MSU LIBRARIES .—;—. RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. mean ABSTRACT A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF UNITED STATES AND GREEK PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS' EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS By James LeRoy Liebzeit The purpose of this study was to obtain, analyze, and compare data regarding (l) the expectations of United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students as to the skills an adolescent should develop by age l6 and (2) the expectations of parents, teachers, and students for home and school responsibilities in the attainment of these skills. A unique part of this study is the historical development of the Greek educational system. The sampled United States and Greek populations included par- ents, teachers, and high-school-age students located in Athens, Greece. Questionnaires for cross-cultural comparisons of these parents, teach- ers, and students' expectations of a child's development by age 16 were used to collect data. The data were analyzed statistically by the t-test (using a pooled variance) and the Spearman rank-order correla- tion coefficient techniques. The data were also analyzed inferentially for various items on the questionnaire, through frequency patterns and individual frequency counts. The major findings of this study may be summarized as fol- lows: James LeRoy Liebzeit Ranking of Developmental Skills There was no significant difference in the overall rankings of the eight developmental skills by United States and Greek parents, as computed by the Spearman rank-order correlation. The United States and Greek teachers gave the same responses in the overall rankings of the child's developmental skills. It is important to note that the United States and Greek teachers both ranked academic achievement seventh of eight in order of importance. The United States and Greek students gave different responses (50-50) in the overall rankings of the child's develOpmental skills. Assignment of Home and/or School ResponsibiTity, The United States and Greek parents indicated differences in responses for home responsibility in three of the eight areas. The teachers responded similarly in seven of the eight areas, and the stu- dents responded differently in only two of the eight areas. Comparisons of Expectations by Age 16 This section was divided into five sections relative to the areas of social skills, emotional development, academic skills, physi- cal skills, and moral growth. There were significant differences between the United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students in each of the five areas. Copyright by JAMES LeROY LIEBZEIT 1983 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the process of writing this paper, many events have occurred. Paramount is a cultural awareness of a country that I came to love as my own. The parents, teachers, and students, however suspect, were at all times helpful and deeply concerned with education. Without the assistance of Kathryn Ziridis Spentzos this study could not have been conducted. Coupled with her professional staff, her dedicated parents, and her interested students, the researcher was allowed to conduct his limited survey in a country where such surveys are nonexistent. My deepest gratitude to my committee, Drs. Lois Bader, Ben Bohnhorst, George Sherman, and Roy Wesselman, who labored with me across the Atlantic, where correspondence is delayed up to four weeks. Special appreciation to Lois Bader, who has kept me on track when I felt all was for naught. To my dear friend, Dr. John Dorbis in Athens, who inspired me when the task seemed impossible. Without his help, the project would never have materialized. I will be forever indebted. To my wife, Bettie, and my children, Jim and Kris, who all assisted with the search and the reporting of the data. To Suzanne, whose spirit departed in Greece and who will always be present in my heart. Yassoo! tharisto! ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................... v LIST OF FIGURES ......................... ix Chapter I. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM .............. 1 Introduction ...................... l The Problem ...................... 2 Background and Rationale ................ 2 Comparative Description of Expectations in American and Greek Schools .................. 3 Purpose of the Study .................. 6 Research Questions ................... 7 Delimitations ..................... 7 Population ....................... 8 Overview ........................ 8 II. RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ............. 10 Introduction ...................... 10 The Evolution of Education in Modern Greece ...... 11 Parent, Teacher, and Student Expectations as Related to the United States and Greek Educational Systems . . 29 Expectations ...................... 37 Chapter Summary .................... 59 III. METHODOLOGY ....................... 61 Introduction ...................... 61 Populations of Interest ................ 61 Selection of the Sample ................ 62 Procedures ....................... 64 Description of the Instrument ............. 65 Method of Reporting Results .............. 67 Summary ........................ 67 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ............ Introduction ...................... Research Questions and Statistical Analyses ...... Summary ........................ V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. Introduction ...................... Summary ........................ Research Findings ................... Discussion ....................... Recommendations for Further Study ........... Reflections ...................... GLOSSARY ............................. APPENDICES ............................ A. ACS ADMISSION POLICY ................... B. QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER TO UNITED STATES PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS ............ C. QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER TO GREEK PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS ................. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 195 202 Table 2.1 2.2 LIST OF TABLES Curriculum of the Three-Year Gymnasium: 1980 ....... Curriculum of the General Lyceum, First Form (Grade 10): 1980 .......................... Curriculum of the General Lyceum, Second Form (Grade ll): 1980 .......................... Curriculum of the General Lyceum, Third Form (Grade 12): 1980 .......................... Numerical Profile of the Questionnaires Returned ..... Comparison of United States and Greek Parents' Rankings of Children's Developmental Skills--Frequencies for Each Area ........................ Comparison of United States and Greek Teachers' Rankings of Students' Developmental Skills--Frequencies for Each Area ........................ Comparison of United States and Greek Students' Rankings of Students' Developmental Skills--Frequencies for Each Area ........................ Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tail Probability Significance Levels for Each of the Eight Developmental-Skill Areas as Reported by United States and Greek Parents ............. Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2—tai1ed Probability Significance Levels for Each of the Eight Developmental-Skill Areas as Reported by United States and Greek Teachers ............ Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tai1 Probability Significance Levels for Each of the Eight Developmental-Skill Areas as Reported by United States and Greek Students ............ 25 26 64 69 7O 71 72 73 74 Ji Page 4.7 Comparison of United States and Greek Parents, Teachers, and Students' Rankings of Each Developmental-Skill Area as Determined by Item Mean for Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient Calculations .......... 76 4.8 Comparison of Frequencies of United States and Greek Parents' Assignment of Home-School Responsibility . . . . 78 4.9 Comparison of Frequencies of United States and Greek Teachers' Assignment of Home-School Responsibility . . . 79 4.10 Comparison of Frequencies of United States and Greek Students' Assignment of Home-School Responsibility . . . 80 4.11 Comparison of United States and Greek Parents' Assignment of Primary Responsibility for Accomplish- ment of Eight Developmental Areas ............ 82 4.12 Comparison of United States and Greek Teachers' Assignment of Primary Responsibility for Accomplish- ment of Eight Developmental Areas ............ 83 4.13 Comparison of United States and Greek Students' Assignment of Primary Responsibility for Accomplish- ment of Eight Developmental Areas ............ 84 4.14 Comparison of Frequencies Between United States and Greek Parents Regarding Essential Skills to Be Attained by Age 16 ........................ 88 4.15 Comparison of Frequencies Between United States and Greek Teachers Regarding Essential Skills to Be Attained by Age 16 ........................ 90 4.16 Comparison of Frequencies Between United States and Greek Students Regarding Essential Skills to Be Attained by Age 16 ........................ 92 4.17a Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Social Skills Development as Reported by United States and Greek Parents ....... 95 4.17b Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Social Skills Development as Reported by United States and Greek Teachers ...... 98 vi .17c .18a .18b .18c .19a .19b .19c .20a .20b Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Social Skills Development as Reported by United States and Greek Students ...... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Emotional Adjustment as Reported by United States and Greek Parents ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Emotional Adjustment as Reported by United States and Greek Teachers ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Emotional Adjustment as Reported by United States and Greek Students ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tai1ed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Academic Development as Reported by United States and Greek Parents ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2—tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Academic Development as Reported by United States and Greek Teachers ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Academic Development as Reported by United States and Greek Students ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Moral Development as Reported by United States and Greek Parents ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tai1ed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Moral Development as Reported by United States and Greek Teachers ........... Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tai1ed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Moral Development as Reported by United States and Greek Students ............ Vii Page 113 115 125 126 139 Page 4.21a Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Physical Development as Reported by United States and Greek Parents ........... 147 4.21b Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tailed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Physical Development as Reported by United States and Greek Teachers ........... 149 4.21c Comparison of Means, Frequencies, Pooled Variance t-test and 2-tai1ed Probability Significance Levels for Each Item in the Area of Physical Development as Reported by United States and Greek Students ........... 151 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Structure of the Educational System of Greece: 1980 .......................... 32 4.1 Ordering of Rankings for Spearman Rank-Order Correla- tion, United States and Greek Parents, Teachers, and Students ...................... 77 ix CHAPTER I IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare both the home and school expectations related to the social, emotional, and aca- demic development of a random sample of secondary students in a Greek and a United States school in Athens, Greece. Researchers who examine overseas schools commonly agree that expatriate American students and their parent view the school as a primary center of the community. Parents in an overseas American school expect high academic standards coupled with strong extra- curricular programs to help the adolescent maintain a frame of ref- erence toward the United States schools. Engleman (1971) pointed out that overseas schools are expected to inform students of the rapidly changing cultural patterns in the United States. Teachers need to teach these changes to students in order to help prevent an overdose of culture shock upon returning to the States. Keefe and Coffin (1977) reported that "almost all Greeks value formal education and grant prestige to anyone with a univer- sity education." Education is one of the few criteria for ranking in the Greek social stratification. Education in Greece is super- vised by the state, and both public and private schools are obliged to follow the same curriculum. Tryphonopoulos (1973) reported that 1 the same subjects are taught in each grade, on the same day, on the same page, from the same book, in the entire country. The Problem In spite of the social emphasis placed on the importance of education, reinforced by parental concerns, both Greek and United States students may at times fail to meet the expectations discussed in this study on social, emotional, or academic levels. This compara— tive study elicits more precise information concerning the compara- tive relationship among the expectations of the parents, teachers, and students as to the social, emotional, and academic performance in a Greek and a United States school and provides data resulting from research on specific areas that may be useful for further research. Background and Rationale Few studies are available in which parent, teacher, and student expectations have been jointly examined. Entwisle (1974) completed a study of parent-child expectations, but he did not include an investigation of the teacher-parent expectations as having a pos- sible influence on the child's adjustment at school. Erickson (1959), Brown (1965), and Schreiber (197D) concurred that the high school student faces some of the most critical decisions he/she will ever have to make. Also, the high school student, to be successful, must conform to a basic set of expectations. These expectations are often based on unwritten assumptions about the student, such as being able to take notes from lectures, follow verbal instructions, work with minimum direction or feedback, and complete assignments over an extended period of time. Comparative Description of Expectations in American and Greek Schools Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) asserted that teachers' expec- tations for student performance function as self-fulfilling prophe- cies. Their studies indicated that there are positive and negative influences upon pupil performance and teacher expectations. The adjustment of students to a new environment, particularly in a foreign country, depends on many factors. Past studies have not taken into full account the new dimensions pertaining to parent and particularly student expectations in overseas secondary schools. On one hand, parents tend to compare constantly the curriculum and the standards of the overseas school with Statewide institutions and the bearing of the change on the future of their child--particular1y test scores and admission to United States colleges. 0n the other hand, the high school student oftentimes wonders what precipitated the parental decision to make an overseas transfer. In addition to social, parental, and student values, teacher expectations have some influence on student achievement and perform- ance. These expectations held by teachers would tend to reflect the cultural background of the individual instructor. As previosuly stated, significant research in the area of expectations and learning is attributable to Robert Rosenthal. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) conducted an important study on teacher expectations on elementary- school achievement. Teachers were told that certain randomly chosen students were, according to new intelligence tests, about to make an educational spurt. They found that those students who had been randomly classified as high achievers actually gained significantly more achievement than in the controlled group, and this gain was more pronounced in the earlier grades. Thus this study lends credence to the hypothesis that teacher expectations have an identifiable rela- tionship with school achievement. The triptyc parents-teachers-students expectations in the Greek society reflect values and cultural attributes stemming out of the ancient Greek, Roman, and Christian eras, in addition to the four centuries of Turkish occupation (1453-1821), as well as the Bavarian influence introduced by King Otto and the subsequent systems reflect- ing the influence of the “Protecting Powers." The overwhelming influ- ence of the Greek Orthodox Church is omnipresent and ought also to be taken into account in any study of the Greek educational system. In an overview of the evolution of educational objectives in Greece, Antonakaki (1955) pointed out that: Around 1820 the objectives of the school were to train selected citizens that would be capable of carrying out the then simple tasks of the economy, self-government and the more highly trained minority for the needs of administration, the church, and the sciences. The needs at the turn of the century were state and community physical care, development of moral and wholesome per- sonality to endure the dangers of the transitional era, general and specialized knowledge and skills; realistic social and economic understanding; intelligent loyalty to the Greek ideals and to international brotherhood; competent civic judgment, and the ability to think in terms of change. Education is highly valued in Greece. Parents instill in their children the notion that education is the main avenue for social mobility and ascension on the status ladder. Acquisition of property and successful business are considered subsidiary elements of education. People of all social classes are proud of the country's tradition and reputation for being the birthplace of classical thought. Pride in the Hellenic past encompasses the awareness that Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, Aristophanes, and numerous other philosophers and writers were natives of Greece. The city of Athens is intimately linked to these great men and the development of Western scholarship. Keefe, Coffin, Mussen,and Rinehart (1977), in reviewing the status accorded to education in Greece, reported that most Greek villagers have high educational aspirations for their children, particularly their sons. To be a learned person is valued in itself, but more commonly, villagers view secondary schooling and university degrees as vehicles for upward social mobility. As a result, curricula have been developed by the successive governments mainly as a function of parental expectations regarding social mobility and have always been imposed on the entire nation. Tryphonopoulos (1973) corroborated the above assertion by stating: There is a uniform curriculum for all schools. This uni- formity extends to the subjects taught in each grade, the number of hours each subject is taught, and the textbooks assigned for the study of each subject. The parent, teacher, and student expectations were investi- gated separately in the past. The global view adopted in this study will reveal variables that will be of value to both American and Greek educators and will provide new insight into the complexities of both educational systems and their corollaries. Research in cross-cultural education is important to the United States Office of Overseas Education, which has the responsi- bility for overseeing all overseas American schools. The expecta- tions of parents, teachers, and students in an overseas community related to a student's development at the secondary-school level is crucial to foreign placement for State Department employees and for the United States overseas business community. Many parents question a foreign move if their child is at the secondary-school level for fear it will interrupt the progression necessary for college prepara- tion and admission. Cross-cultural studies lessen the fear of an overseas place- ment and examine the United States educational system compared to the overseas American and foreign schools. They further provide a point of comparison between the practices of the different countries based on cultural and legal differences. Studies using cross- cultural comparisons lead practitioners in education in examining and validating or rejecting current educational programs in their own countries. Purpose of the Stugy The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare, in a Greek setting, parent-teacher-student expectations in two educa- tional units (United States and Greek), presenting social, economic, and cultural similarities with particular emphasis on cross-cultural comparisons and students' expected performance in the United States and in Greece. Research Questions The following questions were constructed to guide the research: 1. Do significant differences exist between United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to their secondary-school students' social, problem-solving, physical, moral, language, self—help, academic, and emotional development, as measured by rankings in these areas? 2. Are there differences between who is considered primarily responsible--and to what extent--for helping the United States and Greek child to accomplish social, emotional, moral, academic, and physical development? 3. Are there differences between United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to the group of skills considered to be most important for a child by the age of 16? Delimitations Findings of this study should be considered within the limits of the population and procedures used in the investigation. 1. The instrument (questionnaire) used was designed for United States subjects. 2. The instrument was translated into Greek for the Greek parents, teachers, and students. 3. The completion of the questionnaire by parents, teachers, and students was accomplished at home or school, and the accuracy of responses depended on the respondents' understanding of the instructions. These instructions, as well as indications of the instrument, were discussed with United States and Greek parents, administrators, teachers, and students before distribution. Teachers were available for consultation with parents and students regarding completion of the instrument. 4. The United States population lived in an overseas envi- ronment rather than in the United States. 5. The population of interest was limited to a random sample of parents, teachers, and students in one secondary American school and one secondary Greek school. Population The population from which the United States samples were taken for the study comprised the parents, teachers, and students of a secondary American school (American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.) located in Athens, Greece, during the 1980-81 school year. The population from which the Greek samples were taken for the study comprised the parents, teachers, and students of a Greek secondary school (Athena School, G. Ziridis) located in Athens, Greece, during the 1980-81 school year. Both schools were selected as representing similarities as to the social, economic, and repre- sentative populations. Overview In Chapter I, the purpose of the study and the problem were stated, and the background and rationale were discussed. A comparative description of expectations of parents, teachers, and students in an American and a Greek school was briefly discussed and is elaborated on in Chapter III. Three questions were presented to guide the research. In Chapter II, a review of the relevant litera- ture and research related to the study is presented. In Chapter III, the design and methodology of the study are presented. The data collected are analyzed and discussed in Chapter IV. The summary, conclusions, implications of the study, and recommendations for further research are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the relevant literature and research. The features of American bibliog- raphy and research are marked by (a) limited literature on parental expectations, (b) significant amounts of research in the area of teacher expectations, and (c) very limited literature on students' expectations. The Greek literature available regarding parent, teacher, and student expectations is primarily derived from (a) studies conducted in the United States, (b) a study of the successive Greek educational laws, and (c) a review of educational theorists in Greece. A similar cross-cultural investigation that was identified is included in Tanner's (1977) cross-cultural study on the "Expectations of Japanese and American Parents and Teachers for the Adjustment and Achievement of Kindergarten Children." However, Tanner's analysis was limited to the "expectations of the Japanese and American parents for their kindergarten children's development in school and the ability of the Japanese and American children to adjust to school expectations." An inferential analysis of teacher and parent expectations agreement for home and school responsibilities constituted an inter- esting part of Tanner's study. Although limited to the kindergarten lO 11 student, Tanner's report provides researchers with valuable guide- lines as to the approach of a related topic and the analysis of results. Because of the lack of research in the specific areas of Greek parents', teachers', and students' expectations, the histori- cal evolution of the Greek educational system presented under the topic "Evolution of Education in Modern Greece" provides a clearer insight into the elements that have contributed to the configura- tion of the educational systems of this country. The Evolution of Education in Modern Greece The Turkish Occupation From 1453 to 1821 After the fall of Constantinople (1453) and for two centuries, the Greek nation attempted to survive and thereafter to reorganize itself through the Church, the remaining scholars (fanariotes), the communities, and the kleftes (guerrillas). Moskou (1972) underlined that in this effort, the Greeks gained consciousness of the associa- tion of their ethnicity with the Church. The demographic decline, the economic disintegration, and the departure of the scholars to Western Europe where they set the pace for the oncoming Renaissance resulted in a complete absence of schools for over a century. Some spasmodic moves in the reorganiza— tion of the schools were mainly a result of the efforts of the Church and the emerging middle class, primarily in urban locations. In 1593, the Great Synod decided to recommend to the bishops to organize education in their own dioceses. However, as Evangelidi (1936) pointed 12 out, these efforts were primarily channeled toward the preparation of priests, with all courses given by self-taught instructors. As of the beginning of the eighteenth century, the weight of trade was shifted to the Balkans and Asia Minor. In the mean- time, the Church had asserted its position toward the Turkish con- queror. The leading class of fanariotes and the rich merchants developed a great activity based on ideas imported from the Western countries with which they came into contact. Fearing the liberal philosophies as expressed by the representatives of the eighteenth- century Enlightenment such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot, the Church developed an ultra-conservative attitude toward education. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, each community established its own school. The prevailing curriculum and method- ology were based on the teachings of the Enlightenment, particularly of Rousseau, who professed a concern for child-centered education. However, this system did not last for long as the Church views pre- vailed. Students were now taught grammar and syntax at day's length, and theoretical subjects were taught from morning to evening six days a week, all year round. Subjects were taught in the most archaic language and the demotic was banned. According to Cordatos (1936), the lack of relevance between practicality and demotic language on one hand and theoretical subjects and archaic language on the other hand resulted in a conflict, the repercussions of which were felt throughout the twentieth century. The 1980 OECD Report stated: 13 Among educational reformers, the "language question" was not merely an issue over what form of Greek should be taught in the schools. It represented basic differences in Greek social and educational philosophy, indeed world outlook (Weltanschauung). The introduction of the modern Greek language would help Open up new cultural and intellectual vistas, those grounded in the con- temporary (i.e. modern), living Greek "paideia"; it would infuse a new spirit in Greek pedagogy (less formalism, abstraction, and "explication de textes"); it would arouse pupils' interest in learning; and, ultimately, it would develop more versatile, responsible and democratic citizens and happier human beings. Conservative or liberal, the instructors carried the weight of education during the Turkish occupation. At the early stages, all teachers were priests with unconditional dedication in the perform- ance of their duty. Later, laymen drawn from the lowest socioeconomic layers were selected as primary-school teachers, while the sons of the wealthy class who could afford to study in Western European univer- sities taught in the upper levels. Hence, pointed out Tsoukala (1977), the astonishing nigh-ranking social prestige carried to this day by university professors in Greece. From 1821 to 1928 At the outbreak of the 1821 War of Independence, the economic, social, and political conditions of the country were totally alien to those prevailing in the developed Western European countries. The wealthy merchants were in competition with the rich landowners who had acquired great power during the Turkish occupation. However, the interests of both dominating classes were closely associated with the ruling establishment of France, England, and Russia, which was foreign to Greece. Aslouliatos(l973) stressed: “Therefore, the rising class was directly dependent upon the strong economy of the 14 Western countries, which will have an immediate impact on the shaping of the political life and the educational system of the country." In 1823, the first Greek government addressed the matters of education as a national issue during the session of the Second Assembly. A five-member committee was appointed to draft a law con— cerning the organization of education. With the advent of the first King of Greece, Otto of Bavaria (1833-1862), and during his reign, the foreign influence became more visible throughout the country. The successive conservative govern- ments reflected the interests of the local and foreign establishments. The educational system is now characterized by an inflexible curricu- lum based on the cult of the ancient authors and a deep feeling of nationalism. In 1836, the teaching of Ancient Greek texts and grammar consumed 53.2 percent of the daily curriculum. The educa- tional structure followed the Bavarian pattern, i.e., absolute authority of the Ministry of Education. The curriculum became more conservative with no relevance whatsoever toward the needs of the country. The university was heavily concentrated in law, medicine, philosophy, and religion, but had totally ignored the needs of the country vis-a-vis the oncoming Industrial Revolution. As indicated by Cordatos (1936), a crucial issue becomes the question of the demotic language, abhorred by the establishment as representing liberal reforms and institutional changes leading to "an education for the people." The demotic-language crisis clouds the real national educational issues. Indicatively, it is worth 15 pointing out with Allbaugh (1953) that in 1907 the illiteracy range for men was 50.2 percent and for women 82 percent. In 1910, in the midst of the favorable climate created by the rise of Eleftherios Venizelos, one of the greatest leaders of modern Greece, a group of inspired educators, particularly Manoli Triandafyllidis, are ready to support Venizelos' efforts for liberal reforms in spite of the dynamic activities of the conservative fac- tion. A Committee for the Legal Protection of the Greek Language was even established, but the trend for modernization and reforms in education was already evident, according to Svoronos (1976). Under the Venizelos administration, the period of natural expansion of 1909-1921, marked by the doubling of the population and of the geographical area and by greater infiltration of technology into the economy, was characterized in education by progressive and very frequent changes. The most important, according to Antonakaki (1955), were constitutional enforcement of free universal elementary education (1911); emphasis on the national ideal, on skills, art, physical education, and on the exact science in the curriculum reform of 1912; introduction of the demotic language in the elementary school (1917); application of child health and welfare policies (1911); and the establishment of public commercial schools and of schools for the retraining of teachers in art, agriculture, and teaching methods. One of the most basic reform laws was promulgated in 1917 (Law 1332), whereby the teaching of the demotic language was intro- duced in grades 1-4. The Law was, however, rescinded in 1921, and the primary—school books were burned publicly. The issue was now 16 transposed on purely political levels, regardless of the educational implications. "Demotic" became a synonym for "communist." The Security Services of the State conducted systematic investigations as to the national convictions of the promoters of the demotic language until 1927. In any case, stressed Touliatos (1980), "the post World War I decade will be marked by the popular demand for a better education." From the 1929 Reform to the 1976 Reform The Minister of Education of the Venizelos government, George Papandreou, proceeded in 1929 to a deep reform of education. The political and economic background of the country remained unchanged yet still dependent on the foreign capital and influence. This reform, which appeared to be radical at the time, was based on the traditional Western European pattern. Its originality consisted mainly in extend- ing the teaching of the demotic, reducing the importance of Latin, and increasing the importance of mathematics and science. However, the study of ancient texts remained a major subject in order to attach the present with the prestigious past of Greece. Education was more centralized than ever as a control of public life. To facilitate this control, government representatives were appointed at each uni- versity to monitor their operation. As compromising and conservative as this reform may seem today, it was considered at the time as ultra-liberal and, as such, was attacked and rescinded by the conservative party that succeeded Venizelos after his resignation in 1932. A wave of nationalism swept 17 over the country. The teaching of Latin became again mandatory and the demotic language was abolished. During the four years of Metaxas' dictatorship (1936-1940), the old rigid Bavarian system was revived, and the control of education became tighter in an obvious attempt to check any liberal reminiscence. World War II, the German occupation, and the civil war that ensued put Greek education in hibernation. Schools were practically closed and many students took to the mountains to fight at the side of the political factions, most of them being leftist. As a reaction, the right-wing governments between 1949 and 1967 attempted consistently, only with a brief interval, to instill nationalism in the minds of students under the cover of moral values and the study of the ancient Greek authors. In 1964, George Papandreou, heading a short-lived liberal government, assigned to Evangelos Papanoutsos the task to draft a more liberal educational reform. Many innovations were included in this 1964 reform, but the political events of 1965 and the dismissal of President Papandreou by King Constantine eliminated any hope of implementation. One of the first decisions to be made by the military junta when they seized power in 1967 was to abrogate the 1964 Bill of Education. Education was once again geared to nationalism and religion. In 1967, the colonels' regime dismantled the 1964 reforms and, in the opinion of many observers, halted the progressive trend of Greek education. Massialas (1981) summarized the hostility toward this reform as follows: 18 Such traditional forces as the Greek Orthodox Church, the School of Philology of the University of Athens, and the Philolopical Society rigorously resisted these and earlier reforms as inimical to Hellenic-Christian ideals and tradi- tions. Katharevousa, the purist and very formal language, was reintroduced as the teaching medium and the demotic form was banned. Compulsory education was reduced to six years, and the new secondary-school graduation examination was eliminated. Hundreds of teachers and professors suspected to be unfriendly to the regime were dismissed, and those who did not lose their jobs were required to submit personal histories and a statement of their political beliefs. Classical studies were again emphasized over technical-vocational training, thereby eliminating a large segment of potential students and failing to provide any program for training manpower for technological and industrial development. Keefe, Coffin, Mussen, and Rinheart (1977) commented on the use of security police agents as university informers and the strict controls placed on university teaching as indicative of the harmful nature of the colonels' educational revisions. Follow- ing the downfall of the military government, the important 1976 reform (Law 309), which is reviewed in the next paragraph, was passed. The 1976 Reform Referring to democratic control of education, Antonakaki (1955) wrote: The formal corollary of democracy in administration is demo- cratic control: the Greek concept that each citizen has the capacity, the right, and the duty to participate in decisions which affect him and the public institutions. This partici- pation should not be expanded to direct sharing in public affairs. 19 Like the previous reforms, the 1976 Law was voted by the representa- tives with no direct input from parents, teachers, and students. Therefore, their expectations are quasi-delineated by the articles of the reform. As Keefe (1977) indicated, In June 1976 the Karamanlis government announced a new series of reforms designed to replace the colonels' revisions, all of which are to be in operation by 1980. In many ways they are an elaboration of the Papandreou reforms. Tsiaglis (1980) expressed strong feelings about this reform: The educational reform, in our century, has been an unsolved issue since the beginning of the century. More precisely, we are talking about a reform of the educational mechanisms, a reform that aims at adjusting education to the new capital- istic realities of our country. Referring again to Keefe (1977), it should be pointed out that the seeds of the reform were planted in 1964 by the Papandreou government. Commenting on this point, Tsiaglis (1980) stated: Education is not severed from the rest of social life. . . . We can therefore state that undoubtedly the Greek Society of the first part of the 20th century was such that it determined the shape of our educational system. Tsiaglis' (1980) views are corroborated by the fact that in a short period of time, 14 years, the Karamanlis center—right government adopted and voted a law elaborated by a previous liberal government. The Papandreou reform had been bitterly fought and ultimately defeated through the pressure of the conservatives in conjunction with the Church. The main features of the 1976 Reform as reviewed by Glycofridi (1980) are: 20 1. The adoption of the demotic as the official language for schools and the administration. 2. The separation of the former six-year gymnasion in two cycles: three-year gymnasion and three-year lyggum, 3. Nine years of mandatory education instead of six (six years elementary and three years gymnasion). 4. A more “rational" tracking of students toward general (university-prep) and vocational education. 5. The creation of secondary vocational schools to make education meet the economic needs through the appropriate training of manpower. 6. Equalization between men and women in the educational sphere. 7. Opportunity, although extremely limited, for students in the vocational track to qualify for university entrance examina- tion. 8. Attempt to divert a large segment of students, upon completion of gymnasion, from the university-prep lyggum, 9. Introduction of the "e1ectives"--a1though in a very limited way. Panayoti Xohelli (1981), Professor of Education at the Uni- versity of Thessaloniki, in a series of articles in the daily Athens newspaper Kathimerini (January 15-17, 1981) under the title “Five Years After the Educational Reform" elaborated on what had not been accomplished to that date and what should be done in the immediate future. He summarized his views as follows: 21 1. Education still remains highly centralized and under the absolute State control. 2. The educational system was not examined spherically. Curriculum revisions were made spasmodically with the absence of any coordinated plan and with no input whatsoever from parents, teachers, and students. Specific examples are, in the elementary school, the elimination of grades, the abolishing of homework, the discarding of the entrance examination to the gymnasion upon completion of grade six with the stroke of a pen and without previous discussions and teacher preparation. 3. The Reform deals mainly with the "external aspects" such as structure, creation of tracks, and requirements, but does not deal substantially with the "internal problems" and particularly the develOpment of a new methodology. 4. The external aspect is transformed in an impressive way, and the same contents are retained in a silent and tacit way. 5. The katharevoussa and demotic languages are two different entities by definition. Instead of developing new materials in the demotic language, only minor linguistic adjustments were made in the original textbooks. 6. The Reform creates a noticeable imbalance in the lyggum. as to the quality and status of each track and the three kinds of diplomas awarded to students upon completion of the program. 7. Special areas have been totally ignored by the Reform such as preschool (nursery and kindergarten), special education, and programs for the gifted. 22 8. The curriculum of the lyggum_(college-prep track) still does not correspond to the university admission-examination require- ments. Students who can afford the financial burden of private tutor- ing (up to $50 per hour) and coaching schools will probably score higher at the university admission examination. This automatically creates a discriminatory educational system. 9. The Reform was initiated in defiance of the basic prin- ciples of curriculum innovation, i.e., input from interested parties (parents, teachers, and students), sensitization of the community, operation of pilot programs, and their assessment. 10. The admission of students from the gymnasion to one of three lyggum_tracks is solely based on the results of one examination. 11. Vocational education is still the "poor relative" of the educational program, and as such it is held in low esteem by parents, teachers, and students. Vocational schools are staffed with teachers who lack specialized training, equipment, and resource materials. (See Tables 2.1 through 2.4.) Tsiaglis (1980) examined the Reform mainly through a social and political prism, carefully scrutinizing the effects of the Reform on the middle and lower socioeconomic classes. He stressed, "The new educational policy has an antidemocratic character and is danger- ously autocraticV and he added: This antidemocratic and autocratic character is immediately apparent in the existing curricula which aim (a) to overwhelm the students with a mass of useless knowledge and (b) to trans- mit the ideology of the establishment to the future citizens of our country. 23 Table 2.l.--Curriculum of the three-year gymnasium: 1980. Hours per Week, Subject by Grade 7 8 9 Total 31 31 31 Religion 2 2 2 Ancient Greek 4 5 4 Modern Greek 5 4 4 History 3 2 2 Introduction to democratic government 1 Mathematics 4 Foreign language 3 3 3 Geography with components from geology 1% l 1 Physics and chemistry .. 1 Anthropology and hygiene .. 1 Biology 1% .. 1 Music 1 l 1 Arts 2 1 Physical education 2 2 2 Educational and career guidance .. 2(b) 2 Technological 2(b) 1(9) Home economics 2(9) 1(9) Source: Adapted from Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Education and Religion, National Repgrt on the Recent Developments in the Greek Educational System (Athens, 1979). 24 Table 2.2.--Curricu1um of the general lyceum, first form (grade 10): 1980. subjECt p23“12ek Total ___§§____ Religion 2 Modern Greek 4 Ancient Greek 6 History 3 Mathematics 5 Geography 1 Physics 4 Foreign language 3 Physical education 3 Technical 1 Music 1 Source: Adapted from Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Education and Religion, National Report on the Recent Developments in the Greek Educational SystemT(Athens, 1979). 25 Table 2.3.--Curricu1um of the general lyceum, second form (grade 11): 1980. Subject Hours per Week, by Division Classical Both Scientific Grand total 36 36 Common subjects 30 Religion 2 Modern Greek 4 Ancient Greek 5 History 2 Psychology 2 Mathematics 4 Physics and chemistry 3 Foreign language 3 Physical education 3 Economic geography 1 Hygiene and anthropology 1 Electives 6 6 Ancient Greek 2 History 2 Latin 2 Mathematics .. 3 Physics and chemistry .. 3 Source: Adapted from Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Education and Religion, National Report on the Recent Developments in the Greek Educational System (Athens, 1979). 26 Table 2.4.--Curriculum of the general lyceum, third form (grade 12): 980. Subject Hours per Week, by D1v151on Classical Both Scientific Grand total 35 35 N 00 Common subjects Religion Modern Greek Ancient Greek History Principles of democratic government Philosophy Mathematics Physical geography Physics and chemistry General biology Foreign language Physical education wN—‘w-‘wN-HN-b-bN Electives Ancient Greek Latin History Mathematics .. 4 Physics .. 2 Chemistry .. 1 NNOON Source: Adapted from Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Education and Religion, National Report on the Recent Developments in the Greek Educational System (Athens, 1979). 27 Glykofrydi (1981) strongly supported the view according to which most of the objectives of the Reform are undermined by the government itself in the implementation of its stated rules, as a result of the existing contradictions in the Reform. More precisely, Glycofrydi stated that the Reform is undermined by: 1. The division of the nine-year period into two cycles and the absence of a law forbidding children under the age of 15 to work. 2. The exhausting network of examinations that children and teachers have to face. 3. The imbalance between the different types of lyggum, 4. The lack of materials and equipment. 5. The lack of substantial revisions of curricula and textbooks. 6. The lack of in-service opportunities for educators. 7. The undermining of the Reform from "within the government." Glykofrydi concluded, "We have reached the point to use the term Anti-Reform." The Objectives of the Socialist Government (October 1981- 4y) The elections of October 18, 1981, won by an overwhelming majority by the socialist party, were interpreted as the will of the people for a radical change. It is too early, at this date, to determine the extent and depth of projected changes in the realm of education. One of the first decisions of the socialist government was to abolish the admission examination from the gymnasium to the lyceum 28 as an attempt to eliminate the barrier to the lyceum. At an inter- view with the monthly periodical The Athenian, the Minister of Educa- tion Lefteris Veryvakis stated: The greatest changes since the socialists came into power have been cutting the entrance examinations to the classical lyceum (equivalent to grades 10-12) and eliminating all but one accent in the writing of the Greek language. . . . We are going to change, after a certain time period, the system for judging a student's worth and replace the panhellenic exams. Whatever the anticipated changes may be and however liberal or radical the decisions may appear, in constant line with the previous reforms, once again decisions will be mandated by the government and they will reflect its political stance. Section Summary The educational history of Greece from 1453 to this date is marked by constant lines and consistent dynamics that flow through its development: the influence of the Church, the Ministry of Educa- tion as the sole source of decision making, the tenacious attachment to the study of the ancient texts, the political diversion imprinted by each government in power, and a deep spirit of nationalism. The successive educational reforms served and reflected the above concepts. These reforms were characterized as "superficial" and "external" in the sense that they only aimed at changing programs and schedules but not at altering the attitude of the population toward education, which remained rigid and elitist. The only substantial and liberal reforms were the gradual adoption of mandatory education (up to ninth grade), the offering of 29 free education at all levels, and the sanctioning by law of the demotiki, which became the official instructional language. The common denominator deriving from the review of the suc- cessive reforms including the 1976 Reform is the absolute control of education by the State, allowing practically no latitude for any deviation from the curriculum on the part of parents, teachers, and students. The Greek parents, teachers, and students' expectations per- taining solely to education are all uniform in nature and defy analy- sis. Only the government-imposed reforms can be analyzed intrin- sically, and these have been evaluated. In this context, parents, teachers, and students' expectations are limited to the side effects of Greek education. The questionnaire submitted to parents, teachers, and students was developed in light of these constraints. Parent, Teacher, and Student Expectations as Related to the United States and Greek Educational Systems This section deals with a comparison between the parent, teacher, and student expectations seen through the United States and Greek systems of education and more specifically in the areas of objectives, structure and organization, administration, curriculum, teacher training, and recruitment. The statistics and chart presented in this section are based on data provided by the 1979 UNESCO Inter- national Guide of Educational Systems and the Greek Ministry of Education. 30 Objectives United States.--A major objective of the United States educa- tional system is to provide a free public education to all students until the completion of the secondary school, to instill a respect for knowledge and at the same time to offer equal opportunities for all students through a favorable educational environment, and also to stimulate students according to their individual potential through an enriched curriculum, specifically in the areas of literature, science, social and political studies, and vocational programs. Greece.-—The 1975 Constitution establishes clearly the prime objectives of education, i.e., the moral, professional, and physical preparation of the p0pulation as well as the development of a national and religious identity. Massialas (1981) wrote: Contemporary Greek education places great emphasis on Greek Orthodoxy, both in formal curriculum of the schools and the informal practices of other socialization agents, such as the family, the peer group and the army. The cultivation of independence and responsibility is another prime objective. The Reorganization Act of 1976 declares that the goal of the gymnasium is as follows: To train adolescents in the right and exact expression of their ideas and values, in the skills of observation and analysis of phenomena in the mental as well as the physical world, to acquaint them in general with historical ideas and with the most significant discoveries of the Greek, of the European and of humankind in general, to help them internalize and implement their own inclinations and skills, to sharpen their moral judg- ment, to develop their religious and national consciousness and to inspire in them an attitude which is consistent with the basic principles of the democratic system of the country. 31 The same Act declares that the goal of the lyceum is designed: to offer training, richer and broader than that of the gym- nasium, to youth aspiring to higher education or professions requiring high standards. The training includes the syste- matic cultivation of the oral and written expression, the deeper study of national and world history, as well as the monuments of civilization, specifically the history and civi- lization of Europe, the development of critical and imagina- tive thinking, the comprehensive investigation of the natural and social world, the strengthening of religious and national beliefs, the more substantive learning of the basic principles of the democratic system of the country; and finally [this training] seeks to enlighten the spirit and to develop free and responsible persons. In public schools, education and materials are free at all grade levels, including colleges and universities, without discrimi- nation. Education is compulsory for all students grades 1-9. The 1980 OECD Report states: The raising of the school-leaving age (ROSLA) was a constitu- tional mandate (Article 16 of the Greek Constitution adopted in 1975) and an important precondition for the aforementioned goals of democratization and modernization. Compared to other Western societies, especially those of the European Economic Community, Greece had the fewest years of compulsory schooling (6 compared to generally 9). ROSLA was also felt to be neces- sary for the cultural development of the country, the expansion of opportunities, particularly among the people in rural areas and for greater economic efficiency. The demotic language has been enforced as the official language since 1976. Structure and Organization The structure and organization of the Greek educational system, K-12, is represented in Figure 2.1. An innovative structure brought about by the 1976 Educational Reform divides the six years of the former secondary school into two sections: . .Ammmp .mcm;uma ucmumx mg» co agenda chovumz .cowappmm can covumusum we zgpmwcwz .uppnzamm uvcmppmz sage uwuamco acm5m>mvcuo mo xovcp mmvcaum Fmomccumu A; murmoasou a mo mvmna msu co coruumpmm o Pacowmmmmoga van gmgaw: Lam mgmpcmu Foogum mcovpocvsmxm chowpm: gmzognu cowpumpmm o quwcsump \chorpauo> ">ux mFuuwz Amhmbmmv mcwcwugp lgmsumwp #1 uo chowum > Esmuzp 7,10 Axyompzasouv All Azgompsneouv ii. :mugum fiL Paupcgumu anmmcsxw Foosum xgmewsa -goucpx \Fncowumuo> covumuzum gmgommp mo 285m rib] gmgmwz Eamoap I .h ngmcmw 1L mcowuauwpmcw Fm>mFuzavmgm>w== gmguo flL moppmmgm>wc= NF FF op m m n mip gmgmwx xgmccoumm Luna: agaucoowm gaze; agaucmsmpm 33 l. Gymnasion, three years mandatory. Upon completion of the gymnasion, students may take an examination that will qualify them according to their ability for one of the three tracks in the lyceum: (a) two years vocational, (b) three years vocational and commercial, (c) three years general education leading to university admission. 2. Lyceum, post-mandatory. Tracks (a) and (b) are for non- university bound students; upon completion of track (c), students take an examination administered by the Ministry of Education at specific locations for university admission. Students are selected on the basis of the highest scores, filling the limited number of vacancies available at each branch of the universities. The 1980 OECD Report stated: It is important to stress the selective and credentialling role which examinations are called upon to perform in Greek education and g_fortiori in the Greek occupational and social structure. Such a polic , according to official opinion, is dictated by several factors, e.g. (i) the desirability of main- taining control over educational standards, i.e., ensuring the attainment of certain levels of knowledge which, among other things, are held indispensable for further education and for professional competence; (ii) the need to screen the intellec- tually most capable (the talented) for the few places that are of necessity available in the universities and other higher institutions; and (iii) the demands of educational efficiency as well as social equity, i.e. allocating students into schools of different types and purposes on the basis of objective cri- teria of achievement. Administration United States.--According to the United States Constitution, each state is directly responsible for the education of all students within each state. The federal government, through the federal 34 Department of Education, provides encouragement, financial aid, and advice for special projects of national concern. The individual state legislatures represent the public within those states. The legislature of the individual states passes laws concerning educa- tion at all levels, and the state board of education and/or the chief administrative official makes decisions for the implementa- tion of these laws. Local boards of education determine the policy, procedures, and materials that will assist in the implementation of the laws and policies as established at the state level. Greg§§,--The system is highly centralized. The Ministry of Education and Cults is responsible for the entire coordination. KEME (Center of Educational Research and Teacher In-Service Programs) has an advisory role in the development of the State curriculum. For primary and secondary educational purposes, Greece is divided into 15 districts and 240 subdistricts. The duties of the 240 inspectors (civil servants) are to inspect, advise, and enforce the official national curriculum as developed by KEME and approved by the Ministry of Education. The funding of education at all levels derives solely from income tax and becomes part of the annual national budget. Curriculum United States.--It is the prerogative of each state to develop its own curriculum. Although there is no national curricu- lum, the federal government influences the local curricula through legislation and funding. Each state has its own requirements for 35 high school graduation or certification. Local teachers and program specialists may develop district curricula as well as new programs and also select relevant materials. This constitutes a unique feature of United States education. Greggg,--The curriculum being developed and mandated by the central administration (Ministry of Education) does not give any latitude for deviation or adjustment to the needs of the students in local school districts and to the teacher. It must be strictly and uniformly implemented at each grade level according to a rigid time schedule. Given the orientation of the lyggum, which consists mainly of university-bound students, an unusually large amount of homework is expected from each student. Parents often supplement the day school by encouraging their children to attend evening coaching schools or by hiring the services of private tutors to assist them in the prepara- tion of the university entrance examinations. The notion of electives was hesitantly introduced by the 1976 Reform Law, but the strenuous curriculum does not allow for sufficient time for deviation from the academic schedule. Teacher Training and Recruiting United States.--A minimum of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degrees is required to teach at any grade level. This degree must be coupled with a teaching certificate awarded by the state, which specifies the minimum requirements by which an individual teacher may be certified to teach specific subjects for a specific 36 range of grade levels. Teachers are hired by the local school districts. Greece.--All public school teachers at all levels are civil servants and are appointed and transferred by the Ministry of Educa- tion. The inspector (not the principal) is responsible for teacher evaluation. Elementary school teachers are trained in pedagogical academies (two to three years). High school teachers are trained in specific disciplines at the university (four to five years). Teacher certifica- tion is automatically awarded upon graduation from the pedagogical academies or the university. As Massialas (1981) indicated concerning secondary school teachers: They are trained at universities, where they obtain a degree in their teaching specialty. For example, a teacher of mathe- matics would enroll in the respective faculty ( h sikoma- thimatiki), a teacher of history and classical Greek (a hilolo 05 or philoiogist) would enroll in philossofiki (faculty of arts). The program of studies for secondary school teachers is not dif- ferent from that pursued by those who major in a field such as mathematics but do not intend to enter the teaching profession. Prospective teachers enrolled in the universities, however, are asked to take courses in pedagogy. Student or practice-teaching is not common, nor is it required to gain a teaching position. With a university diploma, a person may apply for any teaching job in the public or private sector. Section Summary Related to the United States and Greek educational systems, the parent, teacher, and student expectations reflect the philosophical and historical evolution of education in both countries. From the very beginning, the concept of free public education has been stressed in the United States. thus providing for equal opportunities through a 37 wide and diversified range of problems that may be adjusted to meet the needs of the individual and the community. In Greece, the 1975 Constitution stresses that one of the objectives of education is the development of a national and reli- gious identity, thus perpetuating a 200-year-old tradition. No devia- tion from the State-imposed curriculum can be made in favor of the individual student in the community. The concept of equal opportuni- ties is interpreted as free education at all levels but with prac- tically no provision for innovation or for meeting the needs of the individual students. Expectations Parent Expectations United States.--Downey (1960) and Seager and Slagle (1959) investigated the historical background of America with the purpose of assessing the perceptions of the community concerning public educa- tion and more particularly the role of the teacher. Seager and Slagle's study was conducted in five geographic areas: four in the United States and one in Canada. The data col- lected were analyzed in terms of certain variables, the most impor- tant being geographic region, years of schooling, and occupational status. The responses from these three variables yielded a consis- tent pattern and were reliable predictors of parental expectations for the school's rank. The researchers found differences that appeared with regu- larity among the five regional groups. The West emphasized the 38 socializing aspects of education, the South gave priority to personal development, the East stressed moral values, and Canada the intel- lectual pursuits. The Midwest maintained a middle-of-the-road posi- tion on these task dimensions. Referring to regional differences, Seager and Slagle pointed out that the residential suburbs preferred the aesthetic and the intellectual elements, that the industrial areas emphasized the applied homemaking skills, and that the rural communities attached greater-than-average importance to physical and consumer education. Seager and Slagle also pointed out that deciding the content and structure of education is the responsibility not only of edu- cators, but also of noneducators from all segments of society. Their views and expectations regarding the schools' task must be taken into consideration. In comparing differences between educators and parents, the researchers stated that Without exception, the task elements which were perceived to be more important by the lay public than by educators were non- intellectual items. Non-educators considered vocational guid- ance, job training, consumer education, and home and family living to be more important than did educators. Ostrander and Dethy (1968) stated that if the school is to aim at a purposeful educational program, it has to be receptive to constructive influences from the community, and it must take into account that basically "the goals of education are to be set by the citizenry." To be receptive to the needs and aspirations of the people it serves and also to keep them informed of its functions, the school 39 should maintain its avenues of communication. In fact, it is one of the responsibilities of the community (parents in particular) to encourage teachers, as Warner, Havighurst, and Loeb (1944) mentioned: "To participate more in the life of the community in which they teach . they should live the life of their community, they should take their pleasure in the community as well as give their service, and not be isolated." Stemming from Getzels' (1968) social systems models, through which the school is viewed as a social system within a suprasystem, Hartrick (1961) stated that parents of this supra-system hold expec- tations not only for school objectives, but also for school procedures in reaching those objectives. The respondents involved in his inves- tigation were not only educators and noneducators, but also high school students. The study revealed: (a) that educators stressed the intel- lectual elements more than did the other two subgroups, and they also assigned lower priority to vocational training and home and family living; (b) that noneducators placed emphasis on both the intellec- tual and the productive elements and less emphasis on emotional stability, moral standards, and aesthetic appreciation; and (c) that high school students emphasized the social elements and de-emphasized the intellectual elements more than did the educators or noneducators. Students agreed with educators on the low ranking of the productive elements and with noneducators on the low ranking of cultural ele- ments. Hartrick also found that more educated parents empha— sized the intellectual skills and aesthetic appreciation and 4O de-emphasized the social skills and vocational guidance; and that parents with less than high school graduation emphasized the elements of vocational guidance, vocational training, consumer management, moral standards, and social life. Greenberg and Greenberg (1964) maintained that consideration has to be given to the expectations of parents of a culture that is based on a different pattern of life. Only in this way can we experi- ence "the satisfaction of feeling that we have fulfilled the expecta- tions of those who have had faith in us." In dealing with parental preferences, Sieber and Wilder (1967) indicated that parents are keenly interested in styles of teaching and stress the intellectual aspects of education much more than teach- ers think they do. The writers described four teaching styles: 1. Control oriented -—emphasis on maintaining discipline, following directions, and working hard 2. Content oriented --concern with subject matter, covering material thoroughly, and testing regu- larly 3. Discovery oriented --encouragement of creativity, and making lessons interesting 4. Sympathy oriented --stress on friendliness, being liked by students, understanding and handling their problems In conducting a survey of mothers' preferences, the investigators discovered that mothers preferred teachers whose style, even at primary grade level, was mainly content oriented rather than sympathy oriented. A more detailed analysis of the study reveals that mothers of middle-class communities showed greater preference than those of the 41 working class for the discovery-oriented style of teaching. Thus, teachers who used the discovery method were in closer agreement with middle-class parents' expectations and were more successful with their children because they had the support of their family members who believedirlindependence training. On the other hand, mothers of the working-class community preferred "control" and "sympathy" oriented styles of teaching. This is attributed partly to their non- intellectual background. However, when these mothers showed pref- erenceikn‘an intellectual style, they chose "authoritarian intel- lectualism" (content) rather than "permissive intellectualism" (discovery). The researchers stated that by comparing the preferences of mothers among four typical teaching styles with the self-images of their children's teachers, it was found that mothers prefer a content- oriented style more often than any other, while a majority of teachers see themselves as discovery oriented. There is considerable discrep- ancy between the styles of teaching that mothers expect and the styles of teachers as seen by themselves, both at the elementary and at the secondary levels. "Sixty-nine percent of the mothers have a teacher for their child whose role definition is not in accord with their preference." Paternal influence has received very little attention in the literature. Rau, Mlodnosky, and Anastasiow'(l964), comparing maternal and paternal influences on students' personality characteristics, revealed: "For fathers . . . what we have labelled the 'paternal 42 involvement' factor seems to be a more important influence on their sons' adjustment than any of the dimensions we originally hypothe- sized." Rau et a1. studied the successful achievement behaviors of students as affected by parent child-rearing attitudes and practices. Students who performed well academically typically demonstrated well- adjusted behavior, although few significant relationships were found between parent attitude and student achievement. However, the inves- tigators suggested that perhaps the data in their study indirectly reflected more significance when treated inferentially: Our data rather generally supported the view that parental attitudes are related to the maturity-adjustment syndrome. To a lesser extent, the same parent attitudes predict achieve- ment. This lends credence to the view that this set of per- sonality characteristics may be thought of as mediating [sjgfl the influence of parent attitudes on achievement. For instance, mothers' scores on the Democracy scale administered at kinder- garten level predict both self-sufficiency and achievement in second grade, and the latter two variables intercorrelate. We consider it a reasonable conclusion from such findings that mothers' attitudes influence differences in self-sufficiency, which in turn influence academic success. Brookover, Gigliotti, Henderson, and Schneider (1967) stressed the importance of parental expectations in the formation of student self-concept of academic ability. Erickson's (1967) follow-up study of Brookover et a1. indicated that parental concerns for their chil- dren are the first stage in the development of the children's positive self-concept. Greece.--The attitude of Greek parents toward education has always been conservative, and one could say that educational develop- ments outside the national sphere have been looked upon with suspicion 43 and fear. According to the 1976 OECD Report dealing with "Decision Making in Educational Systems," this attitude "has contributed to the sluggishness of the system in adapting itself to actual socioeconomic changes, whereas ideally the educational system should not merely adapt but . . . become an agent of change." The expectations of Greek parents vis-a-vis education, besides a marked conservatism, are characterized by nationalism, respect of Orthodoxy, Hellenism, perception of education as a social ladder, an instrument for the shaping of a disciplined and law-abiding citizen, and respect of family values. Furthermore, the expectations of a Greek parent are concentrated on high academic achievement rather than on the development of the personality. Greek parents insist on reserv- ing to themselves the right to decide for their children their future profession or career. Guidance and counseling services are totally unknown in Greek schools, and a limited Career Orientation Department operates within the Ministry of Social Welfare but mainly to deal with problems of unemployment. Nationalism can be traced to the early stages of the Turkish occupation when Greeks believed, and rightfully so, that the only means to preserve their national identity was the preservation of their language. Despite rigorous measures and draconian penalties imposed by the occupant, Greek families persisted in sending their children to underground schools (krypho scholio) run by the Orthodox priests in their churches under the cover of darkness. This is reflected in the old lullaby that all Greek children have learned from their ancestors: 44 My bright little moon Shed light on me To go to school To learn many things All God's wonders. As Keefe, Coffin, Mussen, and Rinehart (1977) pointed out: For centuries the village priest has been the preserver of Greek cultural and religious traditions and as such he has been respected by other villagers. . . . The church had the sole responsibility for the preservation of Greek culture and reli- gion during four centuries of foreign domination. It served as a symbol of political independence as well as national unity. Not surprisingly, the builders of the modern national state made use of the bond between Orthodoxy and nationalism. Hellenism associated with Orthodoxy is another persistent demand of Greek parents and is to be found throughout primary and secondary education. In analyzing this feature, Keefe et a1. concluded: To be a Greek means embracing the ideology of Hellenism. Hellenism is a compilation of all that was good and glorious in ancient Greece. Greeks of all social classes and from all regions are acutely aware of the role their country played in the development of Western philosophy. This awareness is one of the reasons so much emphasis has been placed on classical education. Hellenism developed during Ottoman rule and was a means of promoting Greek cultural identity and nationalism. The above concept of education is reflected in most recent educational reforms. As reported in the 1980 OECD Report, in 1958, for example, the Committee on Education reaffirmed that "this human- istic ideal, inspired by the Hellenic and Christian spirit, should constitute the foundation of Greek education." The educational ramifications of the twentieth-century economic development and, in turn, the economic significance of school- ing made a late and sudden appearance in the range of Greek parents' expectations. Parents visualize education as the ladder of social 45 and economic promotion. The secondary school (gymnasion) became the focus of their attention and "it epitomized what the Greeks understood good education to be, and it was the main gateway to the post-secondary institutions and thereby to high status jobs," according to the 1980 OECD Report. Given the prestige inherent in university education, the restrictions imposed on university admission and the high scores required to this effect, added to the contempt of Greek parents for vocational education and the sense of self-pride (philotimo) pertain- ing to the Greek citizen, parents' expectations are reflected in a demand for high academic achievement for their children. By the same token, these demands are transferred to the schools, which concentrate their efforts on preparing students for the university entrance exami- nations. However, the deficiencies of the public school system as well as the inefficiencies of the educational approaches force the parents to turn to the private sector. A vast network of private schools emerged as a result of the inadequacy of public school education, which is not commensurate with parents' expectations. The study conducted in 1980 by OECD reported that "the introduction of new ideas into the Greek educational systems has almost always been the result of private initiative." A previous OECD Report (1974) underscored this situation: In a situation where education is looked upon as providing access to equality of opportunity, the social demand for education tends to result in growth of the private educa- tional sector even when public resources for education are curtailed. 46 To meet their high expectations, as referred to previosuly, parents send their children to the frontistiria, where they receive extensive tutoring in the evening. As Massialas (1981) reported, "it has been estimated that the majority of students aspiring to be admitted to a higher education institution have enrolled, at one time or another, in some type of frontistiria." Literature and research on Greek parents' expectations are almost nonexistent. However, these expectations exist in a subjacent state throughout Greek history, the successive educational reforms, and the OECD reports from which they have been extracted for this study. Teacher Expectations United States.--In determining the school's task, the educa— tional leader, as McPhee (1959) pointed out, has to know his society and its values and attitudes toward education. The educational leader's problem has recently become even more complex because these values are in a state of constant change. Present American educational values are predominantly those held by the middle class, to which the majority of educators belong. Thus, we notice that a lower-class teacher, as Warner, Havighurst, and Loeb (1944) remarked, "will strive for upward mobility and therefore will set high value on middle-class behavior wherever he goes." On the other hand, an upper—class teacher, being in the minority, will have to abide by middle-class values even if he does not subscribe to them. In a more recent study, Hills (1961) maintained that the views of the teachers do not differ greatly from those of the community and 47 that there is greater incongruence between two groups of teachers serv- ing different social-class groups than between the teachers and the respective communities they serve. Greenberg and Greenberg (1964) maintained that the teacher's expectations of a child predetermine that child's performance. More recently, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) went even further and made extensive studies that brought forth considerable evidence in support of this phenomenon. There has been much controversy in the area of teacher expectations in the past several years. Brookover et a1. (1973) ascribed the present interest in teacher expectations to Robert Rosen- thal: As previously stated, significant research in the area of expec- tations and learning is attributable to Robert Rosenthal. Both in his study of animals (1966) as well as his highly important collaborative study (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968) on teacher expectations and elementary school achievements in which naive subjects were told that certain randomly chosen students were, according to new intelligence tests, about to make an educa- tional spurt. They found that those students who had been ran- domly classified as higher achievers actually gained signifi- cantly more in achievements than did the control group and this gain was more pronounced in the earlier grades. This study, thus, lends credence to the hypothesis that teacher expectations have a symbiotic relationship with school achievement (input- result-feedback-input). Results of several other studies should be mentioned also. Henderson (1973), in his study of teacher background and student vari- ables such as race and social-economic class, came to the not-unexpected conclusion that causes of teachers' expectations were quite complex. The findings, determined by questioning 24 black and 24 white teachers attending a summer session at the University of Virginia, led Henderson to conclude that: 48 The determinants of teachers' expectancies are indeed complex. It is evident that they are affected by a number of different kinds of information including test scores, classroom behavior and background characteristics of each child. Cunningham (1975) and Larson (1973), in their respective studies, found evidence to support the concept that teacher style and influence are factors to be considered in expectations for children. However, Larson suggested that the individual child's own characteris- tics were more reliable in predicting academic success. United States teachers differ from their European colleagues in that most of them believe their own behavior may influence their students. In a study conducted in Scandinavian countries, Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike (1973) concluded that teachers were unable to project possible influ- ences on their students. Singleton (1971) maintained that applying the concept of education as cultural transmission suggests that we will be equally interested in all parties involved in educational systems and transactions, as well as in the social context within which learning is presumed to take place. This will include the intentions of a teacher, his manipulation of a learner, and the changes in the learner's behav- ior. Guthrie (1967) indicated that teachers' expectations are a function of their own personalities and result from many visual and intangible factors. He stated: One of the silent languages is proximity, but there are also cues and conventions which involve facial expressions, touch- ing, posture, dressing, and the whole spectrum of paralinguistic cues of the volume, speed, and tone of speech. . . . 49 .Grgggg.--Teacher expectations meet and complement those of the parents as discussed above. Furthermore, these expectations are delineated by the official State curriculum, the high scores to be achieved at all grade levels, particularly in the senior year, and by the university admission requirements. Teacher expectations are also conditioned by the Greek sOciety's aspirations for a highly disciplined citizen, respectful of the authority with which educators are invested. Furthermore, teachers are required to observe strictly the mandated subject matter without any latitude for deviation or innovation. Only kindergarten and elementary teachers in the course of their two-year training program are offered rudimentary education classes dealing with child psychology, theories of learning, and teaching methods. Most of these courses are theoretical. Secondary school teachers' programs deal solely with the subjects they plan to teach. Courses in pedagogy, with few exceptions, are offered at the institutes for in-service training. As Massialas (1981) stated: Student or practice-teaching is not common, nor it is required to gain a teaching position. With a university diploma, a person may apply for any teaching job in the public or private sector. Teacher expectations reflect, therefore, the nature of their univer- sity training. This deficiency has been decried by some inspired reformers who have urged the educational authorities to undertake drastic measures for the retraining of teachers in order to help place their expectations in a different perspective. Botsoglou (1980) wrote: 50 Any government that would come in power, any new radical or revolutionary measures that this government would be willing to apply to education, must confront and persuade the entire body of professional educators. This is a given: no minister of education could suddenly send home all teachers in active ser- vice and hire new ones, fresh and ready to implement any edu- cational reform. The entire teaching staff is there. We must work with them; we must retrain them so that they would be will- ing and able to bring about this reform in education. The 1980 OECD Report identified the expectations for effi- ciency in Greek education served by its professional staff: Functional efficiency was a predominant consideration in the reform movement of the last twenty years. There was generally less emphasis on social equity considerations (the distributive aspects of education), and more on participation, which char- acterized reform trends in other liberal societies. The following passage extracted from the Athena School Handbook (1980), based on State laws, regulations, and circulars, fully illus— trates what teachers should be striving for in their classrooms: The primary conditions for students to be allowed to attend the elementary, middle and high schools of the Athena School is to be studious, hard-working, and, in general, fully responding to their lessons, which constitutes their duty. A basic condi- tion for being studious and achieve good grades is the total concentration on school work and the correct attitude towards everybody. Students should be particularly attentive during their class and respect absolutely the regulations of the class. Teacher expectations for achievement and attitude are, once again, imposed by the current nationwide regulations as stipulated in the above-mentioned handbook: A student who will have been found unprepared in any subject or who has been inattentive, is obliged, according to the judgment of his teacher, to remain in school after school hours in order to successfully complete the lesson. For a serious breach of discipline, a student will be suspended or expelled and the grade of his behavior will be lowered. 51 The grade (excellent, very good, good) in attitude plays a major role in the student's report card and records. A transferring student can hardly be accepted in public and private schools with a grade "good" and, if accepted, he will have to remain on probation for a long period of time. Teacher expectations concerning discipline and attitude at all moments of the school day are stringent and therefore very high. Papanoutsos (1963), himself, the liberal reformer of Greek education, added to the above teacher expectations the need to ground in the character of the students the traits of the "educational physi- onomy." Student Expectations United States.--Goldman (1961) conducted a survey to examine the differences between the real images of the high school graduate as he is today and the ideal image of him as perceived by educators, non- educators, and high school students. He found that educators viewed today's graduate as being interested in making money, in having as much fun as possible, and in making friends easily. They regarded him as least knowledgeable in political affairs and unwilling to sacrifice his own comfort for the good of others. Noneducators indicated that the high school graduate was able to make friends easily, had knowledge of many things and a desire to learn more, and was interested in making as much money as possible. He was least characterized by willingness to sacrifice personal com— fort for that of others, by his knowledge of political matters, and by his spiritual attitude toward life. 52 According to Goldman, students perceived today's high school graduate as being most interested in knowing many things and having a desire to learn more, making friends easily, and being honest and trustworthy. On the other hand, he was viewed by them as least inter- ested in political affairs, in sacrificing his own comfort for that of others, or in developing a strong body. Differences between the real and the ideal image of the high school graduate were perceived most strongly by the educators and least by the students themselves. Goldman made a further contribution by demonstrating that both educators and noneducators believe that today's high school graduate is giving more importance to economic and social values than to altruistic values. He also maintained that differences do exist between educators and noneducators in what they believe the character of the high school graduate should be and what it is in reality. Referring to the responsibilities of the high school toward the adolescent, Goldman posed one key question in his investigation: "Should the high school bear major responsibility for developing all aspects of the adolescent, or should it be freed from some tasks which could properly be carried out by other agencies within a community?" He found that public opinion in the United States was divided on this point. However, he advocated that other institutions like the home and the church should assume certain functions such as family care, religion, welfare, health, athletics, and the like, all of which play their part in the student's development. This would allow the high school to become more effective by concentrating on the intellectual 53 aspects of the student and other related areas of its primary respon- sibility. All educational expectations to which reference has been made in this review include a certain proportion of four different kinds of goals: intellectual, social, personal, and practical. Through the research carried out by Downey (1960) and by Seager and Slagle (1959), there was evidence of consensus by both United States educators and noneducators that the intellectual aspects of education should be the school's main task. The major concern today, according to Bebell (1968), is that: . . by 1980 society will need a "new man“--a flexible, ever- learning, problem-solving type of man. . . . If there is to be any conflict between the acquisition of knowledge and the development of attitudes and habits for the effective use of knowledge, the latter must take precedence over the former. Singleton (1967) analyzed students' expectations and at the same time their role in the educational process through a different angle: Educators and schools must become the objects of studies-- educational patterns cannot be understood through the students alone. Our formal attempts at education assume that there must be a teacher, live or canned, and it is the focus on teaching that differentiates our modern practices of education from those of our more isolated or "primitive" contemporaries. The school, as a social institution of education, cannot be understood if students are viewed as its only output and edu- cation as its only function. Greece.--The most outstanding representative of progressive education in Greece, Evangelos Papanoutsos (1963), analyzed in an article published in the newspaper To Vima (November 7, 1963) under the title "Expectations" the educational expectations of the Greek people. Even for Papanoutsos, the educational expectations must be 54 centered on the national traditions of Greece. He stated, "The aim of Greek education must become the intensive and systematic effort to educate the youth according to the needs of our times, our national tradition and our democratic regime." The expectations and orientations of the Greek educational system, nationalistic as it is, derive from goals set by the State. This nationalism was exacerbated during the Turkish occupation, the pre-World War II Italian occupation of the Dodecanese Islands and, more recently, in Cryprus during the British occupation. In Cyprus, where at least 80 percent of the population projects its Greek heritage and maintains the Greek as the main language, education was based for nearly a century on two philosophies in flagrant contradiction with each other: the determination of the British occupant to maintain edu- cation under its absolute control and the commitment of the Greek- speaking population to maintain a full autonomy of the Greek educational system. Describing the role and expectations of the teachers in this political context, the Cypriot psychologist Antonis Papaioannou (1977) stated: The ultimate goals of national education are cultivated outside of the educational profession. We should not also ignore the involvement of education as an active agent in the political life of the nation, this involvement being a significant factor for change and innovations. This nationalistic philosophy was sanctioned by the Education Chart of the Cypriot Republic (1964) in its preamble, which stipulated: Since education constitutes the basis of the national tradi- tions of Greeks and a paramount value in the creative develop- ment of the Nation and since the education of the Greek children of Cyprus has struggled for centuries against a myriad of oppres- sions on the part of the successive conquerors of the island and 55 since education has succeeded in maintaining its absolute national character . . . the Greek communal assembly of Cyprus decides that education, in Cyprus, should identify itself in its orientations and programs with those prevailing in Greece. The expectations of the Greek students are constrained by the imposed curriculum. Counseling and guidance are totally unknown insti- tutions in the Greek schools. A small nucleus of counselors operates only at the Ministry of Social Welfare and is limited to the vocational sector. The lack of orientation and guidance is detrimental to the career goals of students and does not assist in the identification of their expectations. This concern was expressed by Papanoutsos (1976) in his study about "The Disoriented Youth": I am at a loss, wrote to me a few weeks ago a high school senior, because I do not know what area of concentration I should select. I wish to pursue my studies at the university, but what will happen later on if I decide I cannot live with my diploma? Dealing with the disenchantment of Greek students and how they feel betrayed in their expectations, Papanoutsos established strong similarities with criticism expressed by Silberman (1970) and Illich (1970) in their respective books, Crisis in the Classroom and Deschooling Society, Under the title "Crisis in the School," Papanoutsos drew a dismal picture of the "betrayed youth" in the Greek schools and how the high expectations nurtured in the elementary school are destroyed by imposed curriculum, absolute approaches, and the loss of the "sense of purpose" for all the subject matters within the sterile program of studies. Papanoutsos stated: The children still obey because their freshly awakened little brain is full of curiosity and grasps greedily whatever is being offered. But the adolescents of the secondary school feel that their school with its archaic program of studies has been severed from life. It does not provide to them motivation and the 56 opportunity to study the burning problems of our times-~moral, social, economic and political. If they still remain at their desks, they do it out of need and not out of real interest. . . . They "escape" from school mentally and they are only phys- ically present: they are mentally absent. The gifted students, more than the others, realize that although their memory is fed with dead knowledge, they are still hungry for the living truth. George Koutsoumaris (1980), a professor of economics, main— tained that secondary education, seen through the developmental process of the national economy, should prepare students to respond to specific requirements at the university. He stressed eight basic functions, the most significant being: 1. Selection process among the new generation of talents, i.e., the most intellectually gifted students on completion of second- ary education for the creation of an economic and social elite. 2. Accumulation of knowledge that will contribute to the shaping of human capital. The selection process to which Koutsoumaris referred in order for Greek students to be admitted at any institution of higher learning constitutes the primary and major concern of parents, teachers, and students. However, this phenomenon is not peculiar only to Greece. In countries like Brazil and Japan, where competition for university positions among students is very high, a "parallel educational system" has flourished. The Greek equivalent of the Japanese jg5g_(coaching schools) is the frontistirion, which was labeled by Papanoutsos as "the purgatory that our youth has to sustain in order to enter (if they enter) the academic paradise." 57 Panaoutsos (1976) pursued this idea: Is it true or not that the high school diploma does not open to our youth the gate of any of our universities, if this diploma is not endorsed by the directors of the frontistiria and that our diligent young people from the province, in order to achieve this endorsement, are compelled to spend in our two capitals (a) the money they obtained by selling a small piece of parental family property or (b) by liquidating the sister's dowry which was earned with sweat and blood? The highly selective process as well as classroom practices in Greece are in opposition with their counterparts in the United States. However, the screening and selection process for university admission in the United States should not be overlooked since high SAT scores, grade point averages, and quality recommendations are among the basic requirements for admission to the competitive schools. The teaching practices in the two educational systems present a sharp difference and the latter, again, derive from two different perceptions of education as well as diverging expectations. Quoting Jerome Bruner, Massialas and Zevin (1975) supported the position that: The best way to develop the ultimate learning ability of stu- dents is to create in the classroom a situation whereby the child or the adolescent, through the process of discovery and with his own efforts, identifies the basic concepts of a dis- cipline and realizes that these concepts are interrelated. . . . Every important subject has its own structure, e.g., science, geology and biology, and the responsibility of the student is to reconstitute freely this structure. The question is how this particular relationship of teacher/ student, the team spirit, as well as the collective research work can be achieved in classes that are compelled to follow a strictly delineated and imposed program, in a system that tends to limit more and more the 58 latitude of the children to insert their own ideas into the process of learning. Sideri (1980) placed this responsibility on the teachers, urging them to use any possible latitude left by the rigid programs "to awaken the mind of the students and to stimulate inquisitiveness." He continued: It is up to us educators to find a way to widen the margin of free options that the system leaves to us. It is up to us finally, since we are talking about our relationships with the children, not to identify ourselves with the external oppressions and to work with the students as prisoners in the same concentration camp. Section Summary In the United States, parental expectations vis-a-vis education vary greatly according to the education, socioeconomic background, and geographic location of the parents. The expectations cover personal development, moral values, homemaking skills, employment, sound consumer awareness, physical development, socialization, in addition to the acquisition of the "basics." Parents perceive teachers as carrying responsibilities outside the classroom and as agents of change in the classroom and the community. In Greece, parental expectations are much less diversified and are mainly concentrated on the educational function. Education, for Greek parents, is by no means an agent of change but rather an instru- ment for perpetuating values and ideals, for social promotion, for shaping respectful citizens, and for allowing them to have access to university. 59 The literature indicated that the United States teachers' expectations are a function of their own personalities, the community they serve, and their own backgrounds coupled with many complex fac- tors such as sense of accountability, concern for achievement, test scores, and student behavior. In Greece, the teachers' expectations are again delineated by the State and conditioned by the expectations of the society, i.e., concentration on subject matter, acquisition of high placement-test scores, ability to qualify for higher learning, and the shaping of a respectful and disciplined citizen. Research has indicated that students in the United States expect to find in their school an environment that is conducive to the acquisition of economic and social rather than altruistic values. They also expect to have teachers who provide opportunities for mastering knowledge leading to problem solving and the development of attitudes and work habits leading to the effective application of the acquired knowledge. In Greece, the students' expectations are limited to and constrained by a rigid curriculum and stereotyped educational approaches. Confronted with the rigidity of the programs, students tend to lose their sense of purpose, and this disparity between expectations and reality generates disenchantment. Chapter Summary_ In this chapter a review of literature and research related to the study was presented. Three areas of interest were presented 60 under the headings of (1) Parent Expectations, (2) Teacher Expecta- tions, and (3) Student Expectations. The evolution of Greek educational systems as presented in this chapter is the most accurate and current review in English, to date. Several studies reviewed proved not to follow the educational reform laws of the government in office, or they did not report that the law had been amended. Chapter III deals with the methodology as deriving from a review of the United States and Greek literature. It is based on existing improvements adapted to the needs of the study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The methodology used in this study was derived from the United States and the Greek literature and from existing instruments that were adapted for a cross-cultural comparison of the parents, teachers, and students' expectations both in an American school in Greece and in a Greek school system. This chapter describes the populations of interest, sampling procedures, data collection, and the use of instru- ments in this study. Populations of Interest One Greek secondary school (grades 7 through 12, population of 890) and one American overseas school located in Athens (grades 9 through 12, population of 860) comprised the populations of interest in this study. Both school systems attract students from the greater Athens area, primarily from middle- and upper-middle-class families. Another similarity between the identified institutions is their structure (K through 12) and their total student enrollment (2,000 students each). The selected Greek school is the Athena, G. Ziridis school system and comes under the authority of the Greek Ministry of Educa- tion, as do all private and public schools in Greece. The Ministry of 61 62 Education regulations govern all facets of the school operation in Greece (K-12), i.e., curriculum, teacher qualifications, examinations, conditions of admission, and school calendar. The Athena, G. Ziridis school, in the Greek educational system, stands as being the most compatible with the selected American school. The selected American institution is the American Community Schools of Athens (ACS), incorporated in the state of Delaware, and it operates in Greece as a "foreign school" by virtue of a special license granted by the Greek Ministry of Education. ACS is accredited by the Middle States Association of the United States. The school, which is a nonprofit organization, is governed by an eight-member board of education elected by the parents' association. In substance, ACS is an American-international school as evidenced by the admission policy (Appendix A). Approximately 80 percent of the students are United States citizens, and the 20 percent remaining is constituted of stu— dents from 44 different nationalities. Greek citizens, to enroll in a foreign school in Greece, need special authorization from the Greek government. Selection of the Sample A major difficulty encountered by the researcher was the possibility of distributing questionnaires in a Greek school. The practice of questionnaire distribution in educational institutions is quasi—unknown in Europe and subject to strict procedures and regula- tions imposed by the government. Even for government-monitored 63 projects, final authorization is only released following an elaborate procedure sanctioned by high-ranking officials. The Director General of Athena School, G. Ziridis, Mrs. Kathryn Spentzos, most willingly agreed to assist in this cross-cultural project by allowing the questionnaires to be distributed to parents, teachers, and students. Without this spirit of cooperation and understanding, coupled with a commitment to educational research, this project could not have materialized. Permission was obtained to administer the ques- tionnaire at ACS from the central administration according to the board of education policies and by-laws. In each of the two schools, teachers distributed question- naires to students. These students were selected by teachers according to criteria provided by the researcher so that a representative sampling might be obtained. The administration distributed questionnaires to parents through their students at each school. Teachers were also given questionnaires by the administration of the two schools. Of the American Community Schools' questionnaires (4O parent, 4O teacher, and 100 student), 52.5 percent of the parents,62.5 percent of the teachers, and 81 percent of the students returned questionnaires. 0f the Athena School questionnaires that were distributed (4O parent, 30 teacher, and 75 student), 90 percent of the parents, 80 percent of the teachers, and 74.7 percent of the students returned questionnaires. (See Table 3.1.) Both American and Greek teachers and administrators, through personal contacts, telephone calls, and follow-up notes, assisted to ensure that as many parents, teachers, and students as possible would 64 return questionnaires. The questionnaires were collected after the third marking period, i.e., the end of March 1981. Table 3.l.--Numerical profile of the questionnaires returned. United States Greek Sent Returned % Sent Returned % Parents 40 21 52.5 40 36 90.0 Teachers 40 25 62.5 30 24 80.0 Students 100 81 81.0 75 56 74.7 Procedures American Community Schools The research was discussed with administrators, teachers, and students. An explanatory cover letter accompanied each questionnaire sent to parents, and the contents were shared with teachers and stu- dents. Suggestions for improving the instrument were solicited, and the questionnaire items were studied for clarity and relevance. The questionnaires that were returned were analyzed by the researcher and verified by Dr. Joseph Testo, Professor at State University of New York. Athena School The procedure was complex, and a longer period of time was required to inform parents, teachers, and students about the scope and purpose of the research and the completion of the questionnaire. How- ever, the individuals involved in the study were very cooperative, as evidenced by the percentage of the questionnaires returned. 65 The researcher was formally introduced to the Director General of the Athena School by its educational consultant, Dr. John Dorbis. School visits were subsequently scheduled, during which the question- naire was discussed with the administrators and teachers, item by item, for clarity and accuracy as to the translation of the technical terms and the cultural relevance through the translation process. The translation procedure involved translations from English to Greek by a Greek translator, assisted by a bilingual Greek psycholo— gist, verification by another Greek translator, and back-translations into English by a bilingual translator, with further verification by the researcher. This procedure is similar to one suggested by Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike in their text, Cross-Cultural Research Methods (1973). The translated instrument with the explanatory notes was then printed by a Greek printer and retranslated back to English by the Greek translator for possible errors. The questionnaires were then taken to the Athena School for distribution and collection. Once the questionnaires were returned, they were analyzed by the researcher and verified by Dr. Dorbis, Professor at Athens University and stateside universities. Description of the Instrument The following information describes the format of the instru- ment used in this study. (Refer to Appendices B and C.) Part I--The first part of the questionnaire asks the respond- ent to rank order (from 1 to 8) eight areas of development skills and personality characteristics considered most important by parents, 66 teachers, and students for a child to have attained by age 16. The following eight categories were ranked by parents, teachers, and students: social skills, problem-solving skills, physical skills, emotional adjustment, language skills, self-help skills, academic skills, and moral growth. The following question was constructed to guide the research of Part I of the questionnaire: 00 significant differences exist between United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to their secondary school students' development in eight areas, as measured by rankings in these areas? Part II--The second part of the questionnaire asks the respond- ent to indicate which should be the institution primarily responsible for helping a child accomplish the skills indicated in each of the eight categories stated in the first part of the questionnaire. The institutions of primary responsibility as stated in Part II of the questionnaire are: home, school, home and school, and other. The following question was constructed to guide the research for Part II of the questionnaire: Are there differences between who is considered primarily responsible, and to what extent, for helping the United States and Greek child to accomplish his social, emotional, moral, academic, and physical development? Part III-~The third part of the questionnaire asks the respondent to indicate which is, in his/her opinion, the most approp- riate characterization in each of 60 items. The characterizations as indicated in Part III of the questionnaire are: special help, normal training, no strong opinion, prefer not, and harmful, 67 The following question was constructed to guide the research for Part III of the questionnaire: Are there differences between the American and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to the group of skills considered to be most important for a child by the age of 16? Method of Reporting Results The data from the parent, teacher, and student questionnaires were tabulated for statistical processing. The results of that processing are reported in Chapter IV. Summary In this chapter, the methodology of the study was presented. The American and Greek populations were described and compared, and the selection of the samples was presented. The methodological pro- cedures employed for each culture were described. The format and uses of the instrument were discussed, as well as the method of reporting results. Finally, the questions developed to guide each part of the study were stated. The data are presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare relevant data concerning the home and school expectations related to social, emotional, and academic development of selected secondary students in a Greek school and an American school in Athens, Greece. In the previous chapter, the procedures for data collection in both the Greek and American communities (parents, teachers, and students) were described, as were the instruments used in the study. In this chap- ter, the statistical analyses of data related to the research questions are presented. Research Qgestions and Statistical Analyses Question 1: Do significant differences exist between United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to their secondary school students' social, problem-solving, physical, emotional, language, self-help, academic, and emotional development, as measured by rankings in these areas? This research question was addressed by preliminary compila- tions of item frequencies for each group and defined subgroup. (Refer to Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.) Mean ranks were then compared for each item using t-test calculations. (See Tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6.) A Spearman rank-order correlation was calculated from the mean rankings~0m EmPgoLm w m w W m w m, m ._.........w E... a... gum sum cam 5pm 5pc tgm ccm amp amg< wmucmugoasH mo gmugo cw mmcwxcmm .mmgm :umm so» mweucmscmgwaimP—mxm _mp=m2go—m>mu m.cmgnpwzo we mmcwxcmg .mpcwgma xmwgu use mmuwum vmuwcs mo comwgwaeou--.y.¢ urge» .pcmpgoaew ummmp mcwmn m ncm pcwggogaw pmos mcwmn P sup: .mucmpgoasv an mmmconmL gouge gamma 70 w w m m m W m m xwmww cpzogm page: m m W W W m m w .....w .5... ........ m m m m M W m m .........._w 2...... m m m M m m m w xwmww m~_.xm mmmzmcmg w m m m W W WP MP xwmww pcmsamafium chowaOEm m ... M m w w w W ........w .5... 2...... m M m m w M w ” xwmww m=.>_om EmpnoLa W M W m M W w W .3 2... a... gum gum 5pm gum sue cgm ucm amp mmucmugoasm we qugo cw mmcwxcmm mmg< .mogw :umm Low mmwucmzcmgwuumpppxm Faucmsgo~m>mc .mucmuzpm mo mmcwxcmg .mgmgummp xmmgo can mmpmpm vmuwca mo cemwsmasoo--.~.¢ mpnmp .pcepgeeew umeep agree m use acepgeesw umee maven F saw: .eeeepgeesw xe memeeemmg gouge xeeme 71 . . M M m w. M. w. .4... M ”W w_ w. m. m. M w xwm¢w m._.xm e.g.e.e< m” m” m_ w. m w. M m xwmww apmg-c.mm W_ w” M_ w” M w. m w xwmww mewxm eeezeeee . m M .3 W. m m. M. .M... MN m m. m w ... M. .w .5“... .5... 5...... w m” m” Mp m” w WP N xwmww mcw>Fem Empeege . m .. ... m M. M. .5... cum can 5pm 5pm sue cgm vcm amp eeuceugeesu we gauge a. mmcvxcem eag< .eege seem Lem meweeeaemgmuimemxm FepceEeepe>ee .muceezum we mm:_xeeg .muceeepm xeeew ece meueum weave: we cemwgeeseu--.m.e e—eek 72 Table 4.4.--Comparison of means, frequencies, pooled variance t-test and 2-tail probability significance levels for each of the eight developmental-skill areas as reported by United States and Greek parents. Pooled Variance Area Mean Frequency SDa t-test 3;:gil Social Skills 2.2.. 3:23: I; :33: Problem solving 292.1. g; £233 )3 23,235 1 .52 .136 Physical skills 2.2... 2:333? .12 1.32 1-38 m Emotional adjustment 3.2:... 3:232 12 13??) .3. .723 Language skills 3.1122... 23% £2 .22; l .29 .203 Self-help skills 3.2;... 2:322; 13 33:32 2.48 .017 Academic skills 2.12... 3222?? 12 2233 ~77 448 Moral growth 2.12;... 53.123 £2 :32? 42 .90. aSD = standard deviation. *Significance level to .05. 73 Table 4.5.--Comparison of means, frequencies, pooled variance t-test and 2-tailed probability significance levels for each of the eight developmental-skill areas as reported by United States and Greek teachers. Pooled Variance Area Mean Frequency SDa t-test §;§gll Social skills 33... 23333 31 3:133 .64 .52. Problem solving 3.3:... 3333 31 1:331 -58 .56. Physical skills 33... :3333 31 1:33 .44 .661 Emotional adjustment 333.. 3333 31 .333 -50 w Language skills 33:... 3333 33 1:331 .0. .953 Self-help skills 3.3... 3313 31 3:311 44 .663 Academic skills 3.3.. 21313 31 1:313 .57 .574 Moral growth 33:... 31333 31 1:331 -19 .47 aSD = standard deviation. *Significance level to .05. 74 Table 4.6.--Comparison of means, frequencies, pooled variance t-test and 2—tail probability significance levels for each of the eight developmental-skill areas as reported by United States and Greek students. Area Mean 50a Pooled Variance Frequency t-test g;§gil Social skills 3.23:... 31133 33 1:313 2-57 401 Problem solving 3:3... 33113 33 1:333 41 .583 Physical skills 3.3:... 323311 33 1:113 2-63 .mo Emotional adjustment 33.1. 31131 33 3:333 1.1.. .250 Language skills 33... 321313 33 1:333 1.29 .200 Self-help skills 333.. 3:2;38 g; §:ggg 1.59 .114 Academic skills 3.3:... 33333 33 3:333 1-03 .304 Moral growth 333.. 3:32;? 3; 3:333 1.88 .063 aSD = standard deviation. *Significance level to .05. 75 parents :1 value of rS = 0.6905, for teachers a value of r5 = l.00, and for students a value of rS = 0.9524 was obtained. To be sig- nificant at .05, the computed rs would need to exceed 0.643. All rS scores found were greater than this value. Therefore, there was a significant relationship between the rankings of parents, of teachers, and of students (Figure 4.1). Question 2: Are there differences between who is considered primarily responsible-~and to what extent--for helping the United States and Greek child to accomplish social, emotional, moral, academic, and physical development? Question 2 was addressed by preliminary compilations of fre- quencies for each group. (Refer to Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10.) Then a t-test score was computed for each of the eight items, taking into account the assumptions of cell size for t-test calculations, which required that there be no empty cells and at least five units for both cells in a column. (Refer to Tables 4.ll, 4.12, and 4.13.) Certain of the item columns that were eliminated to meet the cell-size assump- tions of two-tailed test calculations plainly represented marked dif- ferences between the two populations. Each item was explored for significance at a level of .05. The overall two-tailed level for the set of eight items was set at .05. The significance level of each of the eight areas concerned with this research question was .05, determined from an overall two- tailed probability level of .05. Refer to Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 for frequency comparisons. 76 Table 4.7.--Comparison of United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students' rankings of each developmental-skill area as determined by item mean for Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient calculations. Area Parents Teachers Students Social skills U.S. 2 3 l Greek 5 3 l Problem solving U.S. 5 4 4 Greek 2 4 5 Physical skills U.S. 8 8 8 Greek 7 8 8 Emotional adjustment U.S. 3 l 3 Greek 4 l 3 Language skills U.S. 7 5 7 Greek 6 5 6 Self-help skills U.S. 6 6 6 Greek 8 6 7 Academic skills U.S. 4 7 5 Greek 3 7 4 Moral growth U.S. l 2 2 Greek 1 2 2 u. u C1096,“ A.m u 2 cup: pm>mp mg. as» um accommw: -mwm ma op mem.o cog» gmammgm an umzs mg "muozv .mpcmuzpm new .mgmgommp .mpcmgma xmmgw use mmwmwm Guava: .cowmeogcou concouxcmc :wsgmoam Low mmcwxcmg yo mcpgmuco--.P.e mgamwu m mo.o v a emmm.o u L 77 N _ e _ N _ o _ m _ N _ m _ _ _ xmmcu _ N a m _ o # n _ m _ m _ e fl F # .m.= _ Page: oPEmvmu< aFm: wmmzmcmb chowaoEN Pmummzcm mcw>~om meuom -mpmm EmFaoLa .mmmmmmmw mo.o v a oo.P u we N _ N _ o _ m _ _ _ N _ e _ N _ Nudge _ N _ m _ o _ m _ F # m _ e _ m _ .m.: _ Pogo: owEmcmu< arm: mmmzmcmb chowposm FNUszgm m=w>pom meuom -mpmm Empnoga mgmgocmh mo.o v a momm.o u we _ _ m _ N _ m _ 4 _ N _ N _ m _ Nmmcu _ _ _ a _ e _ N _ m _ N g m _ N _ .4: _Ncoz uwsmumu< QFm: mamamcmb chowuosu Pmuwmxgm mcw>Pom meuom -mpmm Em_noga mpcmcmm 78 N N N N o NN N o sNzocN Nate: 0 NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN UNENNN8< o NN NN N N NN N o NNNNNN NNN;-NNNN o N N NN N N N N NNNNNN NNNNNNNN o NN ON 0 o oN NN o NcNeNNNNoN NmeoNNosN o NN N NN N «N N N NNNNNN NNNNNNNN o NN N o N NN N N N=N>Nom ENNNONN N NN N oN N NN N N NNNNNN NNNuom Lagpo Nwwuwm Noogum use: cacao Nwwumm Noogum mac: mmc< mpcmcma xwmgu mucmgom mmumum cmch: .NHNNNachoammN Noosumnmeo; No newscmNmmm .mucmcma xmmgu can magnum umuch No mmNocmzumNm we comNNmasouuu.w.e mNamh 79 N NN N N N NN N N NNzNNN NNNNz N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNNN< N NN N N N NN NN N NNNNNN NNNN-NNNN N N N NN N N N NN NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNEN N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNN>NNN ENNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNN gmzuo pwwuwm Foosum wso: gmsuo Nwmuwm Foocum mac: mmg< Newcomwh xmmgw mgmguomk mmpmum kuwc: .NNNNNNNNcoNNmN Noogum -mso; we NewscmNmmN .Ngmcuwmp xmmcw can mmumum cwuch mo mmNocmscmgm mo comwgmasouun.m.¢ epoch 79 N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNz N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN N N N NN NN N NNNNNN NNNN-NNNN N N N NN N N N NN NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNNENNNNNN NNNNNNNEN N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNN>NNN ENNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNN Nmsuo Nwmuwm Noozum mac: gmgpo Nwmuwm Noosum use: ch< mecummh xmme mgmgomwp mmumum cwuNca .NNNNNnchoNNwN NooguN -mso; No newscmwmmm .mgmgummp xmmgw ucm mmumum umuch we mmNucmzcmNm mo :oNNNNNEou-u.m.N mNnNH 80 NN NN NN N NN NN NN N NNzNNN NNNNz N NN NN N N NN N NN NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN NN N N NN NN N NNNNNN NNNN-NNNN N N N NN N NN N NN NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N NN NN N N NN NN N NNNENNNNNN NNNNNNNNN N NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NNNNNNN ENNNNNN N NN N N N NN N N NNNNNN NNNNNN gmzpo Nwwuwm Noonum use: cmguo Nwwuwm Noosom mac: NmN< mucmuzum xmmgw NNNNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN .NNNNNNNNNNNNwN Noogum -meo; No NNNENNNNNN .Nucmuaum xmmco ucN NoNNNm NNNNND No mmNucmzcmgw mo comNNNNEou--.oN.N mNNNN 81 Area 1: Social skills (Tables 4.ll, 4.l2, 4.13) Parents: tive frequencies. significant. m= tive frequencies. significant. Students: tive frequencies. significant. A t-value of 2.l3 was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .039 wa§_statistically A t-value of .42 was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .673 was not statistically A t-value of .06 was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .956 was ngt_statistically Area 2: Problem solving (Tables 4.ll, 4.12, 4.l3) Parents: tive frequencies. significant. M: tive frequencies. significant. mm: tive frequencies. significant. Area 3: Physical Parents: tive frequencies. significant. A t-value of 2.29 was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .026 wg§_statistically A t-value of .61 was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .544 was ggt_statistically A t-value of .62 was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .534 was ngt_statistically skills (Tables 4.ll, 4.12, 4.l3) A t-value of 2.2l was calculated from the compara- The probability level of .032 wa§_statistically 82 Table 4.ll.--Comparison of United States and Greek parents' assignment of primary responsibility for accomplishment of eight developmental areas. Pooled Variance Area Mean Frequency SDa 2-tail t'tESt Prob.* Social skills 0.5. 2.0550 20 .510 Greek .6800 25 .627 2°13 '039 a—J Problem solving 2.2... 3:89: :2 :25: Physical skills 33331. 323333 33 :333 2.21 .032 Emotional adjustment 3333.: 33333 33 2333 -94 .351 Language skills 3:33.. 3:333 33 :333 1-54 .m Self-help skills 33:... 33333 33 :333 -30 .763 Academic skills 3333.. 33333 33 1333 2-00 -052 Moral growth 3:... 323333 :1 :333 aSD = standard deviation. *Significance level to .05. 83 Table 4.12.--Comparison of United States and Greek teachers' assignment of primary responsibility for accomplishment of eight developmental areas. Pooled Variance Area Mean Frequency SDa 2-tail t-test Prob.* Social skills 0.5. 1.9200 25 .400 Greek 1.8750 24 .338 ~42 '573 Problem solving U.S. 2.0800 25 .400 Greek 2.0000 24 .511 -5‘ -544 Physical skills 3333.. 323333 33 2333 .22 .827 Emotional adjustment 3.2... 33:33 :2 :23: Language skills 333... 33333 33 2333 -23 m Self-help skills 333:3 3:333? 32 :222 .79 .436 Academic skills 333.33 33333 33 “‘58 2.73 .009 Moral growth 33333 3 3333 3% :23; 3.29 .002 aSD = standard deviation. *Significance level to .05. 84 Table 4.13.--Comparison of United States and Greek students' assignment of primary responsibility for accomplishment of eight developmental areas. Pooled Variance Area Mean Frequency SDa 2-tail t‘tESt Prob.* Social skills U.S. 1.8904 73 .356 Greek 1.8868 53 .375 '05 '955 Problem solving 0.5. 1.9595 74 .650 Greek 2.0364 55 .744 '62 '537 Physical skills 0.5. 1.6714 70 .556 Greek 1.5962 52 .603 '7‘ '478 Emotional adjustment 0.5. 2.2875 80 .578 Greek 2.7750 40 .423 4'73 '00” Language skills 0.5. 1.3636 77 .687 Greek 1.0000 46 .000 3°59 -°°° Self-help skills 0.5. 2.3553 76 .559 Greek 2.6607 56 .514 3'21 '002 Academic skills 0.5. 1.5926 81 .519 Greek 2.0357 56 .602 4'50 °°°° Moral growth u.s. 2.1714 70 .510 Greek 2.2667 45 .580 '93 '356 a $0 = standard deviation. *Significance level to .05. 85 Teachers: A t-value of .22 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .827 was ngt_statistically significant. Students: A t-value of .71 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .478 was ngt_statistically significant. Area 4: Emotional adjustment (Tables 4.11, 4.12, 4.13) Parents: A t-value of .94 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .351 was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value of .29 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .773 was ngt_statistically significant. Students: A t-value of 4.73 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .000 wa§_statistically significant. Area 5: Language skills (Tables 4.ll, 4.12, 4.13) Parents: A t-value of 1.54 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .131 was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value of .23 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .817 was ngt_statistically significant. 86 Students: A t-value of 3.59 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .000 wa§_statistically significant. Area 6: Self-help skills (Tables 4.ll, 4.12, 4.l3) Parents: A t-value of .30 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .763 was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value of .79 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .436 was ngt_statistically significant. Students: A t-value of 3.21 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The probability level of .022 wa§_statistically significant. Area 7: Academic skills (Tables 4.11, 4.12, 4.13) Parents: A t-value of 2.00 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The two-tailed probability level of .052 was_ statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value of 2.73 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The two-tailed probability level of .009 was_ statistically significant. Students: A t-value of 4.60 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The two-tailed probability level of .000 was_ statistically significant. 87 Area 8: Moral growth (Tables 4.11, 4.12, 4.13) Parents: A t-value of 1.23 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The two-tailed probability level of .228 was ngt_ statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value of 3.28 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The two-tailed probability level of .002 was_ statistically significant. Students: A t-value of .93 was calculated from the compara- tive frequencies. The two-tailed probability level of .356 was ngt_ statistically significant. Question 3: Are there differences between the United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to the group of skills considered to be most impor- tant for a child by the age of 16? Question 3 was addressed by preliminary compilation of fre- quencies for each group. (Refer to Tables 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16.) A t-test score was computed for each category of items, taking into account the t-test assumption for cell sizes. The overall signifi- cance was set at .05. The 18 items in the Social category (Tables 4.17a, 4.17b, and 4.l7c), 12 items in the Emotional category (Tables 4.18a, 4.18b, and 4.18c), and'UlitemsirIthe Academic category (Tables 4.l9a, 4.l9b, and 4.l9c) were explored for significance at a two-tailed level of .05. The same significance level was established for the eight items in the Moral category (Tables 4.20a, 4.20b, and 4.20c) and for the eight items in the Physical category (Tables 4.21a, 4.21b, and 4.21c). 88 Table 4.14.--Comparison of frequencies between United States and Greek parents regarding essential skills to be attained by age 16. .— Special Normal No Strong Prefer (gig:- ALL— Tral'm'ng __0_p.i.rion_ Harmful ”'5' Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek 1 1 l 20 15 0 7 0 3 0 0 2 2 3- 18 18 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 13 3 5 12 0 3 0 6 4 0 4 18 12 2 9 1 1 0 0 5 2 l 15 3 2 14 1 5 1 4 6 3 3 18 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 18 14 1 8 0 1 1 0 8 5 4 16 17 .0 5 0 0 0 0 9 3 3 17 17 1 5 0 0 0 0 10 6 5 11 10 3 7 1 3 0 0 ll 5 3 16 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 ‘2 2 1 11 6 7 11 0 8 1 0 13 4 3 13 12 4 10 0 1 0 0 14 3 0 13 9 4 12 0 4 1 0 15 2 2 13 16 5 9 1 0 0 0 16 2 3 17 20 1 4 0 0 1 . 0 l7 0 0 16 9 5 11 0 5 0 0 ‘8 2 l 8 4 11 15 0 5 0 1 l9 4 3 13 9 4 10 0 2 0 1 20 3 7 16 13 2 5 0 0 0 0 21 1 4 16 17 4 3 0 2 0 0 22 3 6 17 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 23 4 2 15 8 2 11 0 5 0 0 24 4 9 16 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 13 16 3 7 0 2 0 1 26 0 0 18 9 3 11 0 6 o 0 27 2 0 16 16 3 7 0 2 0 0 28 3 0 16 21 2 5 0 0 0 0 29 3 1 10 2 8 14 0 7 0 2 30 l 0 16 9 2 15 0 2 7 0 Table 4.14.--Continued. £39 Special Normal No Strong Prefer 3:52- Help Training Opinion Harmful U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek 31 2 4 17 20 l 2 0 0 0 0 32 5 2 16 19 O 3 0 0 0 O 33 5 3. ll 8 4 12 0 3 l 0 34 3 9 18 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 35 l 2 18 9 2 l4 0 l l 0 36 6 1 l4 l7 1 5 O 3 0 0 37 3 7 18 17 0 2 0 0 O 0 38 2 3 19 17 0 6 0 0 0 O 39 1 3 16 11 4 10 0 l 0 0 40 1 o 12 7 '8 16 o 3 o o 41 l l 16 8 4 15 0 1 0 l 42 2 2 ll 5 5 12 2 2 l 4 43 2 l 18 17 1 8 0 0 0 0 44 5 8 15 16 l 2 0 0 0 0 45 0 l 15 7 6 14 0 3 0 0 46 0 3 18 18 3 5 0 0 0 0 47 4 O 16 19 1 6 0 0 0 0 48 2 3 19 22 0 l 0 0 0 0 49 1 4 16 16 3 5 0 0 l O 50 0 0 17 19 3 7 1 0 0 0 51 5 4 14 13 l 9 0 0 l 0 52 3 0 17 11 1 11 0 3 0 0 53 1 5 18 21 1 O l 0 0 0 54 0 1 13 15 6 9 l 1 l 0 55 l 0 12 6 8 13 0 6 0 0 56 2 l 13 6 6 l3 0 6 0 0 57 3 O 16 6 2 15 O 5 0 0 58 3 4 14 ll 3 10 0 0 0 0 59 3 2 16 21 0 3 0 0 2 0 60 2 l 18 15 l 0 0 0 0 0 90 Table 4.15.--Comparison of frequencies between United States and Greek teachers regarding essential skills to be attained by age 16. 3:7- ..._ _ ....,-._._.__:‘-.__ _._ Ques- Special Normal No Strong Prefer tion Help Training Opinion Not U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek Harmful 1 0 3 24 17 l 4 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 17 16 0 0 O O O O 3 6 4 15 10 4 9 O 1 0 0 4 6 9 15 10 2 3 2 O O 0 O 1 18 3 7 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 1 23 2 O 9 O 3 0 5 7 3 1 21 19 1 2 0 1 0 0 8 10 2 15 22 0 0 0 0 0 O 9 2 11 22 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 7 15 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 9 5 16 12 0 7 0 0 O 0 12 3 8 17 15 5 l 0 0 0 0 13 7 3 12 12 6 8 0 0 0 1 14 0 5 23 14 2 5 O 0 O 0 15 3 0 19 13 3 10 0 0 0 0 16 l 5 19 12 4 4 1 1 O 0 l7 2 7 19 12 4 4 0 O O 0 18 1 6 11 12 11 6 0 0 O 0 19 5 2 15 4 S 16 O 0 0 1 20 3 6 22 9 0 7 0 0 0 1 21 O 6 23 13 2 5 0 0 O O 22 5 3 19 18 1 1 0 0 0 1 23 12 8 11 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 24 5 7 19 14 1 2 O O 0 0 25 2 8 21 17 1 0 0 O 0 0 26 2 3 18 13 5 4 0 1 0 2 27 1 2 16 21 6 1 1 0 1 0 28 3 1 22 14 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 2 15 19 9 2 0 0 0 0 30 2 2 19 5 4 15 0 0 0 1 +4— 91 Table 4.15.--Continued. 355;- _ 1:21;“ 1121:1119 “33:12:19 ”:12?" M U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek 31 6 4 l9 l7 0 l O O C O 32 8 9 16 15 l 0 O O 0 O 33 2 9 17 14 6 0 O 0 O 0 34 5 0 18 .13 2 9 0 O 0 O 35 1 10 21 14 3 l 0 O O 0 36 6 2 18 15 1 5 O 0 O 0 37 4 6 21 16 0 2 0 0 0 O 38 3 6 21 16 1 2 0 0 O 0 39 3 4 22 18 0 1 O 0 O O 40 2 15 ' 18 14 '5 4 o o o 41 1 3 23 12 1 8 1 0 0 O 0 42 0 l 9 17 12 5 3 O 1 1 43 3 l 22 3 O 7 O 5 0 4 44 5 3 18 14 l 3 0 l 0 l 45 6 7 8 16 11 0 0 O 0 0 46 l 2 24 12 0 6 O 1 0 l 47 1 6 23 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 3 24 18 1 2 0 0 0 49 7 6 18 16 O 1 O 0 O l 50 O 5 20 17 3 1 1 O l O 51 5 3 18 ll 2 9 0 0 0 0 52 3 8 21 12 O 5 l 0 0 O 53 2 4 22 16 l 2 0 0 0 1 54 1 6 16 15 5 2 1 0 1 0 55 1 6 13 16 11 l 0 1 O 0 56 3 3 14 10 8 10 0 0 0 57 2 4 16 12 7 6 O 0 0 O 58 1 3 23 14 ' 1 5 0 l 0 0 59 l 6 23 16 0 1 0 0‘ 0 60 l 6 24 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 Table 4.l6.--Comparison of frequencies between United States and Greek students regarding essential skills to be attained by age 16. --7f -_—, _.....1 :5 -.. '2. _. J ‘ 112:; :‘.—.1_‘_": " . 7 . ?‘: r, , =:. .'.' -:_—.-=*.' :: 333;— 51213“ 4:12:19 “8811229 ‘13:” U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek 1 O 5 51 34 5 12 0 0 0 0 2 7 7~ 46 40 3 9 0 1 0 0 3 10 8 27 l4 19 32 0 2 0 O 4 8 10 38 29 8 15 . l l l O 5 1 3 26 39 16 12 10 2 3 0 6 4 1 46 13 3 24 3 11 O 5 7 8 14 42 40 6 5 0 l 0 0 8 19 9 32 44 5 2 0 0 0 0 9 14 5 ' 41 45 2 5 0 1 0 0 10 17 9 32 43 7 3 0 l 0 0 ll 10 ll 40 41 5 8 l O 0 0 12 7 8 35 35 14 7 0 l 0 0 l3 9 9 31 20 17 25 0 1 0 l 14 2 8 36 31 15 17 l 0 2 0 15 7 5 26 25 18 20 0 5 3 1 16 6 17 34 17 14 22 2 0 0 0 17 l 17 7 27 17 ll 0 0 0 0 18 7 3 14 20 30 31 3 0 O O 19 15 3 26 13 14 34 1 4 O 0 20 ll 14 40 30 4 12 0 l 1 0 21 7 21 37 31 8 4 4 0 0 0 22 4 7 42 39 7 6 3 l 0 3 23 14 14 31 35 11 9 O 0 O 0 24 10 16 42 31 4 10 0 0 0 0 25 0 15 43 35 10 4 2 3 0 0 26 9 6 34 23 12 21 0 3 1 0 27 2 4 39 35 - 12 13 2 4 1 0 28 6 2 40 33 9 16 0 O 0 0 29 5 6 29 44 21 5 1 0 0 30 5 10 43 23 7 23 l 1 0 93 Table 4.16.~-Continued. ‘33::- :féi 1:31:39 ”8131:1329 P1131” “”1“" U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek U.S. Greek 31 9 11 35 34 12 1o 0 1 o o 32 10 14 38 37 6 5 o o o o 33 8 20 36 27 9 9 1 o 1 o 34 6 4' 45 24 5 20 o 5 o 3 35 1 17 44 A 32 8 8 2 o 1 0 36 5 5 44 33 5 16 1 1 o 1 37 5 13 47 31 4 6 1 3 o 2 38 4 15 49 44 1 5 o o 1 0 39 5 1o 47 41 4 3 o 1 o o 40 4 6 1 31 33 20 14 o 2 1 o 41 3 4 38 25 12 23 2 3 o o 42 5 1 28 27 14 21 8 5 1 2 43 4 2 46 21 5 24 o 7 0 1 44 9 1o 35 26 11 18 o 1 o 1 45 1o 14 26 30 18 9 1 3 o o 46 4 7 43 25 8 17 o 6 o 1 47 6 1o 39 39 10 6 0 1 o 1 48 4 6 43 38 5 10 1 o 1 o 49 6 15 41 36 4 4 3 o 1 0 50 5 11 37 34 11 10 1 o 1 o 51 8 13 35 26 1o 16 1 o o 1 52 5 12 44 35 5 8 1 o o 53 5 9 35 25 14 12 o 7 o 2 54 1 18 28 33 23 5 3 1 o o 55 2 9 21 34 30 12 1 1 1 0 56 4 1 24 21 24 22 3 2 0 o 57 8 5 33 30 13 21 o o o o 58 8 5 34 32 12 19 o o o o 59 14 14 36 35 2 7 2 o o o 60 6 14 44 32 5 6 o 4 o o 94 Social Development A significance level of .05 for this area was determined by the overall two-tailed probability level of .05. The two-tailed test of probability was used for significance calculations. Refer to Tables 4.17a, 4.17b, and 4.l7c for frequency comparisons. Item 1: Keep their room clean and orderly Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.97 with a two- tailed probability level of .005, which wg§_statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value score was calculated as .01 with a two- tailed probability level of .989, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Students: A t—value score was calculated as .75 with a two- tailed probability level of .456, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Item 4: Develops and explores own interest and/or hobbies Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .40 with a two- tailed probability level of .692, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.11 with a two- tailed probability level of .275, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .28 with a two- tailed probability level of .782, which was g9t_statistically sig- nificant. 95 . . mom. ow mvmm.m xmmgw Foo 44 m one. _N me~.~ .m.= man >Lm>m smamamzmc m mvmmm .np . . wwm. ow empp.m xmmgo “No mm N om5. Fm mFmN.P .m.= mmvucou use compo my cummgm .FF . . mum. mm cowo.~ xmmgw 8mm m_ F emu. Pm mqom.. .m.= mucmcaum gmguo 59?: Fpmz mmumuwcseeou .m . . me. om womm.m xmwgw Poo co m mam. Fm _wm~.~ .m.: m>mPFma mxms :mu .m . . mum. mm NmoN.N xwmgo Nam ow Npm. _N momp.m .m.= mmwnno; Lo\ucm pmmgmpcw czo mmgopaxm new maopm>mo .e . . pom. om mpo¢.~ xmwgw moo Rm m mpm. _N «Nmm.F .m.= apgmugo new cmmpu soc; megu mammx ._ 3.30;; ammuiu umpwmuim mom aucmzcmcd :mmz souH mammccowummso monumgm> umpooa .mpcmgma xwmgw can mmpmum umpwca an caugonmg mm acmEQoFo>mc mPwam Pmmuom mo amen ms“ cw Ema? Loam com mpm>m~ muchwwwcmpm xHPFWamnoLn umpwmuum new ammuuu mucmpgm> vapoon .mmmucmacmgmp.mcmms 4o :omwgmaeouuu.mn_.¢ mppmh 95 . . mm“. mm oeww.~ x6828 Poo «4 m one. .N me~.~ .m.= xmu zgm>m gmamamzm: a mummm .mp . . mwm. mm emp_.~ x6829 “No mm N ome. Pm mpou.F .m.= mmwucou can goopu m? gummam .P_ . . Nam. mm oomo.~ x8628 8mm m_ P mme. Pm meom.F .m.= mucmuzpm gmcuo zuvz Ppmz mmumuwczssou .m . . Pmm. 8N mom~.m x8828 _oo mm m 8mm. Fm me~.~ .m.= m>mwpwa mxms :60 .m . . we“. 8N ch~.~ x6628 Nam ow Npm. _~ momp.~ .m.= mmpnao; go\u:m pmmgmpcw czo mmgopaxm ucm maopm>mo .e . . ,8“. mm mpme.m x6628 mac Na m mPN. PN «Nmm.P .m.= ngmugo vac campu Eco; gwmzu mammx ._ ¥.nogm 6866-6 umpwmpnm mom zucmzcmcm cam: EmuH mgmmccowumwso mu:MwLm> umpoom .mucmgma xmmcw use mmumpm umuwcz an umpgoawg mm pcoEgoFm>mu mP—wxm meuom mo mmgm mcu c? emu? comm Lee mpm>mp mucmuwwwcawm xuwpwamnoga umpwmuum use ummpuu mucmwgm> umpooa .mmwucmacmcmp.mcmms mo comwgmgsou11.ofip.e mpnmh 96 mucmwgm> umpoom NoN. 66.6 NmN. 6N comm.N 66666 6N6. 6N mN6_.N .m.= ucmsumancm Fawuom mmmgw>61=656166666m .mm . . Nwm. 6N 6666.N 66666 666 m6 6 606. 6N 6606.6 .m.= cmgupwsu gmsuo new: mcopm muww .mm . . moN. 6N mNNm.N 66666 moo 66 N 666. _N 6N60.N .m.= mmgocu upogmmzo; «Faewm mo mpamamu m“ .mm . . NmN. 6N mon.N 66666 6N6 MN 6 666. —N Nmoo.N .m.= mLmsuo can wpmm Le. 3300 .mm . . Noe. 6N NNNN.N 66666 6N6 8N 6 666. _N 6Nmm.6 .m.= 666666 6 6663 »_6666 66666 .NN . . 66N. 6N 6666.N 66666 NNN 66 6N6. 6N 6N66.N .m.= mmcm—nwm ucm mpcmgma cusp 66:60 mppavm o6 mxpmh ._~ «.nogm 6666-6 666666-N mom 6666:6666 :66: 5666 66666666666=o .umzcwpcouuu.mup.¢ mpnmh 97 .oo. 66 66>66 66666666oo6m6 .cowuoo>mu ugoucmum u awe . . mom. om Novm.m xmmgw ooo 6N N ooo. 6N oNoo.6 .m.o mcmwmas Focomgma cw mmmgm>o can» gmpumm .ow . . New. om mpom.m xmwgo ooo oN m ooo. 6N oNoo.6 .m.o :o6pocwugoou LoFou .cowuocwnsoo Lopou gmoogo :66: mpmm mummmga .mm . . mmc. mm NmmN.N xmwgw ooo 6N moo. 6N FNoN.N .m.o mucmwgm Lo mew—nwm new: ucmmm ac: mmoo .om . . com. mm mono.~ xmwgw ooo No 6 ooo. 6N oNo_.6 .m.o aaogm o :6 xpw>_u:myuo mcmumwo .oe . . mmm. om Noom.m xmmgw NNo oN N ooo. 6N ono.6 .m.o mcowuumgou mzoppou .me . . mum. om womm.m xwmgw ooo No N oNo. 6N oNo_.N .m.o mmgogu mFoEPm :66: mapmz .Fe 3.50;; ammuip ompwouum mom zucmocmcn com: EmpH mgwmccovummoo mucmwgo> cwpooo .663666ooo--.6N_.o 6_666 98 . . #mm. mm omow.P xmmgu oNN oN 6 moo. oN oooo.N .m.o mow mgm>m Lwamgmzw: 6 momma .66 . . Rpm. cm mmwo.~ xmmgw 66o 66 N ooo. oN oooo.6 .m.o mm6ucou coo 66666 m6 gummom .66 . . mom. cm upem.p xmmgo ooo 66 o NoN. 6N 666o.6 .m.o mucououm gmspo 5663 66m: mwpmuwcoesou .m . . wmv. w omnw.~ xmwgw NNN No 6 ooo. oN oooN.N .m.o m>m66mn mxos :69 .m . . mom. NN mnm~.6 xmmgw oNN 66 6 666. 6N oooo.6 .m.o mm6nno; 6O\uco 6m6666c6 :zo mmgopaxm uco mgo6m>mo .c . . 0mm. em upco.~ xmmgw ooo 6o ooN. mN oooo.N .m.o xpgmcgo ucm compo Eco; 668:6 mommx .6 8.noga pmwuup um66opum mom oucmoc666 com: 2666 mswocco6umm=o muco6go> um6oo¢ .mgmsummu xmmgu can mmuopm om66cn on umpgoams mo pomsoo6m>mu 6666xm 6o_uom 6o 6666 as» :6 5666 5666 Low mpm>w6 mucouwmpcmwm >6666nono6a um66ouim uco ammulp mucowgo> umFooa .mm6ucmoamgw .mcoms mo comwgogsouun.nm6.¢ 66666 99 mucowgm> umpoom oNo. oo. ooo. 6N oooo.6 6666o «mm. mm ooww.6 .m.: pewspmafiuo 6owuom mm66m>oucmcuusmuumm .mm . . mom. em mmmw.P xmmgw 6oo No ooo. oN ooNo.6 .m.o :mgupwzu gmcuo £663 mcopm mama .wm . . com. vm mmmm.F xwmgw ooo oo o ooo. oN oooo.N .m.o mmgocu 66ogmm=os m6oe6m mcwpmpoeou mo 6666666 m6 .mm . . mac. mm nmom.6 xmwgw 6oo 66 o 666. mN ooo6.N .m.o mgmzwo new 6666 Low mxoou .mm . . mmm. 6N mem.~ xmmgo ooo 66 N Noo. oN oooo.6 .o.o ucmwgm o :66: 566mow mx6oh .mm . . ooo. «N mmmm.6 xmmgw oNo oo NNN. oN oooo.N .m.o macmgoo cosy 66:60 oppouo o» mx6oh .6N «.nosa “may-“ 6666661~ 6am oocmocmgu com: 5666 m66occo66mmzo .vmzcmucooun.anp.e wreak 100 .mo. 66 66>66 666666666o6m4 .cowumv>mu ugmucmum u omm . . xmmgu ooo o6 N ooN. oN oooo.6 .m.o mcmwma; 6ocom6ma :6 mmogm>o cusp prpmm .om . . «mm. mm mome.~ 6666a ooo om 66m. mN oooN.N .m.o copuocwugoou 6o6oo 6o moo6poc6nsou 6o6ou gmaogo :66: 66mm mummmgn .6m . . 6oo. mm 6mmw.6 xmmgu o6o oo N N66. mN ooNo.N .m.o mucm666 Lo mmcw6n6m :66: 65m6m 6o: mmoo .om . . o6o. 6N oom~.N xmmgw moo oo N ooN. oN oooo.6 .m.o ooogm o :6 z6w>66cmuuo mcmpmmo .oe . . 666. 6N o6wm.m xwmgw ooo o6 6 Non. 6N oooo.6 .m.o 6:0666m66c m3066ou .mv . . 66o. mm e66~.N xwmgw 66o mo 6 ooN. mN oooo.6 .m.o mmgosu mposwm 5663 mo6m: .66 *oDOLQ mefllfl ump6ouum mom oucmocmgm com: Eme mgmocco6pmm=o muco6go> vm6ooa .666666ooo.-.666.6 66666 101 . . N66. mm momm.6 xmmgo ooo oo o ooo. 6N oo66.N .m.o 666 zgm>m 66666636: 6 666mm .66 . . 6mm. 6m 6¢mw.6 xomgu NNo o6 666. 66 666o.6 .m.o mm6ucou 6:6 66666 m6 nummam .66 . . mom. om 6mmo.m 6666c 6oo No N 666. om o666.6 .m.o 66:66:66 66:60 :66: 6663 mmu6u6cassou .m . . mom. om 6NmN.N xmmgw ooo oo o o6o. 66 6666.N .o.o 6>666mn 6665 :69 .m . . 6N6. mm m6~6.~ xmmgw No6 6N 6N6. om mooo.N .m.o 666666: go\u:6 66666626 :zo mmgo6axm 6:6 mgo6o>mo .6 . . m6m. mm wmm6.m xmmgw 666 66 omN. om oooo.N .m.o 6666660 6:6 c6666 soc; 66mg» 666x .6 6.306; ummpuu 6666661N 6am 66:636666 c662 5666 6666cco6umm=o 6666666> 666066 .mucmuopm 66666 6:6 mmp6um 6666:: 66 66666666 66 pomsgo6m>mu 666666 666666 mo 6666 6:6 :6 5666 5666 Lem m66>m6 66666666=m6m 6666666no66 6666661N 6:6 6m6616 66:6666> 666066 .66666626666 .mc6me 6o com666aso011.666.6 66666 102 666. 66. 666. mm 6ooo.6 66666 oo6. mo 66oo.6 .m.o 6:6e6man66 666666 66666>6-:6:6-66666m .om . . 6No. 66 6666.6 66666 66o 66 N 666. 66 oooo.N .m.o :66666:u 66:66 :66; 6:666 6666 .mm . . 666. 66 6N6o.6 66666 6oo oo o o6o. om oomN.N .o.o mwsofiu U~Ocmmsoc 666566 6:66666266 mo 6666666 66 .mm . . ooo. om ooo6.N 66666 6No 6N N 666. mm 6oo6.N .m.o P666660 66:6 6:.mm .60.... 3.000 .mm . . 666. mm oN66.N 66666 moo mo 6 6No. om m6oo.N .m.o 666666 6 666: 666666 66666 .6N . . 6oo. om 6ooo.N 66666 ooo 66 o 666. 66 6o66.N .m.o 66:66666 6:6 66:6666 :6:6 66:66 666366 66 66666 .6N ¥.n06a 6666-6 666666-N 6om 666666666 :66: E666 66666666666oo 66:6666> 666606 .666666ooo-.666.6 66666 103 .6o. 66 66666 6666666666666 .:o6666>6u 6666:666 u om6 66:6666> 666666 606. cm. 666. mm 6666.6 66666 666. mm 6666.6 .m.: 6:666»: 66:06666 :6 66666>6 :6:6 6666mm .om . . 666. mm m66~.~ 66666 N66 66 6 6N6. 66 66o6.N .6.o :6666:666oou 6o6ou 6o 6:6666c6nsou 66666 666666 :66: 6666 6666666 .66 . . wm6. 66 6mmo.m 66666 66N oN 6 6o6. 66 oooN.N .6.o 66:6666 66 66:66666 :66: 6:666 66: 66cm .06 . . m6m. om 6666.~ 66666 ooo 66 N 666. 66 6N6o.N .6.6 6:666 6 :6 666>66c6666 6:66666 .66 . . mom. mm 6606.~ 6666c ooo 66 6 66N. o6 ooNo.6 .6.o 6:66666666 6366666 .m6 . . 666. mm 6666.N x6666 66o mo 6 666. 66 666N.N .6.6 666666 666566 :66: 6666: .66 «.n06a 6666-6 666666-N 6am 66:666666 :66: E666 6666::666663o .cmsc66coonn.um6.6 66666 104 Item 5: Can make believe Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.66 with a two- tailed probability level of .001, which wa§_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.83 with a two-tailed probability level of .277, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 3.69 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 9: Communicates well with other students Parents: The t-value score was calculated as l.l5 with a two-tailed probability level of .256, which was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: A t-value score was calculated as 3.16 with a two- tailed probability level of .003, which wa§_statistically significant. Students: A t-value score was calculated as 2.92 with a two- tailed probability level of .004, which was statistically significant. Item ll: Speech is clear and concise Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.29 with a two- tailed probability level of .027, which was statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.54 with a two-tailed probability level of .015, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. 105 Students: The t-value score was calculated as .49 with a two-tailed probability level of .622, which was ngt_statistically significant. Item l7: Reads a newspaper every day Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.44 with a two-tailed probability level of .00l, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t—value score was calculated as l.22 with a two-tailed probability level of .229, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 4.63 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 2l: Talks to adults other than parents and siblings Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .14 with a two- tailed probability level of .887, which was not statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .82 with a two-tailed probability level of .429, which was not statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 3.67 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. 106 Item 28: Talks easily with a friend Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.83 with a two-tailed probability level of .074, which was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.76 with a two-tailed probability level of .008, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 3.03 with a two-tailed probability level of .005, which wg§_statistica11y sig- nificant. Item 33: Cooks for self and others Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.83 with a two-tailed probability level of .074, which was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 3.61 with a two-tailed probability level of .001, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.24 with a two-tailed probability level of .027, which was statistically sig- nificant. Item 35: Is capable of simple household chores Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.86 with a two-tailed probability level of .006, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. 107 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 3.83 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 3.36 with a two-tailed probability level of .001, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 38: Gets along with other children Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.49 with a two-tailed probability level of .144, which was ggt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .62 with a two-tailed probability level of .537, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.13 with a two-tailed probability level of .035, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 39: Better-than-average social adjustment Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.14 with a two-tailed probability level of .262, which was ggt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .09 with a two-tailed probability level of .928, which was ggt_statistically significant. 108 Students: The t-value score was calculated as .78 with a two-tailed probability level of .434, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 41: Helps with simple chores Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.03 with a two—tailed probability level of .004, which wa§_statistically sig— nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.83 with a two-tailed probability level of .073, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.93 with a two-tailed probability level of .057, which was not statistically significant. Item 43: Follows directions Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.28 with a two-tailed probability level of .027, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 6.40 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 6.56 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§.statistically sig- nificant. 109 Item 46: Listens attentively in a group Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 6.62 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.06 with a two-tailed probability level of .045, which was statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.71 with a two-tailed probability level of .008, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 50: Does not fight with siblings or friends Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .22 with a two— tailed probability level of .030, which wa§_statistically significant. Teachers: The t—value score was calculated as 2.68 with a two-tailed probability level of .010, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.20 with a two-tailed probability level of .233, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 57: Dresses self with proper color combinations or color coordination Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 5.78 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which was statistically sig- nificant. 110 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .59 with a two-tailed probability level of .556, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.34 with a two-tailed probability level of .182, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 60: Better than average in personal hygiene Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.73 with a two-tailed probability level of .009, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.16 with a two-tailed probability level of .036, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .30 with a two-tailed probability level of .764, which was ggt_statistically significant. Emotional Development A significance level of .05 for this area was determined by the overall two-tailed probability level of .05. The two-tailed test of probability was used for significance calculations. Refer to Tables 4.18a, 4.18b, and 4.l8c for comparisons. Item 16: Can solve most problems without others' help Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .52 with a two-tailed probability level of .608, which was ngt_statistically significant. 111 . . 666. mm momu.m 66666 N66 66 N 666. ON oooN.N .6.6 666666>66666 666666; 66666666 .66666; .66666 6666666 66666 6666666xm .om . . 666. mm 6666.N 66666 6N6 6N N 666. 6N 6666.N .6.6 6E?» .606666 $6 6puump 6666566 .NN . . 666. 66 66mm.m 66666 666 66 666. 6N 6666.N .6.6 6:666 6666 :66 .mm . . 666. Pm 6666.6 66666 666 66 666. 6N 6666.6 .6.6 6>6666666 6:6 66666>6665 66: .NN . . N66. mm comm.6 66666 666 66 666. 6N 6N66.6 .6.6 6666 66 65666666 6>666 6» 6666666 66666>6uc6661666666 .om . . 666. 6N oooo.m 66666 666 N6 666. 6N N666.N .6.6 6666 .666666 6666663 65666666 6662 6>666 :66 .66 6.2066 pm6puu 66666unm 666 666666666 :66: E666 6666666666666 6666666> 666666 .6666666 66666 666 666666 6666:: 66 66666666 66 6662666666 666666656 66 6666 666 :6 2666 6666 666 666>66 666666666666 66666666666 66666uim 666 6666-6 6666666> 666666 .66666666666 .66662 66 6666666566--.666.6 66666 ENE .66. 66 66666 6666666666666 .666666>66 66666666 u 666 6666666> 666666 66. 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6666666 66666 666 6663 .66 66.6 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666. 6N 6666.6 .6.6 666656; 66 6666666 6>666666 6:66pm .66 66. N66. 66 6mm6.6 66666 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6566 666 66 6665 66666666 666 6666: .66 66. 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666. 6N 6666.6 .6.6 6666666-666m .66 66.6 ~66. 66 6666.6 66666 666. 6N 6666.6 .6.6 66666666; 666 66656-6666 66666>6uc666166up66 .66 66.6 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666. 66 6666.6 .m.: 6666 66 2666666 6 66 6666666566 6666666666 666 666 66666 66666666: 666 66666 66266: :6 666 :66 .mm «.6066 6666-6 66666pim 66m 666666666 :66: E666 6666666666666 .666666666--.666.6 66666 113 ”E 6666666> 666666 . . 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666 66 m 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 66666>66666 6666663 66666666 .666666 .66666 6666666 66666 6666666x6 .66 . . 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666 66 6 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6566 .666666 66 666666 6666266 .66 . . 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666 mm 6 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6:666 6666 666 .66 . . 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666 66 6 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6>66c6666 6:6 66666>66oe 66: .66 . . 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666 66 6 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6666 66 65666666 6>666 66 6666666 66666>6uc666n666666 .66 . . 666. 66 6666.6 66666 666 66 666. 66 6666.6 .6.6 6666 .666666 6666663 65666666 6665 6>666 :66 .66 «HDOSQ HmQHIH 666666u6 666 666666666 :66: E666 6666666666666 .66666666 66666 666 666666 6666:: 66 66666666 66 6665666666 666666656 66 6666 666 :6 5666 6666 666 666>66 666666666666 66666666666 666666u6 666 6666-6 6666666> 666666 .66666666666 .66665 66 6666666566--.666.6 66666 114 .m9. ou Fo>mp wucmquwcum« .coquw>mu vgmvcmum u omm mucmmgm> umpooa . . mum. mm pmuw._ xmmgw vmo mm N Nmm. mm oomm.~ .m.= xppmwsa «copm “mm Ppwz .em . . Non. em mmmm.— xmmgu _me P“ mmm. mm comm._ .m.= wpmmewc $o mgspuwn m>wuVmoa mcogum .Nm . . mue. mm momm.p xmmgw mmq Fm cow. mN ooeo.~ .m.= we?» as» we “mos Faygmmgu can zaam: .we . . mom. em mmmm.~ xmmgo _mm mo «um. mm ooew._ .m.= Pogpcounm_mm .mm . . com. NN comp.m xmmgw mmo mp N cow. mm ooom.~ .m.= mmwcwagm; can momewuwpmm mmmgm>mucc2pugoupmm .mm . . mm¢. em ommo.~ xmmgw mmm em New. mm oomu._ .m.= wwwp we Empnoga a mo cowumpasou —=mmmmuo=m ms» Low mamum xgmmmwom: mg» smugo FaELo: cw pan cmu .Nm «.noga ummp-u umpwmpum mom mucmaamgu com: EmuH mgwmccowummso .umacwucou--.am_.e m_amh 115 . . won. um ~mm~.~ xmmgo NN_ Nm _ mam. om «FNo.N .m.= cowpm>gmmmg uaozpwz Axpmgwcu .zgmczz .nPouv mmgwmmu owmmn mmmmmgaxm .om . . PPR. om cmom.~ xwmgw mmm No mam. em NNFN.N .m.= we?» .mupacm mo appawp mucmEmo .NN . . mm“. um mN_m.F xmmgw moo mm N N_m. mm mqu.N .m.= mcopm ampa emu .mN . . mum. om omNF.N xmmgw _om N_ on. om NooP.N .m.= m>wp=mucw new cowum>wuoe mm: .NN . . mm“. Nm oooo.~ xmmgo omm mm Nmm. mm owNm.F .m.= mmvp we msmpnoga w>Pom op xgppwnm mmmgm>mucmzpugmaumm .om . . mew. mm _~oP.N xmmgw Noe NN owe. am NNPN.N .m.= apm; .mgmgpo unacuwz mampnoga “mos m>Fom coo .op *oDOLQ HWQPIH cmpwmgum mom aucmzcmgu cam: EmpH mgwmccovummzo mucmwgm> vaooa .mpcmwaam xmmgw ucm mmumpm suave: an umagoamg mm acmEpmzncm _m:owuosm kc mmga mzp cw Emu? comm Low mpm>mF mucmuw$wcmwm xuwpvnmnoga umpwmu-m can ummpuu mocmwgm> umpooa .mwwucmscmgm .mcmme $0 comwgmanouu.uwF.¢ opnmh 116 .mo, o» Fm>op wucmuwchawm¥ .cowuow>wu ugmucmym u omm mucmwgm> umpoom . . mmo. mm “mm“.P «mmgu ooo No a emo. mm NNNm.N .m.= Nppmvaa mcopm “rm __P3 .em . . com. mm mumm.F xmwgo PNN m_ P VNm. mm mcmo.N .m.= :35; .8 8.303 3.5.58 9.95m .Nm . . «cm. vm m¢~o.~ xmmgo mQN mm Nmo. cm ___F.N .m.= mam» mg» mo ance Pamgmmgu can xuamz .wc . . ohm. mm memo.m xmmgw NNm mo mme. cm onom._ .m.= Pogpcouumpmm .Nm . . Fm“. om “mmN.~ xwmgw owe MN P New. om epNo.N .m.= mmmcwqao; can mmwsvuumm wmmgm>mucmzuugmppwm .om . . mum. om «me.P xmmgw 0mm mm eqm. «m NmNm.F .m.= m$vp $0 EmFaoga m mo cowpmpasou Fawmmmousm mg» Low mamum xgmmmmuw: mg» Lmugo PmsLo: c? pan emu .Nm «.noga away-“ cmpwmu-~ mom aucmscmgm com: smpH mgwmccowummzo Ill' .uozcwycou--.omp.e mpamp 117 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as l.4l with a two-tailed probability level of .542, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .74 with a two-tailed probability level of .462, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 20: Better-than-average ability to solve problems of life Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .18 with a two- tailed probability level of .860, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as l.4l with a two-tailed probability level of .165, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .55 with a two- tailed probability level of .586, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Item 22: Has motivation and incentive Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .94 with a two- tailed probability level of .351, which was ngt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as l.12 with a two-tailed probability level of .270, which was ggt_statistically significant. 118 Students: The t—value score was calculated as .l2 with a two- tailed probability level of .90l, which was ngt_statistically sig- nificant. Item 25: Can play alone Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .78 with a two- tailed probability level of .44l, which was ngt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.55 with a two-tailed probability level of .0l4, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.83 with a two-tailed probability level of .006, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 27: Demands little of adults' time Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.26 with a two-tailed probability level of .029, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.43 with a two-tailed probability level of .0l9, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .08 with a two-tailed probability level of .933, which was ggt_statistically significant. ll9 Item 30: Expresses basic desires (cold, hungry, thirsty) without reservation Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.63 with a two-tailed probability level of .0l2, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 3.l8 with a two-tailed probability level of .003, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as l.54 with a two-tailed probability level of .l27, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 32: Can put in normal order the necessary steps for the completion of a problem of life Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.07 with a two-tailed probability level of .044, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .64 with a two-tailed probability level of .525, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .98 with a two-tailed probability level of .330, which was not statistically significant. Item 36: Better-than-average self-image and happiness Parents: The t—value score was calculated as 3.39 with a two-tailed probability level of .003, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. 120 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.l8 with a two-tailed probability level of .035, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as l.73 with a two-tailed probability level of .086, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 37: Self-control Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .35 with a two- tailed probability level of .730, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .05 with a two-tailed probability level of .961, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .63 with a two-tailed probability level of .527, which was ngt_statistically significant. Item 48: Happy and cheerful most of the time Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .l8 with a two- tailed probability level of .861, which was ngt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .71 with a two-tailed probability level of .425, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as l.l8 with a two-tailed probability level of .745, which was not statistically significant. 121 Item 52: Strong, positive picture of himself Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 4.45 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .71 with a two-tailed probability level of .48l, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as l.18 with a two-tailed probability level of .24l, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 54: Will sit alone quietly Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .66 with a two- tailed probability level of .514, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.33 with a two-tailed probability level of .024, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 6.07 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Academic Development A significance level of .05 for this area was obtained by the overall two-tailed probability level of .05. The two-tailed test of probability was used for significance calculations. Refer to Tables 4.l9a, 4.l9b, and 4.l9c for comparisons. 122 . . mum. om “som.~ xmmgo N: am _ N8. _N 88.N .ms xgoum mamalozu m Fpmz wave: on mpn< .mp . . mam. mm oomm.~ xmmco NS 8 P m8. 5 4N3; .ms meowpucae ormgnmmpm uwmma mzocx .o_ . . mam. om mwmo.~ xmmgw go 2 _ 82. _N as: .2 :amcmmxmg pomegou a wave; emu .m . . ooo. mm oomm.~ xmocu NS 3 NNN. _N NNSN as cowpuzcocamg we mowmmn Pmowmopovn esp mucmumgmucz .5 mm. com. om mmuo.m xmmgw awn. FN cmmm.~ .m.: coopmcmucz zpcmmpu mm>Pomemgp axes emu .N a.noca umwuuu um_wmpnm mom zucmzcocm cow: sop“ mommccowummzo mocmwgm> cmpoom .mucwcma xmmcu new mmpmpm weave: xn vmugogmc mm unusaopm>mu owsmumom mo moon ms» cw Emu? some com mpm>mp wocmuwmwcmwm zpwpwnmnoca umpwmpnm can amen-“ mocmpcm> umfiooa .mmwuzmzcmcm .mcmms mo comwcmaeoouu.mmp.¢ mpnmh 123 . . m—o. 0N Newm.~ xomgw moo mm N NNm. FN ommm.N .m.= mocapowa opaewm snow op mpnm mu .oe . . can. mm oemm.~ xmmco ooo me a 8mm. PN mN¢P.N .m.: meowumcvaeoo copou owmma mmNPcmooom .cm . . Pom. mm comm.m xmmco NNo Nm N Nmm. FN coco.N .m.= m=o_uo::m owcpoEomm uwmmn cu on Zen mzocx .m— . . emm. om mmmo.m xmwcc moo MN N 0N8. _N oNN¢.N .m.: xmpa apaewm a muwcz o» 30; mzocx .mp . . “mm. mm momN.~ xmmgw mom «o CON. FN PNNN.N .m.= m>onm go Pm>mp oumcm um xmo: a xoon m mummm .mp «.nogm ammulo umpwmp-~ mom Xoemzcmco cam: smpH ocwmccowummzo mocmwcm> umpoom .uazeeocou--.amp.e apaah 124 .mo. a» _a>ap aucaucewemcm. .cowumw>wb Ugmvcmum u own . . mm“. mm ooe~.~ xmmcw CNN mN _ Nom. ON coco.N .m.= acmpznmoo> ommcm>m-:m;uusmuumm .wm . . woo. om mNmP.~ xmmco _eo _F N mNm. ON ooom.~ .m.= Foocom cw mmmcm>m cmcu coupon .Fm . . Ppm. mm ooeo.~ xmmcw mmm Nm meN. _N PNNN.N .m.= mcwccmmp mxoncm .mq . . mNN. mm oooN.N xmmgw NFC mm N New. _N waN.N .m.= coumpaopmu a co mcowpocsw owgamsocomwcu msp mm: >Pm>waomwmm on so; mzocx .me «.nogm ammo-» cmpwmunm mom xocmacmcm :mmz EmuH ocmmccowpmmao mucmwgo> uwpoom .uazccocoo--.amp.e opnah . . mom. em mmmm.~ xmmcc o: 8 F 5. mN 88; a... xgoum mamauozu a Pro; wave: op mpn< .mp . . Nmm. em oomu.p xmmcw m8 8 34. «N SN: .2 mcowuocae uwmgnmmpm owmmn mzocx .op . . mpm. ap Nemm.F xmmgu m8 mm N 08. mN 88; .3. camgmmcma uomccoo a move: :80 .m . . mpo. mp umo~.~ xwmcw 5 ON? mm P o8. mN 8ng .9: Q. 5.52.838. yo mowmma Foowmopown on» mccmumcmucz .N . . va. em memo._ xmmco «Na 2 82. mN 8mm; .4: cooumcwucz apgmmpo mm>meEmcu oxms :89 .N .oocm ammo-“ umpwmpum mom aucmacmcu cam: EmuH mcwmccowumozo mucmmcm> umpooa .mcmsommp googw new mmumum copes: an umpcoamc ma acmqupm>mu uwsmumom we moon ecu cw so»? some com mpw>mp mocmummwcmmm xuwpwnmnoga cmpwmplw ucm amen-» mocmwcm> umpooa .mmwucmscmgm .mcows mo comrcmnsoouu.nmp.¢ mpnmp 126 . . wmo. mm momm.~ xmmgw MMM NM MNM. MN 8N: .M.= mmgauowa opaemm zmcu on open mH .ov . . 050. mm mpmm.m xmwgw SN N_ F MNM. MN 8N2 .M.= Meowuocwneou copoo upmma mm~wcmoomm .oN . . opw. mm Pmmm.m xmmgw so 3 M Mg. MN 88.N .Ms meowuucaw owguoEomm upmmn on on go; mzocx .mp . . Nun. em oooo.~ xmmgw MNo MN N 8M. MN 3M: .M.= MMPQ mpaspm a wave; op 20: mzocg .wp . . mom. mm wcmv.m somgw :5 MM N 8M. MN 88.N .M.= o>ono co Mo>mp women an xmmz m xoon m Munoz .mp ¥.nogm ummpuu umpwmu-~ mom zucmaamgm cam: empH moroccowummzc mocmecm> empooa .umscwucouna.nmp.¢ mpnmh 127 .Mo. op Pa>o_ oucauMMMeMMM. .corpow>ou ugoucopm n omo . . Rpm. mm mmm~.~ googw MMN NF _ MMN. MN MMMM.N .M.= zco_:nooo> omooo>olcogplcoupom .wm . . mmm. mu oooN.N xoogw MMM M_ N MNM. MN MOMM.M .M.= Foosom cw omoco>o cosy coupon .Mm . . omm. em nopm.~ xoogw NMM MM _ MMM. MN MMNN.M .M.= mcwcgoop Maoncm .mw . . cue. mm smmo.~ xoogw MMM MM N MMM. MN MMMN.N .M.= coqu=UFoo ogp co cowpoczm owcuosocommou on» om: mpo>wpoommo on 2o; Mzocx .mv ¥.aogm umwuup topmouum mom aucozcoou coo: EouH ocwoccowumoso oocowco> copooo .uoacoocou--.MMp.e oFMMM 128 . . mew. om omnm.~ xoogo MMM a M NMM. MM MMNPN .M.M acoum omognozu o Mpoz ouwgz co opa< .mp . . mmm. om mmmm.F xooow MMM NM MMM. MM :NM; .M.= Meopuocao avocaomMM owmon Mzocx .o_ . . mmq. mm Mumm.F xoogo MNN NN M 5. MM 8M: .M.= goocmogoa uooccoo o ouwcz sou .m . . MPO. um mmmw._ xoogw MNM MM MMM. MM MMMM; .Ms cowuoauogoog mo Mowmon Poowmopown on» Mucopmcouca .m . . mam. um mono.m xoocw 2: MM M MNM. MM MMNM; .M.= uooumgoucz Mpgoo—o mo>PoMeogu oxoe coo .N ¥.nogm pmooup no—_ouam mom Mocosaogo coo: EopH ocwoccowumoso oocowco> uo—ooo .Mucovapm googw can Mououm nouwcz an uopcoqoc Mo ozoEooFo>on oweouooo mo MoLM oz» :M so»? zooo cow Mpo>op oocoowmwcmwm Muwpwnonocn quMMoum uco amou-o oocoMco> nopooa .Mowucoaoogm .Mcoos we :oMMLoasou--.omM.e o—nop 129 . . Nwo. mm Nm—N.~ xoooo NMM NM MMM. MM MMMM.N .M.= Mooauowa oMaEMM soot op opao mH .OM . . mmm. om Nmmm.~ xoooo MMM NM N MNN. MM NNMN.N .M.= Mcowpocpnsou Lopoo oMmon MoNMcmooom .cw . . MNm. mm mNNN.N xoooo MMM MN M MNN. MM MNNM.N .M.= Mcompocaw owguosoom oMMon co co so; Mzocx .mp . . moo. MM mmMm.~ goose NMM M. MMN. MM MNMM.N .M.= Mopa oMoEMM o our»: op 30: Mzocx .mM . . mmm. mm ooom.m xoogw MMM NN NNM. MM MoNM.N .M.= Mo>oM ooogm no goo: o xooa o Mcoom .mp ¥.nogm umopup ooMMoonm oom Mocoacooo coo: souH oLMoccoMumoao oucowoo> nopoon .cozcwucounn.ump.v opnoh 130 .MM. Mo _o>oN MQMMQMMMMMMM. .coMqu>ou ucoccoum u omo . . MMo. om oom~.m xoocw MM_ PM P MNM. MM MMNM.N .M.= Myopznooo> omoco>oucocuucouuom .wm . . omw. om MMNo.N xoocu MMM No MMM. MM MMNM.N .M.= Moocom cm omoco>o coca coooom .Pm . . mmm. mm ooom.p coocu NPM MM N NMN. MM MNN_.N .M.= mcwccoop mzoncu .mM . . mom. mm oooo.~ xooco NNN MN F MMN. MM MFMM.N .M.= copopsopoo o co Mcowuoczm owcuoeocomwcu oco om: MPo>Mpoo$mo on go; mzocg .MM ¥.DOLQ “mOPIH ooMMopum oom Mocoaooco coo: sou_ ocwoccowpmoco oocowco> uo—ooc .vozcwucouun.umF.¢ opnoh 131 Item 2: Can make themselves clearly understood Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .87 with a two- tailed probability level of .371, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .l0 with a two-tailed probability level of .923, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as l.46 with a two-tailed probability level of .147, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 7: Understands the biological basics of reproduction Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .85 with a two- tailed probability level of .402, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as l.59 with a two-tailed probability level of .l20, which was not statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .99 with a two-tailed probability level of .323, which was not statistically significant. Item 8: Can write a correct paragraph Parents: The t-value score was calculated as l.77 with a two-tailed probability level of .084, which was ggt_statistically significant. 132 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.25 with a two-tailed probability level of .035, which wa§_statistical1y sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.22 with a two-tailed probability level of .225, which was ngt_statistically significant. Item 10: Knows basic algebraic functions Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.40 with a two-tailed probability level of .167, which was ggt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .84 with a two-tailed probability level of .403, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .97 with a two-tailed probability level of .336, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 13: Able to write well a two-page story Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.59 with a two-tailed probability level of .118, which was flgt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.63 with a two-tailed probability level of .ll0, which was not statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.74 with a two-tailed probability level of .084, which was ggt_statistically significant. 133 Item 15: Reads a book a week at grade level or above Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .04 with a two-tailed probability level of .969, which was ggt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.99 with a two-tailed probability level of .004, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .77 with a two-tailed probability level of .444, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item l8: Knows how to write a simple play Parents: The t—value score was calculated as 2.73 with a two-tailed probability level of .009, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.25 with a two-tailed probability level of .029, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .14 with a two-tailed probability level of .892, which was g9t_statistically significant. Item 19: Knows how to do basic geometric functions Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.29 with a two-tailed probability level of .027, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. 134 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 3.51 with a two-tailed probability level of .001, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 5.13 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 26: Recognizes basic color combinations Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 4.09 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.12 with a two-tailed probability level of .267, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.67 with a two-tailed probability level of .009, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 40: Is able to draw simple pictures Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.93 with a two—tailed probability level of .005, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .97 with a two-tailed probability level of .336, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .92 with a two-tailed probability level of .357, which was ngt_statistically significant. 135 Item 45: Knows how to effectively use the trigonometric functions on a calculator Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.59 with a two-tailed probability level of .013, which was statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.59 with a two—tailed probability level of .013, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.23 with a two—tailed probability level of .222, which was not statistically significant. Item 49: Enjoys learning Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .97 with a two- tailed probability level of .335, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.02 with a two-tailed probability level of .307, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.60 with a two-tailed probability level of .011, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 51: Better than average in school Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.11 with a two-tailed probability level of .041, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. 136 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.16 with a two-tailed probability level of .036, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .02 with a two-tailed probability level of .985, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 58: Better-than-average vocabulary Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 1.22 with a two-tailed probability level of .230, which was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.12 with a two-tailed probability level of .269, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.51 with a two-tailed probability level of .133, which was ggt_statistically significant. Moral Development A significance level of .05 for this area was obtained by the overall two-tailed probability level of .05. The two-tailed test of probability was used for significance calculations. Refer to Tables 4.20a, 4.20b, and 4.20c for comparisons. Item 6: Obeys parents and teachers Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .84 with a two- tailed probability level of .406, which was ngt_statistically sig- nificant. 137 . . Nmo. om mmm~.p xooco MMM MM MMM. MN NNMM; .M.M :uMPMaMmcocmoc co omcom o no: .Mm . . «we. om —mmm.— xoocw MMM MN MMM. MN MMMM. . .M.M MmcMMooc .Mcocpo co Pccuooomom .Mm . . mwv. cm mmmm.P xoocw MMc MM c MNM. cN PNMM; .M.M pmoco: .em . . mmv. mm oomm.~ xoocw MMM MM MMM. cN PNMM. _ .M.M Mcocoooo oco mucococ ozone .o ¥.nocm amouup copwoaam oom Mocozcocm coo: EouH ocMoccoMuMoco oocowco> oopooc .mpcocoq coocu oco Mououm oopwcz an coocoaoc Mo acoEcoMo>oo Mocos co ooco oco cw so»? cooo coc MMo>oM oocooMMMcmMM prpwnococc uopwooum oco umoalp oocoMco> oopooa .Mopococoocc .Mcoos Mo coMMcoasou--.oom.M oMnoP 138 .MM. Mo cococ oucoocchMcMM .coMqu>ou ocoocoum u amo . . MMM. om mmmo.~ coocu MMM NM McM. NN MNMc.N .M.M opnvmcogmoc on MpMum oco mpcococ soc» nouocoaom oa coo .mm . . moo. om NNom.M coocw NMM Mc N MMM. cN NMMM.N .M.M mcocuo cpvz cwoo .mm . . Nmm. om NmoN._ coocw MMM MN NcM. cN MMMM._ .M.M omoco: .MM . . amp. mm coco.m coocw MMM NM N MMM. MN MMMM.N .M.M MmoM—oa mzowaMMoc mcocpm .NM ¥.nocm “Moo-“ vopwouum oom zucoaoocu coo: EopH ocwoccowumozo oocoMco> oopooc .tozcwucouuu.oo~.¢ o—noh 139 . . MMM. NN MMMM.N cooco cMM _M M MNM. MN MMMM._ .M.M :uMMMMMMcocMoc co omcom o Mo: .Mm . . MMM. NN MMMM.M coocM NMM cM MMM. MN cMMN._ .M.M Mmcwpooc .Mcocuo co Macuoocmom .Pm . . MMM. MN MNMN._ cooco MMN NM MNM. MN MMMM.c .M.M oMoMMI .MN . . MMM. MN MMMM.M coocM MMM NN M MMN. MN MMMM._ .M.M Mcocooop uco mucococ Mxoao .o MMM.: a... o c. o N oMM MoMoMMocc Moo: coco occoMcMMoMoMM oucowco> uopooc .Mcocooou coocu oco Mououm coaMca :c ooocococ mo ocoEMoMo>oo Mocoe co ooco oco cw sour cooo coc Mpo>oM oocooMcMcmMm :HMMMnonocq ooMMop-N oco uMoo-o oococco> oopooc .Mowocoaoocc .Mcoos Mo coMMcoMsouuu.aom.M opaob 140 .MM. Mo coco, oucoucchMcMM .cowooM>oo ocoocoum u omo . . wpm. mm mmmm.p xoocw MMN MM _ MMN. MN MMMM.M .M.M opnMMcocMoc on MMMQM oco Mucococ soc» oouococom on cou .mm . . mmm. mm mmvo.m xoocw MMM MM MMM. MN MMMM._ .M.M mcocoo cow: cMoM .mm . . NNm. NN mmmm.~ xoocw MNM MM c NMM. MN MMMM._ .M.M pmoco: .ve . . Pmu. em Npmw.m xooco NMM NM N MMM. MN MMMM.N .M.M McoMMon MaoMmMFoc mcocum .NM «.nocm “moan“ coMMoulm oom zucocooco coo: anH ocMoccoMumoso oococco> oopooc .toacrucouuu.now.e opnoh 141 . . com. om ommo.~ soocw MMM MM M cMM. MM McMM.c .M.M xuMMMnMMcoMMoc co omcoM o mo: .Mm . . one. mm mn—o.~ xoocw MNN MN MMM. MM MMMM.N .M.M MmcMMooc .Mcocuo co Pscuoocmom .Mm . . moo. um nemw.P soocw NMM NM MMM. MM MNMM.M .M.M ummco: .eN . . Nam. mm mum~.m xoocw MMM MN M _MM. MM MMMM.N .M.M Mcocuoou oco Mucococ mxoco .m *.nocm “moan“ uoPMou-N oom Mocozcocu coo: EopH ocwoccowumozc oocowco> coMooc .Mucoocum coocw oco Moooum oopmc: an oopcoaoc Mo ocoscopo>oo Mocos co ooco oco cw soow cuoo cow Mpo>op oocooMcMcmMM :pwpwaonocc copwouum oco amounp oocowco> ooMooc .Mowocosoocm .Mcoos co coMMcocsou--.uo~.M opno» 142 .MM. MM NoMM. oucoucchMcM. Fatwa—59.9 ULmvcmum u Dmm . . Moo. Mm Fmeo.M xooco MNN MN NNM. NM NNMM.M .M.M opcwmcoomoc on Mpmum oco Mococoa Eocm uouocoaom on coo .mm . . NNM. Mm MONm.~ cooco MMM MM MMM. MM MNNN.N .M.M Mcocpo cow: cwou .mm . . me. om MNmN.N gooco MNM NN N MMM. MM MMcM.N .M.M “Moco: .MM . . mpw. om mmoo.~ gooco MMM NM McM. MM MMMM.N .M.M mmoMMon MsomeMoc mcocpm .No *oDOLQ Hmwfllu oopwopam oom :ocoacoco coo: Eouo ocwoccomumozo oocoMco> oopooc .ooMMMoMMM--.oMN.M MMMMM 143 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 6.27 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 6.79 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 24: Honest Parents: The t—value score was calculated as 1.44 with a two-tailed probability level of .158, which was ngt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .37 with a two-tailed probability level of .713, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .02 with a two-tailed probability level of .987, which was ngt_statistically significant. Item 31: Respectful of others' feelings Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .20 with a two-tailed probability level of .840, which was ggt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .91 with a two-tailed probability level of .367, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .29 with a two-tailed probability level of .770, which was ngt_statistically significant. 144 Item 34: Has a sense of responsibility Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .55 with a two- tailed probability level of .583, which was ngt_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 3.51 with a two-tailed probability level of .001, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 4.56 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 42: Strong religious beliefs Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.02 with a two-tailed probability level of .049, which was statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.47 with a two-tailed probability level of .017, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .87 with a two-tailed probability level of .386, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 44: Honest Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .25 with a two- tailed probability level of .806, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. 145 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.84 with a two-tailed probability level of .073, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.27 with a two-tailed probability level of .026, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 53: Fair with others Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.10 with a two-tailed probability level of .042, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .46 with a two-tailed probability level of .646, which was not statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .95 with a two-tailed probability level of .345, which was ngt_statistically significant. Item 59: Can be separated from parents and still be responsible Parents: The t-value score was calculated as .47 with a two-tailed probability level of .639, which was ggt_statistically significant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.54 with a two-tailed probability level of .130, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .28 with a two-tailed probability level of .778, which was not statistically significant. 146 Physical Skills A significance level of .05 for this area was obtained by the overall two-tailed probability level of .05. The two-tailed test of probability was used for significance calculations. Refer to Tables 4.21a, 4.21b, and 4.21c for comparisons. Item 3: Better-than-average coordination and physical strength Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 4.21 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 1.79 with a two-tailed probability level of .080, which was ggt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 2.40 with a two-tailed probability level of .018, which was statistically sig- nificant. Item 12: Can ride a bicycle Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.47 with a two-tailed probability level of .018, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.32 with a two-tailed probability level of .025, which was statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .89 with a two-tailed probability level of .374, which was ngt_statistically significant. 147 mum. om momm.m xooco MMM. NM.M MMM. MN MMMM.N .M.M eMzm on opp< .MN . . NMN. MN MMMM.N coocM NcM NM N MNM. cN MMM_.N .M.M mm£n~0~u :30 rag; Eco cmm3 :60 41. . . MMM. MN MMMM M coocM McM MM N MMM. cN MMMM.N .M.M opoxown o ooMc coo .NM . . NMM._ MN NNMM.M coocM MMM MM M MNM. cN NMMM.N .M.M camcocom Moupmaca oco coMoocMocoou omoco>oucocuucopoom .m *oDOLQ UMUPIH ooMMooum oom :ocoaooco coo: Eopo ocwoccowumoso oocowco> cocoon .Mucocoo xooco oco Mopoum oopwc: an uoucococ Mo ocoaoopo>oc Moowmxco co ooco ocu cw soup cooo com M_o>oM oocoowcwcmpm :pwpwnonoco uo—Mouum oco “Mouup oocowco> oopooa .Momocozoocm .Mcoos mo coMMcocsooun.oM~.M oMnoH 147 mum. om momm.m xooco MMM. NM.M MMM. NN MMMM._ .M.M sczm Mo MMMM .MN . . mom. mm ooow.~ xoocw NcM NM N MNM. MN MMMc.N .M.M Mocaopo czo coco oco cmoz coo .M_ . . mom. om oooo.m xoocw McM MM N MMM. MN MMMM.N .M.M opoxomn o ooMc coo .NF . . ~m~.F om “mom.m xooco MMM MM M MNM. cN NMMM.N .M.M camcocum Poowmaca oco coopocwocooo omoco>oucocuucoooom .m {.aoca amouuu copwouum oom :ococcoco coo: Eopo ocwoccovumoao oocoMco> copooc .Mocococ xooco oco Mouopm oouMc: an oopcoaoc Mo ucoscopo>oc Moowmxcc co ooco ocu cw so“? cooo com MMo>oM oocouwmwcmwm :oM—Mnococc oopvounm oco “Moo-“ oocowco> oo—ooa .Mowocosooco .mcoos co coMMcocsooul.oM~.e anoo 148 .MM. Mo co>oc oocoocchMcM. .cowuww>wv ULfl-ucmvm .1. Own . . MMN. MN MMMM.N coocM NMM MN M NMM. MN MMM_.N .M.M oocoo coo .om . . NMM. MN MMMM.M cooco MMM MM M NNM. MN MMMM.N .M.M Mpoz co—oo coo .mm . . NMM. MN NMMN.N coocM MMM NM M MNM. NN NNMM.c .M.M :cosoe ooco :chow o Mo: .No . . MNM. MN NMMN.M Mooco MMM MM M MMN. _N cMMN.N .M.M Pponxoppo> co cooooM Mzopc .MN «.aocm woman» ooMMouum oom :ocosooco coo: EouH ocwoccowpmoao oocowco> oopooc .MoMMMoMMM--.McN.M MMMMM 149 . . soc. mm NNmo.P xmocw MMN cM MMM. MN MMMM; .M.M szm op o~n< .mm . . mmo. cm oooo.~ xoocw MMM MM NNN. MN MMMM.N .M.M MocooFo czo cocM oco cmoz coo .op . . omm. cm mmom.— xooco MNM NM N NNM. MN MMMM.N .M.M opozown o ooMc coo .NM . . mom. cm m~mm.~ xooco MMM MN c MMM. MN MMNM; .M.M camcocum Foowmxco oco comuocMocooo omoco>olcocuucouoom .m «.nocm ummunp uo_wopum ooo :ococcoco coo: sopo ocMoccoMumozo oocowco> copooc .Mcocooou xooco oco Mopopm oouwco An ooucococ Mo ocoEQoMo>oo Mouwmzcc mo ooco ocu cw soup cooo com MMo>oF oocoowcwcmwm :uwpwnonoca oopwopum oco Hoopla oocowco> quooo .Mowocozcoco .Mcoos co coMMcooEooul.nM~.o opnoh 150 .mo. op Mo>op oocooMmccmme .coMpoM>ou ocoocoum u omo . . mom. mm mcom.m xoocw MMM MM MMM. MN MMMN.N .M.M oocoo coo .om . . 0mm. em omuw.F xooco MNM MM N NNM. MN MMNM.N .M.M __o3 coMoo coo .MM . . New. om oom~.~ xoocw MNM MM N MMN. MN MMMM N .M.M :cosoe coca :Mcoom Mo: .NM . . omv. mm oooo.~ soocw MMM MN N NMM. MN MMNM.N .M.M Mpoaaoppo> co coooom Mxopc .mm c.20cm ammunu noMMouum oom :ocosooco coo: EouH ocMoccoMuMoao oocowco> copooc .voscwucooun.apm.¢ opaoh 151 mmo. no mnum.p xooco MNM. NM. NNM. MM MMMM._ V .M.M cczm MM MMMM .MN . . Mmo. om Noop.~ cooco ccc _M c NMN. MM MMNM N .M.M Moccopo czo cocw cco cMoz coo .MP . . opo. Fm mmpo.~ xooco MNM MM MMM. MM MMNM.N .M.M oMoxowc o ocwc coo .NF . . ooN. om ooom.~ cooco MNM MM N MMN. MM NMMM.N .M.M camcocpm Moowmaca uco cowpocwocooo omoco>oucocuucouuom .m «.noca umopuu conouum oom mucoccocc coo: coco ocwoccowpmoco oocowco> copooc .Mucoocum cooco uco monoum couwc: an ooucococ Mo ucosaopo>ou Foowmzcc wo ooco ocu cw Eocw cuoo cow MMo>oM oocoowwwcmwm :uwpwcococq co—woulm cco goon-» oocowco> oopooc .Mowococoocw .mcoos wo concochonu.o_~.¢ opcow 152 .MM. Mo co>oc oocouccchcM. .cowuow>oo ocoocopm u ooo . . omm. om ommo.m xooco _M_ MM c MMN. MM MMMM.N .M.M oococ coo .om . . one. om FNOP.N xooco NMM MN M MMM. MM MNNM.N .M.M ppoz copoo coo .mm . . moo. om meom.~ xoocw MNM MM _ MMM. MM NNNM.N .M.M :coEoE ooom :Mcwow o mo: .No . . Mme. mm mpmm.P xoocu NMM M_ M MMM. MM McNM.N .M.M Mpocxoppo> co coooom Mzopc .mm «.nocm “moan“ oopwopum om :ocoococu coo: sooH ocwoccowpmozo oocowco> oopooc .MoMMcoMMo--.ucN.M ocMMc 153 Item 14: Can wash and iron own clothes Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 2.62 with a two-tailed probability level of .012, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .56 with a two-tailed probability level of .580, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.61 with a two-tailed probability level of .111, which was ngt_statistically significant. Item 23: Able to swim Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.78 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .31 with a two-tailed probability level of .755, which was ngt_statistically significant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as .57 with a two-tailed probability level of .573, which was ggt_statistically significant. Item 29: Plays soccer or volleyball Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 4.38 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. 154 Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.25 with a two-tailed probability level of .031, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 3.16 with a two-tailed probability level of .002, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Item 47: Has a fairly good memory Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.03 with a two-tailed probability level of .004, which was statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as 2.35 with a two-tailed probability level of .023, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.00 with a two-tailed probability level of .320, which was not_statistically significant. Item 55: Can color well Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.84 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t—value score was calculated as 2.38 with a two-tailed probability level of .000, which wg§_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 3.23 with a two-tailed probability level of .002, which was statistically sig- nificant. 155 Item 56: Can dance Parents: The t-value score was calculated as 3.66 with a two-tailed probability level of .001, which wa§_statistically sig- nificant. Teachers: The t-value score was calculated as .54 with a two- tailed probability level of .594, which was ggt_statistically sig- nificant. Students: The t-value score was calculated as 1.54 with a two-tailed probability level of .151, which was ngt_statistically significant. Summar In this chapter, the analysis of the data was presented. Within the limitations of the study, the major findings were: United States and Greek (a) Parents, (b) Teachers, and (c) StudentsT—i Rankings of Developmental Skills a. The United States and Greek parents indicated differences in their rank ordering in the child's social, problem solving, physical, emotional, language, self-help, and academic development. Only one area, moral growth, received a similar ranking from both cultures. Although there were significant differences between the individual developmental groups' rankings by United States and Greek parents, the overall ranking as determined by the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient indicated no significant difference in the overall rank ordering. 156 b. The United States and Greek teachers indicated no dif- ferences in their overall rank ordering in the above-mentioned areas. c. The United States and Greek students indicated equal dif- ferences and similarities in their rank ordering in the above—mentioned areas. However, the overall rank ordering as determined by the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was not significantly different. United States and Greek (a) Parents, 1b) Teachers, and (c) Students' Assignments for Home and School Responsibility, a. The United States and Greek parents indicated different responses in their assignments for home and school responsibility in four of the eight developmental areas. These were the areas of social skills, problem solving, physical skills, and moral growth. There were similar responses in the areas of emotional adjustment, self-help, academic skills, and language skills. b. The United States and Greek teachers indicated similar responses in six of the eight developmental areas, with the only difference being in the areas of academic skills and moral growth. c. The United States and Greek students indicated similar responses in four of the eight developmental areas, with the differ- ences being in the areas of emotional adjustment, language skills, self-help skills, and academic skills. 157 United States and Greek Parents, Teachers, and Students'7(a) Social, 1b Emotional, (c) Academic, (d) Moral, and 1e1'Rhysical Expectations a. In the area of social expectations, there were significant differences indicated by United States and Greek parents (11 of 18 items), teachers (9 of 18 items), and students (10 of 18 items) as listed in Tables 4.17a, 4.17b, and 4.l7c. b. In the area of emotional expectations, there were sig- nificant differences indicated by United States and Greek parents (5 of 12 items), teachers (5 of 12 items), and students (2 of 12 items) as listed in Tables 4.18a, 4.18b, and 4.l8c. c. In the area of academic expectations, there were sig- nificant differences indicated by United States and Greek parents (6 of 14 items), teachers (6 of 14 items), and students (3 of 14 items) as listed in Tables 4.l9a, 4.l9b, and 4.19c. d. In the area of moral expectations, there were significant differences indicated by United States and Greek parents (2 of 8 items), teachers (3 of 8 items), and students (3 of 8 items) as shown in Tables 4.20a, 4.20b, and 4.20c. e. In the area of physical expectations, there were signifi- cant differences indicated by United States and Greek parents (8 of 8 items), teachers (4 of 8 items), and students (3 of 8 items) as listed in Tables 4.21a, 4.21b, and 4.21c. Chapter V is devoted to the drawing of conclusions, comments, and recommendations based on the preceding research and analysis. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this chapter a summary of the study is presented, followed by major findings, discussion, and recommendations for future research. Summar The purpose of the study was to investigate and compare parents, teachers, and students' expectations in two educational units--American and Greek--presenting social, economic, and cultural similarities with particular emphasis on cross-cultural comparisons and students' expected performance in the United States and in Greece. The sampled United States population included 40 parents, 40 teachers, andlCHlstudents of a secondary accredited American school (American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.) in Greece during the 1980-81 school year. The sampled Greek population included 40 parents, 30 teachers, and 75 students of a Greek secondary school (Athena School, G. Zirides) located in Athens, during the 1980-81 school year. Instruments used to collect the data included questionnaires (Parts I, II, and III followed by subsidiary questions) for cross-cultural com- parisons of parents, teachers, and students' expectations of a child by age 16. 158 159 The procedures in conducting the research included meetings with administrators, teachers, and students from each culture to dis- cuss appropriateness of the instrument items to the respective cul- tures. The procedures also included a explanatory cover letter sent to parents along with the questionnaire. A back-translation method was used for the instrument, with verification of accuracy by the researcher and translators from each culture. The collected data were analyzed both statistically and inferentially. The data were analyzed statistically by the t-test and the Spearman rank-order correlation (Question 1). The data were also analyzed inferentially, primarily through frequency patterns and individual frequency responses for the various items on the questionnaires. Research Questions The following research questions were constructed to guide the study: Question 1: 00 significant differences exist between United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to their secondary school students' development in eight areas, as measured by rankings in these areas? Question 2: Are there differences between who is considered primarily responsible, and to what extent, for helping the United States and Greek child to accomp- lish his social, emotional, moral, academic, and physical development? Question 3: Are there differences between the United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students with respect to the groups of skills considered to be most impor- tant for a child by the age of 16? 160 Research Findings The findings related to the research questions in the frame- work of the indicated location, population sampling, and methodology are: Research Question 1 A. United States and Greek parents did not indicate significantly different responses in the overall rankings of the child's develop- mental skills, according to the Spearman rank-order correlations. The United States and Greek parents indicated, in order of importance, the following rankings: United States Parents Greek Parents 1. Moral growth 1. Moral growth 2. Social skills 2. Problem solving 3. Emotional adjustment 3. Academic skills 4. Academic skills 4. Emotional adjustment 5. Problem solving 5. Social skills 6. Self-help skills 6. Language skills 7. Language skills 7. Physical skills 8. Physical skills 8. Self-help skills 8. United States and Greek teachers gave the same responses in the overall rankings of the child's developmental skills in the fol— lowing order of importance: Emotional adjustment Moral growth Social skills Problem solving Language skills Self-help skills 001%de ooo... 161 7. Academic skills 8. Physical skills C. United States and Greek students gave different responses (50 percent versus 50 percent) in the overall rankings of the child's developmental skills. The United States and Greek students indicated, in order of importance, the following rankings: United States Students Greek Students 1. Social skills 1. Social skills 2. Moral growth 2. Moral growth 3. Emotional adjustment 3. Emotional adjustment 4. Problem solving 4. Academic skills 5. Academic skills 5. Problem solving 6. Self-help skills 6. Language skills 7. Language skills 7. Self-help skills 8. Physical skills 8. Physical skills Research Question 2 A. The United States and Greek parents indicated differences in responses for home responsibility in three of the eight areas: social skills, physical skills, and language skills. The Greek par- ents assigned more responsibility to the home for the above three areas. Only one major difference occurred between the United States and Greek parents, i.e., in the area of problem solving. The Greek parents assigned a major responsibility to the school in this area. In only two areas, emotional adjustment and moral growth, were there noticeable differences between the United States and the Greek parents concerning home and school responsibility. The most significant dif- ference was in the area of moral growth, on which the Greek parents assigned a significant responsibility to another institution. 162 B. The United States and Greek teachers responded similarly in seven of the eight areas concerning the responsibility assigned to the home. There was only a minor difference with United States teachers, who placed more responsibility on the home in the area of academic skills. The Greek teachers assigned a significant differ- ence in the responsibility of the school in the area of moral growth, whereas the United States teachers placed a major responsibility for moral growth on home and school. C. The United States and Greek students responded differently in only two of the eight areas concerning the responsibility assigned to home, i.e., physical skills and academic skills. The Greek stu- dents assigned more responsibility to home as compared to United States students in the area of physical skills, whereas the United States students placed more responsibility on home in the area of academic skills. There were four areas of significant difference between the responsibilities assigned to school by United States and Greek students, i.e., emotional adjustment, language skills, self- help, and academic skills. The United States students placed more responsibility on the school in the area of language skills, whereas in the other three areas the Greek students assigned more responsi- bility to the school. There were significant differences in the assignment of responsibility to home/school in five areas: problem solving, physical skills, emotional adjustment, self-help, and moral growth. In all the above five areas, the United States students placed more responsibility on the combination home/school as compared to Greek students. 163 Research Question 3 As indicated in Tables 4.17 through 4.21, this question was divided into five sections relative to the areas of social skills, emotional development, academic skills, physical skills, and moral growth. In the area of social skills, there were significant differ- ences between United States and Greek parents and teachers in 11 and 9 of the 18 items, respectively. United States and Greek students also indicated significant differences in 10 of the 18 items. In the area of emotional development, there were significant differences between United States and Greek parents and teachers in 5 of the 12 items. American and Greek students indicated a signifi- cant difference in only 2 of the 12 items. In the area of academic skills, there were significant differ- ences between United States and Greek parents in 6 of the 14 items. United States and Greek teachers indicated significant differences in 6 of the 14 items, whereas United States and Greek students indi- cated significant differences in only 3 of the 14 items. In the area of moral development, there were significant dif- ferences between the United States and Greek parents in two of the eight items. The United States and Greek teachers and students indicated significant differences in four and three of the eight items, respectively. In the area of physical development, there were significant differences between the United States and Greek parents in eight of the eight items. United States and Greek teachers indicated 164 significant differences in four out of the eight items, whereas United States and Greek students indicated significant differences in three of the eight items. Discussion In this section, the results derived from research findings coupled with the interrelationship of the researcher's studies and personal experiences in the United States and in Greece as well as the literature related to both educational systems are discussed. Ranking of Developmental Skills There was no significant difference in the overall ranking of the eight developmental skills by United States and Greek parents, as computed by the Spearman rank-order correlation. Rankings of the developmental skills by the United States and Greek parents varied little in rank order except in the areas of social skills and problem solving. The high ranking of social skills on the part of the United States parents agrees with Stern's (1971) findings and Tanner's (1976) conclusions. The low rank (sixth on an eight-item rank ordering) is not surprising in the Greek results. It is congruent with the Greek educational philosophy, approaches, and the expectations from the school, which is viewed by parents as a purely "schooling" and not an "educational" institution--in the broader acceptance of the term. Despite the successive reforms, the Greek curriculum is entirely geared to academic achievement, and there is no latitude whatsoever for social growth. 165 The fact that the United States and Greek teachers ranked social growth equally high indicates that the Greek educators recog- nize the need to integrate this skill in the educational function. It is strikingly interesting, particularly from the intercultural standpoint, to note that both United States and Greek students ranked the same skills in the top order of importance, i.e., first, social skills; second, moral growth: and third, emotional adjustment. Referring to the important role of the student council as a way to achieve socialization in Greek schools and to instill demo- cratic concepts and habits in the student body, Papanoutsos (1974) wrote: Instead of ruling autocratically and provoking at times the reactions of their best students (which reactions are not always expressed due to hypocrisy--an even greater sin) teachers should have the role held in the past in democratic Greek cities by the elderly citizens: to enlighten, to counsel, to guide the members of their community through their knowledge and experi- ence. They should not impose their views directly or indirectly. . . Is there any more beautiful, wise, educational approach than this one? . . . Children should, as from their earlier age, get accustomed to community life through collectively and respon- sibly organized projects and gradually proceed to ever-excelling shapes of self-government and self-discipline. The rankings of academic achievement on the part of both United States and Greek parents present relative similarities. An absolute and stunning similarity in academic achievement is indicated by United States and Greek teachers, who placed this skill seventh in the eight- item rank order of importance. The low ranking scored by the Greek teachers is not consistent with the expectations of parents and stu- dents and is completely out of line with the educational demands of the Greek authorities and the society. Be it noted that United States 166 and Greek parents and students placed academic expectations on a much higher level. Both Stern's and Tanner's findings indicated that United States teachers ranked academic skills sixth in importance, however. United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students rated physical skills in the lowest order of importance. It may have been surprising, from the educational viewpoint, if parents and students in stateside schools had ranked physical skills so low. On the inter- national scene, these low scores indicate a switch in the priorities of parents and students, who place higher importance on academic skills. The lack of expanded facilities and opportunities for physi- cal exercise accounts also for the parental and student rankings. Both United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students were in agreement on their responses concerning the high rank order in which they placed moral growth. It was surprising to notice that United States and Greek students placed moral growth second in impor- tance, whereas both placed social skills first. This could be inter- preted either as a reaction on the part of the students for the lack of importance placed on moral growth or as an indication of their aspirations in this direction. Hadjinicoli (1980) wrote in this regard: All these methods (lack of moral growth, aesthetic education) contribute to the shaping of a subdued little person, submis- sive and consenting, who, with blocked outlets and polarized aesthetic criteria, becomes a spare part of the machinery that overwhelms him and also maintains him. United States and Greek teachers assigned language skills fifth in rank order of importance. Parents and students placed it 167 much lower in importance. Whereas teachers consider language skills as one of the prime means to achieve academic skills, parents and students aim at the goal without apparently attaching due importance to the vehicle. In the United States, however, the concern that is encapsuled in the "back to basics" about language skills, grammar, and syntax is not demonstrated in these scores. Of the Greek population surveyed, the issue of katharevousa versus demotic, with its host of implications particularly at the turn of the century to the present, seems to have lost its prime importance. Discussions by the researcher with Greek educators resulted in the conclusion that great concern prevails among them about the standardization of the demotiki and the necessity to discipline students in language skills at all levels. It may seem surprising that United States parents assigned problem solving fifth in the order of importance, whereas Greek par- ents placed it second. The explanation of the high priority of Greek parents in this area may be easily attributed to the belief ingrained in the Greek society to the effect that the major responsibility for problem solving on the part of the children lies solely on the family. It is interesting to observe that for Greek parents, problem solving ranked second only to moral growth, which is the primary concern of Greek society and is nurtured by Church beliefs. The equally low importance given by both United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students to the area of self-help is in line with the scores indicated in the area of problem solving. Teachers in both United States and Greek societies placed the emotional adjustment of the child as first in the rank order of 168 priorities. Parents and students indicated that social and moral growth rank higher than emotional adjustment in their priorities. Assignment of Home and/or School Responsibility Given the responsibility vested in the home by the Greek society, it is not surprising that Greek parents assigned more respon- sibility to the home for social-skill development than did United States parents. In fact, the researcher received confirmation of this Greek concept through discussions with families from various socio- economic backgrounds. Statistically, there was a significant difference between the United States and Greek parents in the assignment of responsibility in the area of problem solving. Whereas the United States parents assigned, besides home/school, the responsibility for problem solving to school, home, and other institutions, in this area, research indi- cated that Greek parents assigned the major responsibility only to home/school and school. The latter finding is not congruent with the results concerning problem solving in the previous part of this dis- cussion. This may be interpreted as the perception on the part of Greek parents that the responsibilities of the school and of the home do overlap in specific areas. In sharp contrast with the Greek antiquity, where the acquisi- tion of physical skills coupled with martial training was the preroga- tive of the _s__chg_1_j_ and the palestira (open gymnasium), parents in modern Greek society assigned to the school, according to the findings of this research, an exclusively academic mission with no latitude for the 169 acquisition of physical skills. This is also evidenced by the limited number of hours per week assigned to physical education by the State curricula and endorsed by discussions the researcher had with Greek administrators and teachers. The quasi-absence of on—site play- grounds and athletic facilities, as compared at least with stateside standards, reinforces the findings of this research. Minimal differences were expressed between the United States and Greek parents as to their assignment of responsibility in the area of academic skills. Both placed a major emphasis on the home/school assignment. It is worth noting that the United States parents placed a secondary responsibility upon the home, whereas the Greek parents placed a secondary responsibility upon the school. The American school, by definition and in accordance with its consistent philosophy and approaches, views "education" as a global function, carrying the responsibility, in addition to intra- and extracurricular activities, for the acquisition of academic skills and academic performance. The Greek parents, on their part, assign the heavy responsibility of academic achievement to the school and the para-educational institu— tions such as the frontisteria and private tutors. This school- frontisteria complex is entirely responsible for the preparation of students toward successful examination results at all levels beyond the elementary school. The above concept was supported by the findings of the research concerning the assignment of responsibility given Greek teachers to the home. This may be interpreted as an attitude on the part of the Greek teachers that once they perform their duties within the rigid 170 time constraints imposed by the official curricula and schedule, they .will re-route the responsibility to the parents, who will have to seek additional means to secure academic achievement for their children. The United States and Greek teachers' assignment of respon- sibility for social skills, problem solving, physical skills, emotional adjustment, language skills, and self-help presented few variations. However, in the area of moral growth, the marked differences lay in the assignment of responsibility to the school by the Greek teachers. More precisely, the United States teachers assigned the major responsibility to home/school, whereas the Greek teachers split the responsibility between home/school and the school. The latter may be attributed to the austere and conservative atmosphere prevailing in Greek schools and is a reflection of the historical influence of the Church upon education and the perception of the Greek society about the role of the school. The United States and Greek students' assignment of responsi— bility for social skills, problem solving, physical skills, and moral growth presented few variations. Significant differences existed in the areas of emotional adjustment, language skills, self-help, and academic skills. In the area of emotional adjustment, the United States students placed major and heavy responsibility on home/school, with a secondary responsibility on the school. The high scores in this case can be attributed to the little importance given to the home. The Greek students denied any responsibility to the home, whereas they assigned major responsibility to home/school. The insignificant scores given to home and other institutions by United States and Greek 171 students for emotional adjustment were consistent with the scores assigned by both United States and Greek parents and teachers. In the area of language skills, a consensus seems to have been reached by United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students. Both United States and Greek teachers as well as students assigned a major responsiblity concerning language skills to the home. The researcher believes that both segments interpreted "language skills" as "verbal skills" and their enrichment through the offerings of the so-called "parallel school" (magazines, advertisements, television, bills and posters, science fiction, library books, verbal communica- tions, etc.), which, in the opinion of many educators, accounts for up to 50 percent of oral language skills and vocabulary acquisition. Scores recorded by students in self-help support previous find- ings of this research. United States students assign a lesser impor- tance to schools vis-a-vis home/school responsibility. Conversely, Greek students rely to a much greater extent on school, since school is generally perceived by them as their own regular school in addition to the array of after-school training clusters such as the frontis- 32:19.- It is surprising that United States students placed an almost equal responsibility for academic skills on home/school and home and denied any complete responsibility in this area for school alone. This is in contrast with Greek students, who, while assigning the major responsibility to school, attributed an almost equal responsi- bility to home and school. The researcher believes the zero respon- sibility assigned to school by the United States students reflects a 172 misinterpretation of the question or the disturbing fact that stu- dents feel deprived of adequate support from school. Comparison of United States and Greek Parents, Teachers, and Students'Expectations of a Child by the Age of716 The lack of experience of the Greek parents, teachers, and students in completing questionnaires and responding to surveys was much more in evidence in this part of the research than in the previous two sections and may have been a result of the extent of the question— naire and the nature of the items involved. The United States child is sensitized as of the primary grades to different evaluations and testing styles such as the multiple-choice approach; this concept is pursued throughout his educational process and his entire life. The Greek educational system does not provide this opportunity, and com- pleting a questionnaire is a totally alien experience for children and adults. During the junta, secret government files were kept on citizens, and individuals who were identified as "dangerous" were imprisoned without a hearing or a trial. Therefore, in the eyes of most Greeks, any questionnaire conceals a sort of a threat and a sus- picion as to the motives of the researcher. However, the researcher was allowed to conduct this study according to the requirements and the parameters initially set, thanks to the understanding and coopera- tion of progressive Greek educators and colleagues. Questions for which the researcher believed, in analyzing the findings, that Greek parents, teachers, and students did not grasp the meaning were verified by personal discussions and explanations with those surveyed. 173 There were significant differences between the United States and Greek parents, teachers, and students in the area of social—skills expectations for a child by the age of 16. Research findings con- firmed by the researcher's personal contacts with Greek families at various social levels demonstrated that these differences may be attributed to factors inherent in the country's cultural values and beliefs. The most significant examples derive from the fact that the attitudes< |>< Normal Training No Strong Opinion Prefer Not Harmful 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 193 Able to swim Honest Can play alone Recognizes basic color combinations Demands little of adults' time Talks easily with a friend Plays soccer or volleyball Expresses basic desires (cold, hungry, thirsty) without reservation Respectful of others' feelings Can put in normal order the necessary steps for the successful completion of a problem of life Cooks for self and others Has a sense of responsibility Is capable of completing simple house- hold chores Better-than-average self-image and happiness Self-control Gets along with other children Better-than-average social adjustment Is able to draw simple pictures Helps with simple chores Strong religious beliefs Follows directions Honest Knows how to effectively use the trigo- nometric functions on a calculator Listens attentively in a group Has fairly good memory Happy and cheerful most of the time Enjoys learning Special Help Normal Training No Strong Opinion Prefer Not Harmful 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 194 Does not fight with siblings or friends Better than average in school Strong positive picture of himself Fair with others Will sit alone quietly Can color well Can dance Dresses self with proper color combina- tions or color coordination Better-than-average vocabulary Can be separated from parents and still be responsible Better than average in personal hygiene Special Help Normal Training No Strong Opinion Prefer Not Harmful APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER TO GREEK PARENTS. TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS 195 196 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF ATHENS. INC. SIB ABHIAI PARASKEVIS STREET HALANDFII ATHINB. GREECE TIL: 9598.200 'Aefiva, 10 Acnequtou 1981 'Ayonntot @(AOL, 'Ent1p6Xcté uc v6 ovatnea: 6vou6§ouat JAMES LIEBZEIT not .eguat Auxctdpxqg 16v EonGv tfig 'Apeptuavtnfig HJQOLKLaQ A nvfiv. 26v npoomopd atfi mth6§evn 6oo bnou épdeOpaL, dneoéotoa v6 detcpoow 1 v Atban10ptug pou Ata1pLBfi 06 utd ouynpt1twfi uché1n oxc1tu p6 1£g dvtthfioctg yovéwv 6aowéhov-wo0nyn1ov not ua9n1&v ndvo oE btioopoug 1ouctg n06 dQOpoDv 016v dvdn1u§n 105 Em Sou ua6n1é. 'H OLanLEfi uou ExEL OnoBXnSeT oé npoaa1apn1tw2 pope 01 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY no 16 HovexL01fiuto Exec nobcx1et 16v np61oofi pou. Ftd vé 6Xonhqpéoo 16 uehétn uou, xpcté’ouat tfi Sofiecué cog. Zig napawahm Bcpué VS ouunknpéoctc 16 oéuAcL01o Epw1npa1o- A6yto ANDNYMA 015 Pcvtwfi Atefieuvon 105 Aunctou AEHNA-ZHPIAE 600 16 buva16 ouvrouétcpa. "Ono? 66 napa1qpfioc1c, 16 'E o1nuatoh6yto dnotchcttat dn6 3 K on nit ouvobeOE1at dn6 va 65h1toz"dh?pooop£eg yti 16 'Ioroptw6 10% flatbtofi" nob dig napawahw En one v6 oupnhnpooctc. Tod v6 05 Bonefioo 016 1p£10 uépo n06 Elva; Atyétepo dahé not éutcvédtepo dn6 1£ 5AA“ 66o Egon, oig 6tvw éva napibetypa. ”Av 5x515 nautfi épétnoq, oiq nopanahm pfi 6L01éoc1e v6 ué 1nhcmwv6051e 016v dpt9u6 6595200 Mpeg ypamctou. 23g cbxapt01fi 6w 16v nporépwv yté 16v uuhfi oaq bidecoq v6 ué Bonefioctc nat,v& uoD dotcp6051c Atyn 6pm dm6 16v nohOttpo xp6vo on . K5 ELOTE DEBaLOL 61» fl npoondBELé one 66 ovusdhct onuav1tn 016v cO66mofl 159 natbaywytnfig. 16 othtwé oloefipata, ,- AMES LIEBLEIT Auneuépxng Cable Mdnu: AMSCHA‘I’H vATHENS 197 E P Q T H M A T O A O T 1 0 T6 6M6AouOo épw1nu61oh6yto 6napL6ucT 6L6mopeg 65EL61n15g n61 xapan1npu01tu6 tfig npoowntw61 10g noO pnOpET v6 6V6n16§ouv 16 naL6L6 naeég pcyahovouv. 66 aficka v6 u66w HOOD 0qu6v1tw6 vout— éctc 61L Etvat YL6 16 natbt 06g v6 Exct 6v6n1O§EC 6616 16 mp6yu616 16v 66 666051 oé fihtnia 16 étEv. Mépoq 1 Hapauakm M61616§1c 16 én6uev6 8 OTOLXETQ 6n6 16 1 $9 16 8. H 0603 1 601anoooncfict,16 ofivoho 16v 665}01fi1wv nou 65wQETTE n16 0 QVTLH v XEL non1noct 16 natbt 06g 6160 86 yivct 16 Etmv. I O L 1 nt 0 ‘1 w 6 0 2 O 6 not 061w waecéfiq. n901cgat61ng: KOINQNIKEZ AEEIOTHTEE(KOINQNIKOTHTA) - ptxa sbnoia ué 6AA6 naL6L6 not évfihtweg' éwmp6§ctat 6p616, ouuncptoépc1at 6nwg 6pu6§ct 016 RECLOOOTEDQ actvwvtn6 nchB6XXov16. IKANOTHTA TIAyEHIAYXH HPOBAHMATQN - AOvEL npoBAfiuata ué cOnohIa’ ELVaL 6nuLoupny6g 06 nohhég ncptn1éoetg. ZQMATIKEZ AESIOTHTEE - w6h6g ouvtovtouéq' pnoch v6 natQEL nah6 66AonaL6Lég, Exct ucv6hn owuattwfi 66vapn. XYNAIZGHMATIKH RPCZAPMOPH - Exct nahfi eln6v6 106 660100 1ou (SELF-IMAGE) xpnotuonOLcI 6nuLoupvtw6 16v éhéuecpo xp6vo' ctvat cOtuxLOpévog 11g neptooétepcg mooéq. PAQZZIKEZ AEEIOTHTEE - ELKE w666p6° Exec nAoOOLo Acgth6vto' énuwouvovct ve1a. AYTOEEYEHPETHZH - AOOCE10L, BouptotCEL 16 66v116 1ou/1ng n61 v1fvc1at ué wa16hhnhoug ouvbuaopofig xpwu61wv not 16nov' Bonea 06 utwpobouAELéq. AKAAHMAIKEE AEEIOTHTEE - paeaIVEL EOwoha, Excu nahfi éntboon 016 oxoheIo, naipveu wahofig Baepofig. HNEYMATIKH ANAHTYEH - EIvaL Onefieuvoq' oéBctaL 106g 6hhoug. Méecc_2 Hou6% na16 tfi yvéun 06 erat Bactw6 OncOBuvog YL6 v6 BonOfiocL 16 natb 06g v6 n516x51 6 16 16 np6yu616: napawahm 0nueu6015 ué Eva wOnAo Eva 6n6 16 010Lxcta n06 6nohouOoOv n665 natnyopta: KOINQNIKEZ AEEIOTHTEZ 0nt1t Kxohcto onttt not oxotho 6AA0Q EHIAYZH HPOBAHMATQN 1nt1t 0oneTc onttt not axohcto 6Xhoq EYNAIZSHMATIKH HPOEAPMOPH 0n£1L oxohcto 0n£1t not oxoheto 6AXOg ../.. 198 PAQZZIKEZ AEEIOTHTEZ 0n£1L 0onETo 0n£1t Hat 0xohETo 6hhog AYTOESYHHPETHZH 0n£1L conEIo 0nt1t u6t ooncTo 6hhoq AKAAHMAIKEE AEEIOTHTEZ onttt ooneIo OHLTL n6£ eoneTo 6AXog HNEYMATIKH ANAHTYEH 0n£1L 0oncTo onttt Rat 0xohcto 6XXOQ ZQMATIKEZ AEEIOTHTEZ 0n£1t 0onETo onttt w6£ axohelo 6hhoq Hop6w6hm 1oen6p515 (fl 0npeu601c p6 X) 16 x6p6n1qu0p6 n06 vou£§51c 16v nL6 M616hhnho. Hpoobtoptou6g 1fig H61616§ng éényct16L n6p6n61w.: EIAIKH BOHOEIA - O6 npoomépw np600510 xp6vo Hat/fl xpfiua 716 v6 Boneno 16 natbt pou v6 16 Exct ne16xct 616v 66 ELv6L 16 étmv. KANONIKH EKHAIAEYZH — 66 EARLCa 611 16 n616£ pou 66 pnopofioe v6 16 ne10xeu 06v 00véne16 tfiq yevtwfig énnat— beuong 10v 6H6 uéva w6£ 6XAoug. 0X1 ENTONH PNQMH 66v Exw Evtovn énteugta, 651Lnfi 2 6pvn1cwfi. - 1"Av 16 fixet nE10xEL, xEL wahGg‘ v 66v 16 Exct nc16x5L, EXEL n6hmg. EIII EYES} NA NIH nu66v6 66 66 énteuuofiog 16 natbt uov v6 16 Exeu ne1OxEL 616v O6 ElvaL 16 615v, 6AA6 66v 66 ué nohucvoxhofioc. EUIZHMIO — 6E Oéhw 16 n6L6E uou v6 16 ExEL ne16 EL H66 ntotefiw 61L 06 fihtnt616 é1mv 6016 c v6L EHLCfipLo. :' :- org 3 o O :6) P 13 _a ~cwa am: > a. :1 25:: a; ”s as s m as a: as 3.. 2:" AL61npoDv 16 610th 100g n606p6 mm :4fo P >— 31 > 4‘1 Kat VOLuonupeuévo. ___ _X_ ___ ___ [___ MnopoDv v6 ytvouv x616vontol. X ___ AtatnpoDv 16 6wu61to 1ovq u666p6 w6t vouwonupeuévo. MnOpoDv v6 ytvouv n616von1ot. ___ ___ ___ 2vv1ovL0u6 Hat 0ou61tnfi bfivaun 6v61cp6 6m 16 p600 6oo. 199 8- C' C > \CD 0 O 5 KO P 13 .3 ‘C-J 410 D 1 :1. KW D” W: Dsc \C 40 05 :1 63:1 U HO“.— >t‘—’ -'0\3 a .a ‘40 5: X) f.‘\d t: [13“: MW ‘0» [21> [=3 ’Avantfiooct Hat égcpeuva 16 6Lw6 1ou/1ng 6L6¢épov16 mat/fl n6pepvcg 60xohteg (xémw) _. _— _— —— _- 'Exct 16v Inav61n16 v6 pLucT16L. ‘Yn6nofiet 01069 yochg HQL 1066 660n6houg. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ K616voct 13g Baotnég dpxéc TOG vanapaywyng. Mnopct v6 ypdoct ow016 u£6 n6p6yp6mo. 'EnLMOvach 6ve16 ué 6AAoug u66n1ég. ___ Mnopct v6 A6051 Baotwég 6Achanég Efitoédctg. MLA6 n666p6 K61 neptew1tn6. Mnoch v6 66nvfi05L nobfihato. Mnopet v6 yp6¢EL H6A6 uL6 1010p16 66o oehtbov. Mnopct v6 nAOvEL Mat v6 0L65p605L 16 poDxa 1ou/1ng. AL686§EL H665 é860u666 Eva BLBAIO 1fig fihtutag 100 fi 7L6 nt6 ucy6houg. Mnopel v6 Afloat 16 nch0061cp6 npoBhfiuata xwptg 16v BofiBELa 6hhwv. AL6B6§EL émnucplba n66nucptv6 Eépct v6 yp6¢ct Ev6 ptnp6 BEGTPLHO "0né1g"___ EépEL v6 AOvEL 6nA6 npoBXfiu616 ycwuctp£6g.___ _ __ __ __ 'In6v61n16 6vétepn 6n6 16 uéoo 6pc, v6 AOvEL npoBXfiu616 1fig Cwfig. ___, ___ ___ ,___ EOqua ou§n16 ué évfihtncq én16c 6n6 1oOg yovETg 1ou M61 16 666Amt6 1ou. ' "EXEL ntvn1p6 H66 npwtoBouhteg. Eépct v6 nohuuna. EIv6L 1£utog. Mnopct v6 natfieu u6vog 1ou/1ng. 200 'Av6vvaIC5L 6fiAoOg 0uv6U60uoOg xpwu61wv ’An6L15I Atyo 6n6 16 xp6vo 16v évnhtwwv utxa 5Oqu6 ué Ev6 mtho. H6£§51 nob60m6tpo fi 86Xh50 'Enmp6C5L duhég Enteuutcg (wpu6v5t, n5uv6, 6L¢6) xoptg éntmOhafin. 2565161 16 61006u616 16v 6hhwv. MnopEI v6 B6A5L 05 wavovunfi 05Lp6 1E VQYKQTEQ 6t66tw60I5q YL6 1fiv~5nt1uxn Avon évéc nooBknuatoc (Inc Cwnc) MaYELpeOEL YL6 16v 56016 1ou n6C/fi YLd 6hhovg "Exci 16v EvvoL6 1fig On5u60v61n1oq. EIv6L Inav6g v6 5w15AET 6nh5g uano— bouhctég 100 0nL1LoO. "Exct n6p6n6vo 6n6 16 uéoo 6oo BSTLHfi yvéun Ytd 16 56v16 1ov/1ng mat vouéect 561vxtou5vog. 'Ex5t 66105A5yxo. T6 H6EL n6A6 ué 6AX6 n6L6L6. Kovvovtwfi npo06puoyfi onh615pn 6n'16 uéoo 6oo. Mnop5T v6 vap6m£§5t 6nh5q 51w6v5g. Bonea 05 duhég utwpobouheuég. ’onupég Opnon5u1tw5g nanOLOfioctg. ’AnohouO5T 66nv£5g. EIv6L 1iutog. . Mnopet v6 xpnOLuOROLEI énttuxmq 16v fik5n1povtn6 Onohovt01fi (CALCULATOR) yL6 tfi AOon npoBhnu61wv 1ptyovop51p16g. ’Anofict np005n1tx6 106g 6hhoug 616v BpLGHETaL 05 6u666. ‘7 ‘7 D > \CD 0 O 6 X“) P 13 _i ‘9." -’UO 3 :1. 1 X10 >~-’ not: Dsf \C‘ -’CD 03 1 031 U ‘0‘: ) 4‘3 .3 .3 ‘40 0,: X) cud 1: mm bd-J O» 93) (£3 201 ‘1 K6vOVLwfi Ewnaibeuon OxL Evtov 9 fl ”EXEL 6px516 uahfi uvfiun. ,___ ___ ___ ___ ___ EIvat xapoOucvog n61 5660uoq 11g n5pu00615p5g mopég. ____ ___, ___, 'AnoA6u66v5L v6 u686£v5t. ___ ___ ___. ___ ___ A5 u6A6v5L ué 16 665XmL6 1ou/1nq fl 1069 cpthoug _ __ __ _ __ 'Entbo0n 016 0xohcto n6X615pn 6n6 16 péTpLO. ___. __. __. ___ ___ ’onupfi 651Lwfi 5v16nw0q YL6 16v 56016 1ou/1nq. EIv6L btwatog ué 100g 6AAouq. ___, ___. .__ ___ ___ Mnop5t v6 p5£v5t p6voq/u6vn fip5p6. _____ MnopEI v6 xpwu6tto5t n6A6. _____ Mnoch v6 x0pé¢51. _____ N16v516L ué u616hhnhoug ouvbv60uoOg xpwu61wv fi ué 00v1ovu0u6 xpwu61wv. "Exct AEELAOYLH6 nhoO1o n6p6n6vo dfib 1 u TpLO. __u Mnopct v6 6noxopt0651 106 yovc g 100 M61 v6 5§6uohouefio5t v6 5 v6L Oneveuvoq ___, ___ £12v npoowntwfi Oyt5tvfi 5Iv6L n6p6n6vw 6m 16 ué1pto. BIBLIOGRAPHY 202 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allbaugh, L. Crete: A Case Study of an Underdeveloped Country. Princeton, N.J.: *Princeton University Press, 1953. Antonakaki, Kalliniki Dendrinou. Greek Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955. Antonopoulou-Kollaros, Christina. Greece: A Study of the Educational System of Greece and a Guide to the AcademicTPlacement of Students- From Greece in United States Educational Institutions. World Education Series. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1974. Auerbach, Stuart. "Studying Men and Children, Child Raising." Washington Post, May 4, 1971, pp. Bl-2. Bailey, John E. III, and Ellis, David 8. Development of an Instrument to Measure Educational Variables and PreschooliCompetencies Desired pyjParents. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Nova university, 1974. Banks, James A., and Grambs, Jean 0. Black Self-Concept. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972. Bebell, Clifford F. S. "The Educational Program: Part One.“ In Emerging Designs for Education. Edited by Edgar L. Morphet and David L. Dessner. TDenver: Designing Education for the Future: An Eight-State Project, 1968. Berry, J. W. "On Cross-Cultural Comparability." International Journal of Psychology 4 (1969): 119-28. In Brislin et 51. Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. Bohannan, Paul; Frey, H.; Peterson, R.; Sweet, W.; Ryans, 0.; and Potter, R. A Preliminary Review of the Intercultural Dimension in International/Intercultural Education. K-14, Washington, D.C.: HEW-480 E, OEC-O-72-5152, Final Report. June 30, 1972. Boneau, C. A. "The Effects of Violating of Assumptions Underlying the t-Test." Psychological Bulletin (1960): 49-64. Botsoglou, Eleni. The Question of Retraining the Educational Staff. Athens: Tekmirio Publications, 1980. 203 204 Brislin, Richard W.; Lonner, Walter J.; and Thorndike, Robert M. Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 973. Brookover, Wilbur B.; Gigliotti, Richard J.; Henderson, Ronald 0.; and Schneider, Jeffrey M. Elementary School Social Environment and School Achievement. U.S. Office of Education, Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. l-E-107. East Lansing: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1973. Brooks, John J. "The Overseas School: A New International Resource." School and Society 89 (April 1961): 189-90. Brophy, J. E., and Good, T. L. "Teachers' Communications of Differ- ential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance. Some Behavioral Data." Journal of Educational Psychology 61 (1970): 365-74. Brown, P. The Adolescent Personality. New York: Free Press, 1965. Brunner, Edmund de S. "Social and Economic Forces in Rural America and Their Significance to Rural Education." Teachers College Record 71 (January 1940). Campbell, John, and Sherrard, Philip. Modern Greece. London: Benn, 1968. Center for Political Research and Recurrent Education. The Reform of Education and Public Opinion. Athens, 1979. Chun, K.; Campbell, J. B.; and Y00, J. H. “Extreme Response Style in Cross-Cultural Research: A Reminder." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 5 (December 1974). . Clairborn, W. L. "Expectancy Effects in the Classroom: A Failure to Replicate." Journal of Educational Psychology 60 (1969): 377-83. Coles, Robert. Children of Crisis: A Study of Courage and Fear. New York: Delta Publishing Co., Inc., 1964. Cordatos, G. Demoticism and Archaism. Athens: Publisher Boukoumanis, 1936. Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation Education in Europe. School Systems--A Guide. Strasburg, 1970. Cunningham, William G. "The Impact of Student-Teacher Pairings on Teacher Effectiveness." American Educational Research Journal 12,2 (1975): 168-89. 205 Davidson, Thomas. The Education of the Greek People. The Inter— national Education Series. New York: D.iAppleton and Company, 1909. Dimen, Muriel, and Friedl, Ernestino. Regional Variation in Modern Greece and Cyprus: Toward a Perspective in the Ethnology of Greece. [Papers.]i Edited by Muriel Dimen and Ernestino Friedl. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1976. Domidion, Ann M. A Guide for New Overseas School Administrators. New York: Teachers Cbllege, Columbia University, 1964. Downey, Lawrence W. The Task of Public Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, university of Chicago, 1960. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York:- Harper and Row, Publishers, 1974. Engleman, Finis. The Pleasure Was Mine. Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1980. Engleman, Finis E., and Rushton, Edward W. American-Sponsored Overseas Schools. Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Admin- istrators, 1969. Entwisle, Doris R. Expectation Theory in the Classroom: Final Report. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1974. Entwisle, Doris R., and Hayduk, Leslie A. "The Expectations of Black and White Children in First Grade." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (83rd), Chicago, Illinois, August 30-September 3, 1975. Entwisle, Doris R., and Webster, Murray, Jr. "Middle-Class and Lower- Class Children Expectations in First Grade." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, Chicago, 111., April 15-19, 1974. Erickson, Edsel. Childhood and Society, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1951. . "A Study of Normative Influence of Parents and Friends." In Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement III. Edited by W. B. Brookover, E. L. Erickson, and L. M. Joiner. East Lansing: Ed. Pol. Services, College of Education, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1967. Etzioni, Amitai. "Basic Human Needs, Alienation and Authenticity." American Sociological Review 33 (December 1968): 870-84. 206 Evangelidi, Tr. Education During the Turkish Occupation. Athens, 1936. First Educational Convention of the Federation of Private School Educators of Greece. Problems of Greek Education. Athens: Tekmirion Publications, 1980. Fleming, E. S., and Anttonen, R. G. "Teacher Expectancy or My Fair Lady." American Educational Research Journal 18 (1971): 241-52. Frank, John Edward. A Comparison of Academic Achievement of Students Who Have Studied in Overseas Dependents' Schools and U.S. Schools, With Students Who Have Studied Only in the U.S. E.I.D., Case Western Reserve University, #360 (n.d.). Gage, Nicholas. Portrait of Greece. New York: American Heritage Press, 1971. Getzels, Jacob W.; Lipham, James M.: and Campbell, Roald P. Educational Administration as a Social Process. New York: Harper and Roe, 1968. Gleason, Thomas P. "The Overseas Experienced American Adolescent and Patterns of World Mindedness." Adolescence 8 (Winter 1969): 481-90. Glycofrydi, Kyveli. "The Educational Reform." In Problems of Greek Education. Athens, 1980. Goldman, Samuel. "Profiles of the H.S. Graduate: The H.S. Respon- sibility." Administrator's Notebook 9 (September 1960-May 1961): 1-4. Greenberg, Norman C., and Greenberg, Gilda M. Education of the American Indian in Today's World. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Book Co., 1964. Guide International des Systemes d'Education. Prepare par le Bureau International d'Education par Brian Holmes. UNESCO, 1979. Guthrie, G. Preparing Americans for Participation in Another Culture. Washington, D.C.: ‘Peace Corps and Behavioral Sciences Papers, 1967. Hadjinicoli, Maria. The Aesthetic and Moral Orientation in Education. Athens: TekmirioiPUblications, 1980. Hartrick, Walter J. "Perceptions of the Task and Program of the Public High School.“ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1961. Hayes, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. 207 Hellenic Republic. Introductory (Prefactory) Statement to Law Plan. "On the Organization and Administration of Secondary and Higher Vocational Education." Athens, 1975. Official Gazette, Section IV, No. 333, July 9, 1964. Official Gazette, No. 100, Athens, 1976. The Reform. Athens, 1977. Ministry of National Education and Religion. KEME. Educa- tional/Vocational Orientation in the Gymnasium. Athens: Organi- zation for the Publication of School Textbooks, 1978. . National Report on the Recent Developments in the Greek Educational System. Athens, 1979. A Report on Educational Developments in 1975-76. Presented at the 36th Session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, August 30-September 8, 1977. Athens, 1977. Henderson, Edmund H. When Teachers Predict Success in First Grade Reading. Office of Economic Opportunity, Head Start Evaluation and Research. Los Angeles: California University, 1973. Hess, Robert D., and Shipman, Virginia C. "Report 8. Maternal Ante- cedents of Intellectual Achievement Behaviors in Lower Class Preschool Children." Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, The University of Chicago, 1967. Hills, Jean R. "Social Classes and Educational Views." Administrator's Notebook 10 (October 1961): l-4 Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Jacobson, Lowell T. "A Study of Relationships Among Mother, Student and Teacher Levels of Moral in a Department of Defense Middle School." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Jeager, Werner. The Ideals of Greek Culture. Translated from the German by Gilbert Highet. *New York? Oxford University Press, 1945. Kazamias, Andreas M., and Massialas, Byron G. Tradition and Change in Education: A Comparative Stugy. EnglewoOd'Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Keefe, Eugene K.; Coffin, D.; Mussen, M., Jr.; and Rinehart, R. Area Handbook for Greece. 2nd ed. 1977. DA Pam 550-87. 208 Kelly, Thomas Francis. "An Appraisal of Needs of American High School- Aged Students Attending Selected Overseas Schools." Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1975. Kiester, Dorothy J. "Who Am I? The Development of Self-Concept." Learning Institutes of North Carolina, Durham. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, North Carolina University, 1973. Kohlberg, Lawrence, and Selman, Robert. "Preparing School Personnel Relative to Values: A Look at Moral Education in the Schools.“ Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 058 531, 1972. Kontoyannopoulos, Vassilis, Undersecretary of Education. "The Present and the Future in the Question of Education." Kathimerini [daily newspaper, Athens], September 15, 1981. Korman, Abraham. Psychology of Motivation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974. Kousoulas, 0. George. Modern Greece: Profile of a Nation. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974. Koutsoumaris, George. Higher Education and Economic Development. Athens: Greek Society of Economic Sciences, 1980. Lambert, W. L., and Klinberg, 0. Children's Views of Foreign People. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Larson, John C. "Extended Day-Care Attendance and First Grade Per- formance." U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Center for Head Start Evaluation and Research. Los Angeles: California Univer- sity, 1973. Lehner, George F. J., and Kube, Ella. The Dynamics of Personal Adjustment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: ‘Prentice-Hall, 1974. Livas, Haris. "Radical Changes in Store for Greek Education: Interview With Education Minister Lefteris Veryvakis." The Athenian 3 (February 1982): 20-22. Massialas, Byron. The Educational System of Greece. Publication No. E-80-l4012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1981. . "Greece." The Encyglopedia of Education. Vol. 4. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Massialas, Byron, and Zevin, Jack. Creative Encounters in the Class- room. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Athens, 1975. 209 Maykovish, Minoko K. Japanese American Identity Dilemma. Tokyo: Waseda University Press, 1972. McNeill, William H. The Metamorphosis of Greece Since World War 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. McPhee, Roderick F. "Individual Values, Educational Viewpoint, and Local School Approval." Administrator's Notebook 7 (April 1959): 1-4. Mead, Margaret. "Our Educational Emphases in Primitive Perspective.'I In Education and Culture, pp. 309-20. Edited by George D. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Moles, Oliver C., and Perry, Esther. "Sources of Teacher Expectancies ~ Early in the First Grade." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., March 30-April 3, 1975. Moskou, K. National and Social Conscience in Greece From 1830-1909. Thessaloniki, 1972. Munroe, Robert L., and Munroe, Ruth H. Cross-Cultural Human Develop- ment. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1975. OECD. Classification of Educational Systems: Canada, Greece, Yugo- slavia. Paris: ’Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973. Classification of Educational_§ystems: Canada, Greece, Yugoslavia. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1979. . Decision Making_in Educational Systems: The Experience in Three OECD Countries. Vol. 1. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1977. Decision-Making in Educational Systems: The Experience in Three OECD Countries. Country Reports: Summaries. Vol. II. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1976. Educational Polioy_and Planning: Educational Reform Policies in Greece. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1980. . The Educational Situation in OECD Countries. A Review of Trends and Priority Issues foriPolipy, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation andiDEVélopment, 1974. 210 Ostrander, Raymond H., and Dethy, Ray C. A Values Approach to Educa- tional Administration. New York: American Book Company, 1968. Papaioannou, Antonis. Scopes and Goals of Education. Cyprus: Zavalli Publications, 1977. Papanoutsos, Evangelos P. "The Disoriented Youth." To Vima [daily newspaper, Athens], October 26, 1974. Education: Our Great Problem. Athens: Dodoni Publications, 1976. . "Expectations." To Vima [daily newspaper, Athens], November 7, 1963. . Struggles and Anxiety for Education. Athens: Ikaros Publications, 1965. Persianis, P. K. "Values Underlying the 1976-1977 Educational Reform in Greece." Comparative Education Review 22 (February 1978). Pimenides, George John. "The Task of the American Community Schools in Athens, Greece.“ Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1971. Rau, Lucy; Mlodnosky, Lucille 8.; and Anastasiow, Nicholas. Child Rearing Antecedents of Achievement Behaviors in Second Grade Boys. Palo Alto, Galif.: Stanford University, 1964. Rest, James. Manual for the Defining Issues Test: An Objective Test of Moral Judgement Development. University of Minnesota, 1974. Rist, Ray C. "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education." Harvard Educa- tional Review 19 (August 1970): 411-51. Rosenthal, Robert. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Schackow, Carl F. “Selected Personality Characteristics of the American OverseasTeacher.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Miami University, 1971. Schreiber, A. "An Empirical Approach at the Secondary Level." Academic Therapy 6 (1970): 5-12. 211 Seager, Roger C., and Slagle, Allen T. "Sub-Publics View the Task of Public Education." Administrator's Notebook 8 (December 1959): 1-4. Sideri, Aloi. Relationships Between Teachers and Students. Athens: Tekmirio Publications, 1980. Sieber, Sam 0., and Wilder, David E. "Teaching Styles: Parental Preferences and Professional Role Definitions." Sociology of Education 40 (Fall 1967): 302-15. Silberman, Charles. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Random House, 1970. Singleton, John. Nichu, A Japanese School. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Smothers, Frank; McNeill, William; and McNeill, Elizabeth. Report on the Greeks. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1948. Spindler, George Deanbonn. Education and Cultural Process, Toward an Anthropology of Education. New York: Hblt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974. Spindler, George 0. Education and Culture: Anthropological Approaches. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Stephens, Mark W. "Parent Behavior Antecedents, Cognitive Correlates and Multidimensionality of Locus of Control in Young Children." Longer version of paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, August 1973. Stern, Carolyn; Prichard, Harriet; and Rosenquist, Barbara. Teacher Erpectations for Achievement of Children in Head Start (jEACH). U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Head Start Evaluation and Research. Los Angeles: California University, 1971. Stonequist, Everett. Marginal Man: A Study in Personality and Culture Conflict. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1937. Svoronos, N. An Overview of Modern Greek History. Athens: Themelio, 1976. "Symposium on Educational Reform in Greece." Comparative Education Review 22 (February 1978): 1-98. Tanner, Gerald Robert. "Expectations of Japanese and American Parents and Teachers for the Adjustment and Achievement of Kindergarten Children: A Cross-Cultural Study." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. 212 Touliatos, Spyros. The History of Modern Greece (Neo-Hellenic) Education. Athens: Tekmirio Publications, 1980. Travis, Floyd John. "A Semantic Differential Study of Teacher Char- acteristics: The Perception of Teacher Characteristics of Students and Professional Educators in American-Sponsored Schools Overseas, Non-Americans in American-Sponsored Schools Overseas and Americans in Schools in the U.S." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Houston, May 1972. Tryphonopoulos, Spyros I. Attitudes Toward Formal and Adult Education. Athens, 1973. Tsiaglis, Dimitris. "The Educational Reform." In Problems of Greek Education. Athens, 1980. Tsoukala, K. The Social Role of Education in Greece. Athens: Themelio, 1977. Valsamopoulou, Nicholas A. Educational Pan-Directory, Athens: Educational Communications Publications, 1978. Veyliard, Alexandre. La Pedagogie Comparee. Paris: Presses Univer- sitaires de France, 1967. Warner, Lloyd W.; Havighurst, Robert J.; and Loeb, Martin 8. Who Shall Be Educated? New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944. Webster, T. B. L. Athenian Culture and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Xohellis, Panayotis. "Five Years After the Educational Reform.“ Kathimerini [daily newspaper, Athens], January 15-17, 1981. Zegiob, Leslie E. "An Examination of Observer Effects in Parent- Child Interactions." Child Development 46,2 (1975): 509-12. Ziridis, Panagiotes. "The 1976 Educational Reform in Greece." Master's thesis, University of Arkansas, 1983.