 £5,141. 5... 1.- u 111,1 L.,... 2s,1:..-1r 12:11.1..,1.:.1~1-1 2.1: 25,1.» «1,121.. 1 2,1211 31,... 43,11..- 1 (m s- 41.1. 4.9.1.1 2.1111 .-..'.,11,1,.-.°.~12s,1.:..11 2,...11, 1.31.; 421129.114... 1. '. \1- 131913.»... 43,1..-1' 1:11.12,1.:.1y-\ - 2.1:. 2s,1.:.. 4,141... 1 2.1211 2.1,... ,3,1:..-1 (m s2..,..11,,.2...1,.11.1,114,.,,,...z,.1..1,12,1..11&§,1.:.,..1.-11 111,.1;.,....,:s,1.:.._v 1n1...:1,1.:.1v-1 2.u2s,1.-....1,1.:.1-1 2,121.1:..,.....,:s,1.:..- 1r (19) c. 43.1. 4.9.21 1.9.11, 4,1.114__.'.51..,...:. ,5 2._.1.21:.-1:$,1.:.. 4... 1.- \o 111,.1:..,.....,::,1.:..-v 13311.1 a,1.:.1:1-1 2.132s,1.-..d,1.:.1- 1 2.1111 :..,.....,:s,1.:..-1 -Y- (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) 225 ‘3 5435‘“ 9.9L.“ waffle“ waywfivm 211$.11,.1'..11 194"" 1.-“ ovum-wags» 1...,°.11;,.4.‘1'._1 L.,-414.43.133-11 22111141,,1211,..14.,.-= fulgylusr.-r ‘3—‘115-915“ “3’1: O‘QS-esé.“ Q‘J‘J'J-P‘Ji “Pylo.ch5L-j$1ui-\v 1:2...,..11 ,1..11,;..11¢.4a1,,s,.41¢s.,-1 Ath'h-fi'umwosen 11.431 Jefiecl-J'wfi-J'Jfloéo'ée-V xiseel-J'afi-J'JJF‘MJLSH-° 12,23,141 sin-1‘ ..ioé- Jose Lulu)” Qwuigfé-IJJ ”1530' "notifigga—IIIL-JJI ohflwlyur L... \A 12,,11111 ,x1,1/1. -1“ 1H ,1! Z1" -t [M u.11/v- - 1' .,.>11.114.zr-,_-,.431-o magma--1 ~; 2..1,11u111,..;,41..1:.1,:4,;.112.,.11.;.. ,5..>1u12,.14.1.-11 ZH .11z1-- 1 XM “.11 ,,v- - Y ~91L"Ogl"°0gdil-° ZWKUJIXO--T 5.2.9.91. LL..." Qua. |‘,LS._. a. “Hi-saga...” Lamb“ 0..“ U" 0,115." L... V‘ to- Y' ,3! ,1 1M _\ [H 1r" 1‘“ -t XI“ VII zv- _ Y ,JLIIQZY-QJII-0 X'HUJIZO-_T 1 1,112 2,11. .:.1,.,.. 41. 4,...1141. :,..111..,..1,.;-_.112..,.11 .1. 41 21111.... W.. 1.- n ,5! ,1x1- - \ In 4111?- .. t [M 411/.v- - 1' MIQZY'b-JN—‘i Z'\\u.ll[o-_T (23) (29) (3°) '13-’11,» 1:5 4.311.112.4411 L- ugh-“Lu twat-97:3“ “fluid-9 $5.11“ 11.1-‘4‘ #33- fi (31) (32) 226 __..\L___1.. 14.913 1.31 2,1,...211 2.9.1.11 r1.u;,51_L2,1.,.2__.,.11.;.-.>11.-21..2-.9 11 ‘0’. 9.)"! fiublhfilofinfibooui-\ ”filhfilathOUS-l “Aluflloh‘fibiom_Y Ad” inn-)4.“ 030-31-5303-9 “fig’uhfll.hw3.u§_r . 9'4““? ~: 2,,1m1u.,11.1.114,.._,, 1...! 222.249..“ S.,-.1: .4. a“ ,JLUI L... v. 1... 11' ,51,1x1o - 1 KM 4.1111. - 1 1M 411111“ - 1' -v.1.114.z1'-,_-,.431-o 1'11 4.11 111--1 Single-"‘ifiL-laa ibirWWl“ng—Jllufllofl¢yflflllgdfh-Yl fila‘l“ .\ Z“ .11 Z11" - t Z-M ,11xv- - 1 gala-ZY-Q-Jfl-° zoulzo--1' ‘33..“ ....)LL.IIL....'.V‘ l. - Luz-341.931.5114“: 1.931, 12...2_.,11:1121.,11.1..~.1,.;.:_1; 9 J...” 1.1. 1,2..." _ 4| :35; ‘5' J‘Z‘. -\ [H “J! I“ - 1 1M u.11zv- - 1 ->11.114.x1-4.4a1-o Z‘HuflZo-_\‘ YJJQJ' 'haldfiiscificgéll ’5' J‘Z"_\ KM 4.1111" -2 pm “111% -1 JUIle'o-JN Z\\,,IIX¢o_.1' I’Jnfigu'n. SAIL. J. 11...,319551. amliwul‘wadgsth‘su Ls- YV 1 tie-"1:5 MI =1». 3.» 1:1.- n-m UBWI-\ rue-N UJ-IB- i 2.1. H.,.”- 1 1211.1”...311-° 119.1"...31-1' 1' 2.-1.-11 "1.1,. 111-1... 0'11“ 1.41s 2.11-:31 .aL-mdu-Aogw 41113.5..-” UB#|-\ ‘4‘. WI- Y U91 WI_Y ”he.” l.l,..1°.-£ WI”... “7-9 -t- (33) (34) (35) (38) (37) (a) 227 1: QHLH' eon-1.» um...» .11 .u 1.11:2...- ow 0.93-1‘1 1.31.1111”:- 4. - 11 UIJW|-\ WIBI,..B-¢ 84k ”4|..Y WIW1Y-° ULPIW'-Y Hfid‘mJ-aa-U'ML: 'rma'mvx—U'Q'HGA'Ohu‘L-wéV 191—Lu 98.: UK ’1', Us. 3.1.411.» “5 ioflwu abh‘“ 0'" ‘JLP‘J'J‘L‘ “A; G.,“ ' ~: .1111 41.-”12,, 1‘ L19: C.:-.14“ a» -\ ae-AIua-e-t . army-1 ‘efiwfl'o‘d-W-° We-A'M-V L‘nuh' “wpfifl'gfiqa'uhLJJ'bththOIUIHIQUQJ-Y‘ ' E.,.”uirfilfldlu 1.1.: 411,1- 1 m1.1:...,u,1-o I‘m-4-1 1,1. 1.2.5.114,1.1 1 v3“ 2,..,..112:1..1, 43.91.11 41.. ,115 ,_.2 411.1141 2.21.1 1:11- 11 1.1.14.1,1-1 15.48,“: 4.1,1-1 1211..1.1..,a,1-o lane-4-1 up“: J.:-3“; u-U’ a" 9+9 1543: 155- J'vm-J' :3; H‘ 1:" 14‘ *9.» '41.- u-u- m - " 1.1.:411,1-1 1.1. 41.1,1-1 411,1-1 1211.411,111-o 1.51:..-...1-r 2.91.51 ‘11-.»- é‘ee’: "4‘: 91,111 34.96 eke-+954- are-=1- L1H“ 05‘ u‘ L.,... I" - 1'1 1 V1.1;1.,.,1.4,....11,,..1,-...¢....-.1 2,1,:1-1..1,11,1 2,..,..;.11,,,..11$ 1...:- dew-4'15 - 1 ae-a-fl'uhe-‘ a-A'rku-V Leia-A'a-m‘lu’ lane-AlM-Y (39) (40) (41) (‘2) (43) (44) 228 9HIHIPWh—H ”’1‘,ng L034“ ohUBLALLfS—Ya WW'J-\ 2.35““-l glulfh-\' WWlaa|Y.-° LgfigoXI-JidaduT 4.121 11““- - 5,.» ,1; J,“ 419.11 “bum: c.” ”3.11 L.,.ul “has Lyurs-n 'ffiiLiJ-olb. uwwu gluing-‘1 5915“»..V Lu-...‘m'&¢h|Y—°' MW'M—V smmuwuwwmzwgnnuagmg-rv LefivW'JS-\ M1uaq-z stvxulh-r ww1aa1y-c erh.-Y 9 ‘2“!- ék-ad uh- Jr-J'J H'J-fl c5; u-l‘ L... '- 2.31.11 ,5.\ W'Uhf-t W'fh-Y ww'aa\Y—° uw'“4" Hfiurl lit—é.- rL—NI w Sgt-LI...‘ inn-30%| “.1: 151-1).“ u.“ Huh: 3"“ 991$- Y‘ ‘ 'fisfiblvk‘ .m' Uw'fla—fié'u‘h-IU‘AJJBIJ‘WJ LOU JMJ'- \ 1:» “£141-! 31,1-1 J—d 3.19.. 9J3 tfl" 2.14".“ “a ”she'd” rmy| J.:” 9""... JJQY' OL’L" .. l’ ' nubzrfl' 1.1.: 911,1 -1 13,-.91-: 511,1-1' uawgm,»,1-o 2,1,71;,..5t.,,a-r -\- (45) (46) (47) (48) 229 2.15-13.11 ,1. 51..., 5,1 2.4.11 .5. «5 "area-r... “3,5,2, 5.5.111 ”.71 .L_.1_,1 .1... 1. - :1 1: 1.1....“ Lyn .1911 5.... .\ .Ly1u...,-z 4,119....1 1.92.9719...1y-o w.1,y1....;-r ”1.5”“ L,‘—‘|x 0' 3.1).)“ 0.30 U‘HSH.L>__‘ éfijn: [£4.11 J"’ “:1.” Jul“. Lo -1." “23.611.29.19.“ 11...,“ 9|... Loan bLgY| a... -\ 0‘9““- 1. oLflIFE-n- Y WOHY|&.a-'y-° WOHy'h“-V V—a 1...... .1”. .h Luau m .1 Mama- rm: 1 M'er' 4.4.11» L- - tr yum-1 "e‘l'u‘H-‘ L.;-Mums WOHY‘@h|Y—° LafittIgY|uind-Y 1 U...“ .5 fist-1| m a» awe Lg; oLfll .fi .\ 4.33.03.51.- l OLQYIFKQ.-Y Wot-filahly-9 WOLflIM-Y rung) u“ d) b-z-éxu-a-h-Sdl-HJ-‘Jufl'J-‘fl' 1.» “re- gm” '59-" u‘ *3- -1° «31:11 4,..114 . .11.. a. .11..” 41.12.11 “5.39.1,“ h,11‘,,.:._..,1.,~11 .1,...11 : a»... ..LJA. J: :..1,'.,L_.1,J,w4,...11g,.1.n:...1,z,1.1.,u.;¢1,~1 - 4.1.11 15.1.1.L=z1,au.,1.,.,11,,:, .u.._,.1.<:.,L,.~11,z,d,.z,:1.1c.a--J.11,.11.:.__.;,.J.L_..wq;ml.,_..n¢.m -V- (45) (46) (47) (48) 229 inn—3’39.” 111‘ ‘H 9' 111-.34“ 05.. ”l MIC-flu..- Uri-,3: (”3| JJ‘Y‘ al....lJ‘ 4.5 L. .. £\ 5' lot—.11.“ Lgfi.L:y'¢"-.-\ oLgY|ufigg-t o.7|rho-" WOHY|Ooh|Y—° WOHYI“-T ”.3.le I95.” QI Lava-ll oflwfiilfigl‘)...‘ ¢Jnijn°n ‘3‘” JJQYI oy‘.‘ 4.15 L... (T s.§_.1$11.2:..1..11u.,11z:1.; C. 90Lfl|w-\ WoQY'Q.»IY-° \gfinfll—H-Y q-—5 3":4“. “we a“ L.,-U 05“ «5 fi-‘H’JP r04: Y Lei” J.:-5" “9.9 .1... ‘- - U' Lyn-was“ amuse-t wowrsu-V 1._.,r..1,y1¢...17-o 9:.g714.-r 1- z-w .2 row-.1 ar-u' ar- 111..» Lafit‘ngfi-\ 0.Y|uén.¢-l oLflIrhn-Y L995.Lfl|0o¢nl7—° LgfioLfl'oJA-d-\' r“: (c) a“ d) 0- ie?» cud-$4M“ umJ'U'J' u‘ h».- q-‘U' ’39-" u‘ ‘93- -“ gim' 4.1-'5': ' ‘1“ 0‘ db.» 4"“3' u‘ “H‘JJ‘ 1r” #4:. J.:" J.:-'4' = £24.,“- .1... 11¢ JS 34“: 34.-U J.:?“ 4,..." 0.1-35 34H: 19“.“ 4530' 393‘ ' J-“' '50-: d‘mi'.’ 5L3.) 3+.» u" .24: Jr.,. 1414.11 ,1”, 3,114,. -- J.11,.11.:.___. o- 4... 4:1 @m1.,_..11;,.m -V- :eJL-J‘diLih, Z.%,. ) “fidfill.{,.ng “1.1.1113.“ ‘50) 1.5.3:. \ canny: baullcflh-\' . 9..-: JILYIUkcimké_o (521 , c“- ~19" -\ 9-x louwllcéflo-\' sign-‘ w11$p$-o 54 igniJa.. Y ngé-t .‘Ifi'll A :“JQ#._ O (56) ,*¥’_\ Keir-Y haull'gnb).-\' Qxé-i agnin’o.. Y La 4n."" I:-fi,n.—.Y Wxi-‘ wV'uhlfiraé-° 230 J‘H' 19" 5.1- ) J.,?! 4’..." 4.1,.“ ( Gnanq GhlUil"’i |J9.f..._ \ f“" Y LYLU'HH‘" rouge-t all-V'uhro‘Jé-° (51) (49) 931,11 _ 1 GP-v gilLJ'hkmnnfi "9'f“" \ f“" Y Lind'w-" ”#3-! (gt-AIJOLIY" .' . aux-M-.. 3“... Y I. A..‘," 1....— Y hg-‘ .SJUSYI u;..z...“,3.. a (55) Q—fi'wm|-a l...1..... \ 1.....-Y L. a..‘," Z..... Y “$-l ‘§IJFI|“Js 2...‘J,i... ° wl‘,’ . 1.19-.14" ' (57) ’ . ‘Jfi fiti.” ..A1 499...-\ in...- Y haunt..-" I... Jgé... 1 ‘jJUHY|“Js I... 495...“ (05) (03) 231 (5°) 1.29,..\ 399“” 1.-qu 29.4.-1’ Frgi-i WV'uhle-érai-° (‘3) 1... u....,...\ “fir-Y W&-‘ Wy'uhu-‘rJE-° (641 L1. . _\ .u-r Unix-Y L...,,11,..,-v wirxi-l- wwwexg-o 1.1.9.1.»..1 myluucul 15.9-43-1 L.;-11' c3 12.-3J9“: Jew-1“ (g: 131-1' - J (59) |*z*_\ 1...-1 L.-,.112.,.-r Magi-t WY'uki-«xéfl “.14..“ 3.31-3, 1...”..-1 fl..-" 1...‘,11|..._r row?“ all-V'ukro-aé-° u...,.1.1.1 q...“ 4:13.71. C (63) (Cl) 1..."..-\ ”-1 1...,11H..-r maid wY'ukH-‘xé-° .é—r Jan" .111 ah: L04” «'1- ..s «em- Awash—4m 9,1 cud“ ._ ”a: .1 oS-gh— u “in.“ '5‘ “Li... 1.1.:31,1-\ 31,-1' Qb?lo.£t.,§-f Ywfl'om'fiF—‘U'Jer-d‘au|ufl-tv -Q- Ula-\ UB-Y Rizal-" 232 “6'” u..._.,.1:11.L_-.:1 Js J__..iJ| 411.4... ,5... ,1 "11. u @SMUIJ-\ flmh'xU—i fiMQu-V laws-mun Jaw-awn? ‘63) 9.11.114... .1,,¢.1.,,.;.,:11.11..¥1..1.:..§-1\ 231.11.519.31... 13,1... 41.1.1 .311. .4 2.111, 211:. 41.1.1- 2 .1311 r1...; 9.111, 21,1... 41.1 - 1 .111. $111.11, 41.1.71 .11.: .. 9 1.1.11”... 2.9.111, 13,1... 41-1- v s“ L.;..11..1..,.>11.111.,,.1:_111.1wggm1¢1y1a¢u§§m¢-u-o. I49”.-\ 3111.11,...»1-o 1.-,11,.._1' 17°) .,.111.11,L.:.1,'.1..-., |*"o-\ ”$-l fog-Y “11*"..-0 1...,11,.._r (71) ‘JILU 3.3.1,.“ 3;.“I-.. [*Lp\ “$5-1 3....-Y JILYluhwxi L.;.UJI.”._Y (72) 9.4.1.5 13.3.1.1.131.-. I49”.-\ ”’35-! r..-Y “7",Jsffifi-‘ haunt..-" olfl'fi-‘ I" ql'p-t XV° yup-Y '*Jfllw-‘ Z°°q-":--" -\°- (PRINC IPALS ' QUESTIONNAI RE) (9)-“119;" .111... 21.1.11 1.14.111, “421-1,." 1......1» yrh’hi'...‘ u—m' W'vfifi ‘11-’55“: rad-J'H' d .11....ng 1%..” u“ q—‘ L4- 3.1.)... ow‘J': car-:4- or “which-155‘ W'ré c' 3.1.11.3 3,1. $1911 1.5.1.0. 1311.11,)..1141 0.1.7155, 51:11 “9.3,, x3“? r-He-e-a' ‘4- at“ Java-“flw-I-“a'H-JW‘Jfi Muh'fl-d'fi ”19.15“ '—D’-~e Juli“ 'i'écbi 153*" 42‘“ “her-r5- 525; 1r»: 0': 4'”: :5: J . 2.1. 31.269111 2.1.41.5», Lola. 54.5.1..- Clp; hf Lpfiic, LbaL...‘ 1.25.1.5 - p.111 $112.1, 915.411. mvaJw u11.1.1...1..111;...,..1, a,,_1r.11 .1. u,1.._a,....-.11 “41,311,... 1.11.1.1. a... .5111 -1.:1;.11 c,1 1.31.13 .1, "1, War-A”): .1 madam-J1: xvi-111.141: «La-J1 Jr,____.111;1w.5 4...”; 11,1 .15....11...1.,1_._-_11‘|;1 413.49 .9141 91., 1'1 J.__..‘.“;JJ' '3," J,» 3194:)” 4.5.1:; JJ‘ c—LL. $9.35 0.1.3, gl~|fisb : «fir—u .11:- «w, . «112.11. 1.1, -11.. ~11 .1.» 2.,...,..1S 1.... .1..- “2" 1.1.1111 21.11.01“. ., ulaafl 21.)." -1 ' L-ém‘mfl' -Y Lw‘e-J' 3hr” -1" 1.1.1.11 21.,” 4;) (09.1%» 3,114,321.. 31.-Ja- 91,...5 J.:..S 1.11 I “55*: J's-1' .3 eta-“'5 (5:45“ gt;- ’5 PM we .1”.5.111'..,.1 U1. .J,....U 2.11.... 3.1,. 2.41-1.1!» a- uruv'tke V‘ r“ .2 2.29.11 , 1,111.11 41.1.1 “2,21 .11....» .111... 39.5“ H/Jfil 1" but. 233 (3.4) (5) (6.7) (8,9,10,11) (12) (13) (14) 234 .)~LJL:’L‘- .béa' fSJJ'sIh‘Eig'dtb55*“lléb .J”;-.JSJ.LE5 o.u-!, .ghyi‘fusl.;u_‘5‘p, . udJi,-§JL,...L;J1.¢L,)U “pg.“ ~Jcléd‘ -1 ‘——-& -Y OH -r ( ) ‘19-“4' Qru-*-’ ~353'c5-e-J' ( ) ‘-fiu'*J' JE'DtJ ngJ'€:“P‘J' . Z.Q.&J‘ 0J4131'Jfl ‘? ¢1§1'3i- L.;.ji ufiJ'u;Ep__H .14; u— 11- an.-. J5'3“4'-':“-*-1 25'3'4-112-0 9%:J'Ycr-Y u:§.;.w_.,l' o ‘9. 1." L.,},I L.,."..1.,.J,.,JL._-....; £195.11 W'W' ‘F-iYJ'fio-t 451,1..1..1,.-.. -1 FUN-11.» ~=-':=-1..J'1a- -1 -\ -Y’ -( 7 91...... an: Ja'r uh'y'L -v thJ-D'r -1 (madu-LP J-D’r -T Hu'crdi'a'upL-J -1' .nfihflPt-J'zén1‘ 1-i (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) 235 Y LJJJ'Oi‘J 1),.u4ngg-JW 95...; -A La. 1:” Wye—“5-: 'dg‘A‘A‘G-i -1 2.1L.~JL “LE-J.:.‘H -9 Lou" a.m.-9.5 -1’ 93...).14‘ ZJ‘JY‘ Jb— ‘f’LéWJig'aébJJ .4 orb'd-wxc-J-b -1' wau‘db‘y -1 ’51,”,1’» 431,1 L—o“ 3.;.,.1.:119.,..~11:..I...11, JsL-gJ'f’: 5.].L-‘ o ? 2.9.1..th w.1:.:1..1$z.,.11,,:., -1 QWLfiflLJ'h-Uffiv -\' gut-J.: LJAUjfi -1- “NLrLAnZ—pjd-Ujfi .{ 0: " ”a; «Wed-“2.9? -. Hi” WJJ-J')téb| 3.. GD Jfigbloehd 9.3) Y 1.1L'..J.1. 4% 0.134.... W’GL’LJf‘.’ -T 94“ 9143-3 Jun" - y -\" Qfiqfl‘flkd'fidfl J’szc—LplocLJ J... -111 . Y 44:35... d-U'Apiau’ . I... -} zdgkh—SJ’LDLJH; -Y wubxm J.,-4.11 -1- (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) 236 M' $141191”). Y'MdJJ,“ 39.1.1.9.ng J.» -\‘.' {-0321 ALIS-(’DLUJ . '41.: -1 0.134.. W, 91. qu~ -1' whw-Xaq' J.:-J .34- Lr-Ji-‘a Lad-“1.59:- J'a'éUng-é: 93.91-11.41 J-b -1: .LISL-DLo Q1... -1 OJ’JA-LV-SJ’E’DLUJ o ruin: -T ‘J-J'Q‘o-N-‘zc'gld .3 -Y' wJfi‘WWLaJ'waJfiL-LwJ—D -\o 1' L94." 0.1.95 .LIS'APLJ. .11.: OJ)“ Lr-f-biehl‘g’ or” why-LL'Jm-J-‘J -1 -Y -1' " wfl'ao’fi-J'w 354" ' Jrr'ad-J'JJ'V J. -\ $1.21!va v“ -1 rU'Uf-J' J u-fi -1' W'a—Ji'w- -t 3&4" ' Jua'd-Jnr' 0' u‘ -0 1.:JL.'..J.141¢4,L.11.,,;_11M¢15~¢-,1 ,11 1 91,111.11. 91.11.11... -\Y (25) (26) (27) 2237 - 1 - )LP“*3~rD"“J' QLJQ' Cr' “,9‘..JU anJ‘.4,:.—J‘ ‘9 .9341... 9,5: 9‘ ‘95-‘53." uM’LfiJ' JHFL " e-‘W‘JM 151-aw H490 .5. 23.1.11 .ijNJJ‘a-afi'o‘J-e W‘aJfi‘wSJo'é-r “ru‘dfi-J‘ Jwfio‘é-c W'vdi‘wS-‘o'é-c 3354' Jw'J-Jflr‘afi-‘a'é-e -\ 1.94-J“;J5 0.51.51ng5“ 2...... 9". c ‘1'...“ dud-L7“; 1' (11.111.11.10141... 9; 21.13.1110. b.5111, 2'13“.)- 110 J‘fl-vo- ~.—>U=J'cr 111-q" 111:1- vl'e-“o- 11. W11.- vm‘aIY-uJ‘iHa- vw‘o- x11; 1:" {Ho- wag-151.1111... mm 01., c1 .13.: k.111 ..1u1.1.1,.11.1..s1,..u wwwdl q; 31.-.11.:1,1.,.)la1ct..1,-,..1;11¢L.‘1$ . -1 -1 -1' -¢. -1 (5“ '4'”: 34‘5“) '9‘” Owe-9*“ ‘15P 951.41.1191 4.241.311 1.4.4... “2112.)...” . .1 ....,...11 4,45 .1..11115.u1 -\ -Y -\.A -\ Q .1 . (28) (29) (30) 238 -o- -1,,1-..111.1qu- win-111 -1- . .d .ezf.J'.J,,.J§.2,4ui.:11hrd!i~;!JLguL| flrfiv'“J'“rJLLJ";lPu" -£ oooooo...(OJ-I.)fi~uy'.-L.RI‘T‘L‘5 -9 =£::!Jl§aiLgcthfl‘iU:.-Y1‘y..J”5...JS ”#shgqn'diLéi‘g- «Uh-1".- " Padr- 'fi'Jcé-e'w-i': J" -- J9 i=5 N": NJ.» ,1de «1911411191»: gS—“JJ' 9.1-A.“ J.,—5.4“ g’h’JL c (LI-"$.53“ Q. I 2.9.aJ' oJJb.§quJLEJ'.g.1u~Jb; fL.._11.'.....,;.,11 0' J51“, #3.,wa L.,-.11 .59 -‘1 2...... -.....-,. 1.41 .1 Lad-3' 41.-11.1,11‘1111 ,_.1¢1..11._.,.,.,1.1., 1.31-11.1- h,...L..~11 1.1... .1111! 4 1.1.; .1111 -1 “4 'ififia‘ -0 J“:' -1 fL—BY' 43‘ Win-J44. 0.3.. JVMI,“U’| ~ rah-'4': W' 0- '4'.- “V: W abet-“‘1' Jam 6")” -t “1‘ @‘3' -1 1.1.: “1,11 Lag-.51 -. ‘ 31,1 -1 «cl-.- ‘1‘ o- dfl-i-Jé -\" -Y) -Y’Y -Y'V (31) (32) (34) (35) 239 -1- w—Jfi 0.51.112...” 0.3... Jugw‘y‘YU" Jul": ' 1’ .L.J1'.°.-1:.11 up, .1151..qu Q. 'Lemd‘fi -£ ka'l-c‘l‘cn? -\ twis’lq‘N-a. a.” .. ‘LY‘ r11... -11 H.511)... -r wife 011-3” 1194-” “3* va‘n—“Ufi “‘15 1' i..b_.J1'do,'.J1JLS1H:L-.Jg- 'Lr‘J‘JU-e -t W‘Hi‘w -1 "43" g- .1.” -o ‘Lc‘J‘ {Ju- -V _ ‘Lc‘l'J-a: ~1- wJLg‘J 0,31.“ 2.).“ 0.3.. 95.1311”... “U31 4.»; {L.‘J 41145—3190 6,.)olqua ukfifl-J J3...- °L¢"J‘-1 -t Lyjs'h‘lit... -1 Lwh’h‘fi a .1.” -0 'LJ‘ fl»- -1' 11314.: -1- ”ALE; 01-3.“ in)...“ 0.3.. JvXH‘y“U,YJJrS via—:— 0‘ waW-vrb-flcik “Jr-b: Lad-”41'9“- 1 1.1.1191 rum r-‘J’i‘ 11.11.... -1 1.0.-1.11.,- -1 peas-1.31,, -H -., 1151,11... 4 . “p914. _‘. 0..- J‘iiéi' H" W); 01-3.“ 0.1-)4." 4.83.9.5 q“- 1 g,“ ...,.1. 91 $.11, 2.9.11 .5. -Y£ -Y'l uYY 411 (36) (37) (38) (39) 240 1‘0 U“). “i Lev-i; WJ-vl-"JS - L03: 0' Y -9 we w,» -x {be a“? -T' ‘-—~;—‘91-‘ri-DL3') WJH‘O§WWM|».' .. {-9.930 W'JJJ‘uth‘ “(Mad- a' a“ «U, TWJJ-Urgsgkquh “LL. 1" '49 Lb',‘u..3 -£ “Dark-i 55151" g“ Lb'r'u-J -o {-9-- -\' L»- J'r-r- -" -Dl—“aJiJe-u-uhl‘tw ¢|4's‘.'...:.a.g'|uJ| Y LJd-J' o-LrJ' ”kw-grew.) qLi-UJJifi‘s-t gwflsgb- .3121! unfit aw: -. ”55:1;- J.:.U' ‘ .-r gJ—JEJ‘ J...“ J,- WJd¢bV riL, J"; a. a! u,” 7 Lad-J. 0.1.. qgm' Ma’s-pct) 'JaJ‘JIL 54‘; -1 Lu, 9.5 ¢lpfl Qp - csfiugLIg‘g-w“ guysrhqaq al.-“Jag? -\" f 0.94-"0.3.. ¢-?'M::ej 6,53." Wu-‘L'Jb- 'QO’Sngi"- um Mme—em-.. gust-saga -\' JJ-‘J‘ clamp-h- J -'r -r. (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) 241 3———a:-' J‘i‘fiw-‘H ax" o' a—a— 4- a' J‘ ? .rJLLJ| “Lran-:.gy;.. M L.; '23:: -( '4’.- be5 '2; '19:: -s 6114;,” -. 5:5 'A‘fi‘; -t flb‘flfi'fi -r r-r-‘LP': Lad-3‘ J orLL-J': Or-JJ-J‘ce'.‘ U-‘U’ W J G31"- va'w o5 '40.- . ”sung-.11.,» 9.5411 655‘ ‘1 -£ LU 65'3' -\ LL: 'uL‘WJ' -0 @b' -' ¢—-—-—--.~'-ng' L03?J-Q”-)JJ')¢*U)=~ 4.1.0.“ J.:-t.” 0- J‘sggi—n WM WJd—H 65‘)” a “5655' -\ unlywu -. a“:' -V we” -r “fir—hm“ tw-r-Jd': LJJ-J'xd' 05L“ 05-“ O' “Hudlqflnufll 02.)...“ 94.11an 0 “91‘ $51,” -t LL; 5551 _, [By-Ll 55M? -0 65'3' -" ma"! -r ' J.:-,4...” f1..." M‘J'fi'wé‘s .Y0 -n -rv (45) (46) (47) 2112 -‘- “W'w 04.55“»l". -3 g-DLEJ‘fJL..Jo.u.[,.5laun"4‘»..x 5,)UaJI flan-J ULJi-aii 0.1..“ -\" @113.”ch E.,—:JLgJ'u‘l' oJJu-ilzfl: -1 4H Hflwu'?m‘y|.Ufl 4.8“ 0.0L -YA t r911.” 1". u",- -( Lob’td' JS -3 ‘4'.- J15 «9 -o xv. g”). 4 2”- u”:- 4' inn-Jul.“ OLD QB?WIJ".U"J"‘:L c 5“ 0.4., .4" t Hlflayiwayuh ‘ww-h-c“ e-N‘b'o' mar-1‘ r-v-E -‘ cnfiLua'.;4HF¢LS‘¢U‘L‘;It~“"‘5'.aar‘-=¢:*r‘£“" -Y USbJ' QMVPJY,' O'QWPF‘E. -1’ Jfibd‘MVfidi'a‘Wfi-fi -t W'HXH'J-‘usuPO-dwyl. (int; ‘5.” -{o C E.,-JUA- 9' f-g-S-rLJ-iq'au-gy-havm'm -\ r14$~J-.,diq'-&yr gu-L-J¢~rJLEJ'ciL- 1-Y ALJfig'QWUW'UJ -T r1-£;¢Lfi)-ih ‘dbe-.:,-L-=¢~rCXiJ'.y--555«Jr5’ ‘-£ APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS COMPRISING EACH SET OF VARIABLES I. II. APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS COMPRISING EACH SET OF VARIABLES Input Set of Variables A. Family Background Socioeconomic Status 1. 2. 3. Mean occupation of fathers of students in the school Mean level of education of fathers of students in the school Mean level of education of mothers of students in the school School Input Set of Variables l. 2. Total number of students and teachers in the school Mean number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the school Mean qualifications and training of teachers in the school Mean report of teachers about the adequacy of school supplies (tools, equipment, teaching materials) School Social Structure Set of Variables A. Teacher Satisfaction With Professional Work in School 1. 2. Mean teacher satisfaction with parent-teacher relations Mean teacher satisfaction with level of students' achievement Mean teacher satisfaction with curriculum 243 244 4. Mean teacher satisfaction with their salary Teacher satisfaction with social relations in the school 1. Mean teacher satisfaction with teacher- administration relations 2. Mean teacher satisfaction with teacher—teacher relations 3. Mean teacher satisfaction with teacher autonomy 4. Mean teacher satisfaction with teacher-pupil relations Centralization of decision-making in school 1. Mean teachers' report about their participation in selecting appropriate times for teaching 2. Mean teachers' report about their participation in development and preparation of teaching schedules 3. Mean teachers' report about their participation in preparation and selection of subject to teach 4. Mean teachers' report about their participation in determining the appropriate methods and techniques of teaching 5. Principals' report of how much authority they have over the selection of their schools' teachers 6. Principals' report of how much authority they have over the setting of school policy 7. Principals' report of how much authority they have over changing procedures within their schools 8. Principals' report of how much authority they have over planning their schools' budgets 9. 245 Principals' report of how much authority they have over the determination of specific teacher assignments Parents' Involvement in School 1. Mean teachers' report about the percentage of parents who want feedback from the principal and teacher about their students Mean teachers' report about the percentage of parents who are known by the teacher Formality of the Classroom in the School-u-Mean Student Response to the Following Questions: 1. 2. I cannot talk to other students while I work without permission I cannot move about the room without asking the teacher I have the same seat and I must sit next to the same students When I am working on a lesson, the other students in my class are working on the same lesson In most of my classes, the teacher tells me what I must work on; I have no choice In class, the teacher stands in front of the room and works with the class as a whole 246 III. School Social Academic Climate Set of Variables A. Student Climate Variables 1. Students' future evaluations and expectations mean student response to the following ques- tions: If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how far would you like to go? How far do you think you will go in school? How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school? How far do you think your best friend believes you will go in school? Do your parents think you could finish college? Does your teacher think you could spend more than four years of college to be a teacher or doctor? Does your teacher think you could finish college? .How far do you think the teacher you like the best believes you will go in school? Student perception of teacher push and teacher norms--mean student response to the following questions: a. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many tell students to try hard to do better on tests? 247 Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many tell students to do extra work so that they can get better grades? How many teachers in this school tell students to try and get better grades than their classmates? How often do teachers in this school try to help students who do badly in their schoolwork? Do you think the teachers in this school care more, or less, than the teachers in the other schools about whether or not their students learn their schoolwork? How important is it to teachers in this school that their students learn their schoolwork? Of the teachers whom you know in this school, how many tell students to do extra work so that they can get better grades? Student present evaluations and expectations-- mean student response to the following questions: a. Think of your parents. Do your parents say you can do schoolwork better, the same as, or more poorly than your friends? How good a student do your parents expect you to be in school? Would your parents say that your grades would be the best, the same as most, or below most of the students when you finish high school? How good a student does the teacher you like the best expect you to be in school? Would your teacher say that your grades would be with the best, the same as most, or below most of the students when your graduate from high school? Think of your teacher. Would your teacher say you can do schoolwork better than, the same as, or more poorly than other people your age? B. 248 Student sense of academic futility--mean student response to the following statements: a. PeOple like me will never do well in school even though we try hard. b. People like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want to in life. c. In this school, students like me do not have any luck. d. You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school. Students' negative academic norms--mean student response to the following questions: a. How many students don't do as well as they could do in school because they are afraid their friends won't like them as much? b. How many students do not do as well as they could do in school because they are afraid other students won't like them as much? c. How many students in this school make fun of or tease students who get real good grades? Teacher Climate Variables 1. Teacher future evaluation and expectations-- mean teacher response to the following questions: a. What percentage of the students in this school would you say want to go to college? b. What percentage of the students in this school do you expect to attend college? c. Completion of college is a realistic goal which you set for what percentage of your students? d. What percentage of the students in this school do you expect to complete college? 249 What percentage of the students in this school would you say want to complete high school? Completion of high school is a realistic goal which you set for what percentage of your students? What percentage of the students in this school do you expect to complete high school? Teacher perception of parents' concern with student achievement-—mean teacher response to the following: a. How many of the parents of the students in this school expect their children to complete high school? How many of the parents of the students in this school expect their children to complete college? The parents of students in this school are deeply concerned that their children receive a tOp-quality education. How many of the parents of students in this school do not care if their children obtain low grades? Teacher evaluations of academic school achieve- ment--mean teacher response to the following questions: a. In your judgment, what is the general reputation of this school among teachers outside the school? On the average, what level of achievement can be expected of the students in this school? How would you rate the academic ability of the students in this school compared to other schools? Teachers' present evaluations and expectations --mean teacher response to the following questions: 250 How many students in this school will try hard to do better schoolwork than their friends do? How many students in this school try hard to improve on previous work? How many of the students in this school are capable of getting most A's and B's? How many students in this school are content to do less than they should? How many students in this school will seek extra work so that they can get better grades? Teacher-student commitment to improve--mean teacher response to the following questions: a. Do you encourage your students who do not have sufficient economic resources to aspire to go to college? How often do you stress to your students the necessity of a post-high school education for a good job and/or a comfortable life? Do you encourage your students who do not have sufficient academic ability to aspire to go to college? Teacher academic futility--mean teacher response to the following: a. It would be unfair for teachers in this school to insist on a higher level of achievement from students than they now seem capable of achieving. I am generally very careful not to push students to a level of frustration. If I think a student is not able to do some schoolwork, I don't try to push him very hard. C. 251 Principal Climate Variables 1. Principal perception of parental concern and expectations--principals' responses to the following: a. How many of the parents of students in this school expect their children to complete high school? How many of the parents of students in this school expect their children to complete college? The parents of the students in this school are deeply concerned that their children receive a tOp-quality education. How many of the parents of the students in this school do not care if their children obtain low grades? How many of the parents of the students in this school want feedback from the principal and teachers on how their children are doing in school? Principals' perceptionscfiftheir roles in providing quality education--principals' responses to the following: a. b. As principal, how much effect do you think you have on students' achievement? It is the principal's responsibility to work with the teachers to insure that their students achieve at a high level. When evaluating a teacher's performance, how much importance do you place on teachers' students' academic achievement? It is possible a principal, with the cooper— ation of the teachers, can change a low- achieving school into a high-achieving school. Principal perception and evaluation of present school quality--principals' responses to the following questions: 252 a. With regard to student achievement, how good a school do you think this school can be at its full potential? b. In general regarding student achievement, how would you rate this school as it is today? c. On the average, what achievement level can be expected of the students in this school? d. In your judgment, what is the general reputation of your school among educators? Principals' efforts to improve--principals' responses to the following questions: a. How often do you meet with the teachers as a group to discuss ways of improving student achievement? b. To what extent do you think teaching methods affect students' academic achievement? c. How often do you suggest ways of improving students' achievement to your teachers? IV. Dependent Variables A. Mean School Academic Achievement--mean students' score on the national final examination in all school subjects Mean Student Self-Concept of Academic Ability-— mean student response to the following questions: 1. Think of your friends. Do you think you can do schoolwork better than, the same as, or more poorly than your friends? Think of the students in your class. Do you think you can do schoolwork better than, the same as, or more poorly than the students in your class? How good a student do you think you can be in this school? 253 When you finish high school, do you think you will be one of the best students, about the same as most students, or below the level of most of the students? If you went to college, do you think you would be one of the best students? Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do you think your own work is? What kind of grades do you think you really can get if you try? Do you think you could finish college? If you want to be a doctor or a teacher, you need more than four years of college. Do you think you could do that? APPENDIX C CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSLATION APPENDIX C CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSLATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COI LEGI'I OF ARTS AND LETTERS EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 DEPARTMI'NI OF [INGL'ISTICS AVD ORIINTAI AND AFRK .-\\ I.A\GL.-\GES “HIS HAII. March 12, 1982 To whom it may concern, I hereby certify that Mr. Abdullah A. Al-Thubaiti has translated into Arabic the English version of the questionnaire used as a tool in his research for his doctoral dissertation. I have seen photocopies of the three parts of his questionnaire titled "School social climate and student achievement in Saudi Arabia”. Both the Arabic version and English version of the questionnaire were reviewed. The translation is accurate and reliable. The cover letter as well as the questionnaire were translated into Arabic in the same format, except that it follows the standard writing style for the Arabic language. I do wish him the best of luck. Mscmgan btate L‘n'versn' Abdul Ghaffar Eldamatty papa-m”, Li . ’ Instructor of Arabic WNW“ Lewngg'“ and Owemas 5% w II AOIS We“: Ha” W East Lansing, Mmbitar 49824 AGEzckS "SC is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 254 APPENDIX D CORRELATION MATRIX FOR MEAN SCHOOL INPUT, SOCIAL STRUCTURE, CLIMATE, AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES IN THE 30 SCHOOLS CHOSEN RANDOMLY IN THE SAMPLE mmmm 5N ommm vmmm mm Hmommfl ma Emma-ma vama NHHH 0H m m 5 0 m v m N H 255 0.. 5a.: 50.: m0.0 m~.0 m~.0 m~.0 o~.0 5~.o $~.0 5m.o m~.o 00.0 5~.0 0H.0 5~.0 n~.0 on.0I -.0 0N.0 0N.0 a~.0 5N.0 0~.0 «0.0 mm.0 n~.0 n~.o m~.o .uuavm >u-_QDOFZ agax.c-a .05 0._ cm.0 cm.0 o~.: 00.0 m~.0 5_.0 0~.0 o~.0 mm.0 mn.0 -.0 0~.0 -.0 m~.o um.0 m~.0u m~.0 m~.0u mm.0 ~0.o «0.0 -.0 -.0 n~.o -.0 o~.0 om.0 c>o~aE~ ou -c0«-m .c-ua .wm 0.4 00.0 ¢~.0- m-.0 ov.o mc.0 mm.0 ~m.0 m~.0 mm.0 -.0 0n.0 ~n.0 50.0 ~n.0 m_.0s ~0.o 00.0: o_.0 o~.o 00.0: om.0 09.0 09.0 ov.0 nm.o No.0 >u-Aaza ~002om ucomoum Co .azchcd .c-nm .5~ o.- 5-.:u ~0.o Hm.0 ~o.o No.0 cv.0 mm.c am.0 mv.0 mm.o cv.0 m~.0 mm.0 me.0- mn.o n~.o 00.0 5m.0 en.0 m~.o vn.o vm.0 5m.0 0v.o 00.0 mc0-ueuuoaxx a :uoocou Hancocom mo .chcsn .c-ua .cm 0.. v-.0- e~.0o ~n.0- m~.0- o~.0- 00.0 50.0- m_.0u 00.0- n~.0- od.o- m~.0u -.o no.0: m-.0 No.0 00.0 m0.o o~.0- n~.0a 5n.0u ~n.0| v~.04 mn.0u >u-a-unm o-Eoooo< .u2u5 .mm 0.- on.0 0a.: v_.0 5a.0 m~.o 0m.0 o-.o: v-.0 m~.0 m~.0 m~.0 0-.0- No.0 m~.0 5~.0u «v.0 am.o- “0.0 -.o 5n.0 m~.0 no.0- -.0 o>3umSH cu .u-EEOO .ncc5 .v~ 0.~ ~5.o 05.: vm.0 5m.0 om.o m~.0 m~.0 ~5.0 am.o v0.0 mm.0- ~m.0 ~n.0 v0.0: ov.o 00.0 -.0 00.0 05.0 m5.0 mm.0 00.3 .quxm a.~c>u.noua.uzu5 .nm 0.H cc.: "0.: m~.0 ~5.0 av.0 0¢.0 00.0 o~.c 0m.0 0m.0n ~n.0 o~.o ~m.0 mv.0 ~N.0 0—.0 mm.0 00.0 No.0 «0.0 55.0 .U>o-LU< .Uu04 .~t>u .uzuk .Nm 0.” ~0.0 In.0 om.0 «v.0 vv.0 00.0 m~.0 ~9.0 0v.O| ~v.0 m~.0 No.0 m~.o -.o No.0 vv.0 0m.0 mm.0 no.0 no.0 .o>w~:u< .Zum\3 cuvucou Houzouoa we .mooton .nzuh .dm 0.~ 5m.0 v;.: ~n.0 ~n.0 m5.o av.0 mm.0 5n.0u vn.0 00.0 00.0 5n.0 m~.0 0~.0 «5.0 ~5.0 "0.0 no.0 05.0 .Uvaxua Ao>m wuauzh.u205 .Om 0.~ 00.0 c~.0 ”v.0 om.0 o~.0 m-.0 no.0 No.0 00.0 ~_.0 5~.0 5~.0 $0.0 0n.0 on.0 o~.0 5n.o Hm.0 wEuoz .peo< .mcz .aum .m— 0.~ «v.0 5v.0 90.0 0m.o «v.0 n~.0 o~.0 0~.0 ~0.0 ~m.0 o~.0 5~.0 mm.0 ~o.0 vm.0 ~5.o no.0 .d-uam.vau<.uo oncem.:um .m- 0.~ dc.0 av.0 $0.0 0v.0 v~.o: o~.0 m0.0 n—.0 “0.0 5N.0 om.0 No.0 -.0 00.0 00.0 Mv.0 .anxm a.~c>m.weum.:um .5~ 0.~ n~.0 5~.on o~.0 0~.0- c~.0 00.0 m~.0 -.o o~.0 05.0 ~o.o -.0 0~.0 5m.o vv.0 wane: .950195 a swan .ncuh .QwUHoQ .3um .0— 0.~ cm.c «m.c Om.3l nv.0 vm.0 00.0: an.o mm.0 em.0 v5.0 60.0 00.0 Nm.0 50.0 .uuoaxm a.~c>m Unauah .aum .md 0.“ on.0 ~_.o 00.01 o~.01 00.0: :~.O 00.0 m~.0n an.o ~m.0 nv.0 ov.0 ~v.0 EOOummoHU no >u-62u3h .v. 0.~ mm.Ou 5~.0 n_.0 No.2 ®~.0 50.0: No.0 ~v.: _m.0 59.0 mn.0 00.0 u:OEw>~O>:H «z-Caucm .m- c._ 0m.0n I~.:I 5~.0 n~.0 $0.0 $3.0: 3~.3n 0v.3n 0N.01 an.01 5m.0| >u-u02u:< “3 .QN-d1uucvu .m_ 0.“ No.0 No.0: n~.0 Om.3 m~.0 0_.0 :~.0 D~.0 qn.0 0N.0 .mc.uu~wz as-UOm\J .bcut-a1m .- 0.. o~.0- :v.0 m~.0 0m.o v3.3 ~0.3 $0.3 o~.0 —~.0 xncl .m900n1\1 .uu_3_u€w .9“ o.- Cv.:- x0.o m-.0 5-.0- $0.0- c~.0- $0.0 m~.0 vuct-uoaxm .m-sQ-u:-um .7 0.— 00.0 m_.: fim.0 .v.3 Mm.0 v~.0 ~n.3 ace-uaU-uaaaza .zhozoaih .x o.~ ~3.0 5~.0 cm.0 NN.0 rn.0 v~.: auco-ucaxm .ntbzuzzk .~ 0.H Q~.0 -.: mm.c 0m.0 mw.0 c0-€1:cuo m.u;;53z .; 0._ :0.: ~®.: 5v.: _v.0 :O-ueozcm n.-::-32 .: 0; 3. .0 T1: ~55 COS-5:95 11.23:... .7 0.- an.0 ~m.0 co-ucuovm a.-;;-ca .- :.- 2.: 4:2 426,- -: .ocsri-TE. .w 0._ acho>o-:o< u-Esctu< .- mm mm 2. mm mm ammm mm 3 ON 2 ma 2 3 3 3 2 S S 3 m m 5 o m a m N H muggy-“.5 mqmfim mmB ZH $15400de meomu WHOCmUm om mum. ZH mmqdem<> Bzmozmmmn 02¢ .MBQSHAU .mmDBUDmBm «HANHUOm .BDmZH .HOOZUm Z