THE EFFECT OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION , v ‘ UPON THE SELF-ACONCEPT- CE-ACACEMTCHBIHTY 0F BLACK AND WHITE FEE-COLLEGE STUDENTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. V MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY , HENRY DUVAL OLSEN 1970 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION UPON THE SELF-CONCEPTHOF'ACADEMIC ABILITY OF BLACK AND WHITE PRE-COLLEGE STUDENTS presented by HENRY DUVAL OLSEN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __Ph_-_D-_degree in 800131 Science 7 gz/ M Date 1:2 /-' ‘8 1/,70 0-169 1 unsauniflllfliaa” \W’ST } x“X Aléé ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF CCMPENSATORY EDUCATION ON THE SELF—CONCEPT—OF-ACADEMIC ABILITY OF BLACK AND WHITE PRE COLLEGE STUEENTS by Henry D. Olsen This investigation, by studying the consequences of com- ;; fpensatory education placement on certain socially mediated ;E::Tsccia1 psychological constructs, like self-concept-of-academic ifl ability, and referent self—concept- -of—academic ability, empha— '5:{ sizes the social consequences of being labelled a compensatory 1: education student. Thus, this research focuses upon four research problems: ’ (1) What happens to the self-concept— —of-academic ability of students engaged in compensatory education? (2) Who are the significant and academic significant others of compensatory education students? (3) Is the change in self-concept-of—academic ability 'similar for regular college students as it is for com- pensatory education students? '(4) Do compensatory education students perceive the E same persons as significant others and academic signifi- ijtcant others as regular college students? E, With the exception of the referent academic self-concept- Ekl) There was a significant 7 concept-of-academic ability J‘and female students but not '_ (2) There was a significant concept—of—academic ability increase in mean self- scores of blacks, male for white students. increase in mean self- scores for all groups 7.(regular college and compensatory educations students). (5) Parents and teachers were similarly identified ,Jas significant others by both compensatory education EEETBtudents and regular college students. tory education students more frequently identified offspring, spouse, and self; jcollege students identified friends more frequently. relatives and friends. The compensa— whereas, the regular On the post-test there was agreement between compensa— ‘Etory education and regular college students for parents, (4) There was no difference in the proportion of com- pensatory education and regular college students who identified parents, relatives,friends and teachers as 'Eacademic significant others. 'education students more frequently identified off- However, the compensatory 7:Enspring, Spouse, and self as academic significant others. Estudents. ”’(5) There was no significant difference in the change in mean self-concept—of—academic ability scores between "high" and "low" achievement compensatory education 5(6) When a compensatory education student compares #_himself with another compensatory education student, the "(compensatory education student perceives himself as having a higher mean self-concept—ofeacademic ability leorejthan another compensatory education student. But when a compensatory education student compares himself with a regu. ar college student, the compensatory educa— There .Was a significant difference in mean self? [‘ept-E-of-academic ability scores between black jgegular college students and compensatory education Elma“: and white regular college and compensatory vacation students— the blacks being higher. .finclusions were discussed and implications were drawn arch, theory, and education. By Henry Duval Olsen- 4 A THESIS . . Submitted to afifiichigan State University :r fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ti allege of Social Science ’ 1970 -. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ' Doing research in the realm of education, and especially jin the attitudinal field, is extremely difficult. With the aid and assistance of Dr. Francis G. Stewart, Director of Ad- missions and Records, at State University College at Buffalo, . Mr. Robert Hawkes, Dieector of the SEEK Program, Mr. Raymond ° Eberle, Dean of Studertu.of the SEEK Program and the SEEK Counselling Staff, this difficult task was not impossible. Most of all gratitude must be extended to the students and administration of the State University College at Buffalo without whose assistance this study would not be realized. f Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, whose research provides the im- ‘mediate foundation of this effort, must be commended for his~ support, encouragement, inspiration and understanding. Grati- T tude must be expressed to Dr. Edgar Schuler, Dr. Charles Kraft, Dr. Harold Fields, Dr. Donald Olmstead, and Dr. Iwao Ishino, all of Michigan State University, for their efforts ' on my behalf. . A special expression of appreciation is extended to the many people directly involved in this research. Special thanks 3L to Dr. Zer;my Finn, Department of Educational Psycho- logy, S.U.N.Y. at Buffs 0, whose computer program on Multi- ;aIiance Analysis na,e evaluation especially easy, 2rd Barbara Locke who prepared ~‘1.e fir 1 druitS. . Special thanks are Extended to Dr. John Dodd, East Mon- tana State College, who guided the initial stages of this grant. ‘ ’ Finally, a-note of gratitude is extended to my wife,Jane. Without her moral support and inspiration this research would not have realized fruition. TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.", . . Page msmmTSOIooooIO.ecocoon-OIOQOOIOIOOIOOOOO ii OFTABIESOOIOOIOOOOOlOIIICOWIOOCOIOOOCOOOIOICO v or APPENDICESOOOIIOODD...IOOIOIOOIOIOIIOOOOOC ix Tm PROBIEM...OOCOOOQ_VOO.0..."..I..... l IntroductionOOIOOOOTOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO l Background-.0...IOOOOOOCOOOOOOIOOOII 3 Theoretical Background............. 5 Symbolic Interaction Theory........ 5 The Social System Perspective of DevianceOOIOOOOIOOOIOOOO00...... 9 Self and School Learning........... 11 Others and School Learning......... 15 Problem Statement.................. 19 .OBJECTIVES'IOOIIOOOOII.QICOOOIIOOOOUI 21 General Purpose-O...OIOOOIIOCOIIOOOO 21 HypotheseSOCOIOOOO'OOOIOIO00.0.90... 21 Discussion of Hypotheses........... 23 Discussion of Questions............ 2? RELATED LITERATURE................... 29 Philosophical and Theoretical Framework of Compensatory mucation...‘OIOOOOIOOIIOOOOOOOOII. 29 Self-ConcethOOIIOOOI.09....0000... 52 Self-Concept and Academic AchievementOIOOOIOIIIOCOQIOIIOUIOOI 55 Effects of Compensatory Education On IQ and Achievement.............. 37 Enhancement of Self-Concept........ 46 PROCEDIIRES'.I.IOOIOOOII‘I.....IOOOOOOO 48 Research Strategy.................. 48 Instrumentation.................... 52 Sample and Sampling Procedures..... 56 ‘ Methods of Analysis................ 62 ANALYSIS OF D’ATAOIOOOOOOIOOOICOOOOCOO 64 Self-Concept-of—Academic Ability By Sex, Race, And College Status Prior to Enrollment In Compensa- - ‘tory Education Dr Regular College.. 64 ' V 111" ‘continued Page Hypotheses and Questions......... ‘ 68 Question-$000...OOOOIOOIOIOOOOIOOI 85 I 1 Discussion of Findings........... 88 Limitations Of Study. 0 o o o o a o o o a o o 90 ' I SUMMARY, CCHCLUSICNS, AND.IMPLICATIONS 92 Summary...‘..g.'......0..fl 0...... 92 Cohclusions . I 0.. C O O I . O I C C O O O C O I O C U 96 1 Implications for Research........ 98 Implications for Theory. 0 o I o o o a 0' o 99 ’ Implications for Education....... 100 .GR‘APHYO...O‘OOOODIIOICIICO'OOOVOIOIOOIOOOIIO 103 - ‘ .m‘:cm......'.l.....0.DOICOOUIIOOOICO.ICOOC. 116 -.. 4 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Applications ReceivedOOCOOO0.0.0.000040000l000000 Decisions Cn Applications Received..."OOIOOIOOOOOOCODOOIOOIO Annual Family Income of Compensatory Education Students.... Reasons for certain subjects not to be included in final analysis... Final Sample of Compensatory Education Student by Sex and Race.. Final Sample of Regularly Matriculated Students by Sex and RaceOOOOOIOOIOIODOOOOOOODOIOOCI Status of EOP Students at the End of one Year......‘C................ Mean;Self—Concept-Of—Academic Ability Scores for Sex, Race and College Status on the Pre-Test..... Categories of Persons Named As Significant Others and Academic Significant Others in Percent By sex on The Pre-TeStooIoooo-oooouon Categories of Persons Named As Significant Others and Academic Significant Others in Percent By Race on The Pre-Testoooooooooooooo Categories of Persons Named As Significant Others and Academic Significant Others In Percent By College Status On The Pre-Test.... ” ‘Hean Self-Concept-of-Academic Ability Scores For Continuing . 4§2d Withdrawn Compensatory , uc ation Students................ Page 56 57 59 6O 60 61 61 64 65 66 67 67 -,J$_4:L11:_-;4M Mean Self-Concept-of—Academic Ability Scores By Sex and Race Of Continuing and Withdrawn Compensatory Education Students.. 5.7 Changes in Mean Self-Concept- of—Academic Ability Scores of Compensatoryuiducation Students By Race and Sex From Pre to Post Tests.....................;. "5.8 ‘ Changes in Mean Self—Concept- , of-Academic Ability Scores of Compensatory Education Students by Race and Sex Combined From Pre and Post-Tests............... *‘S.9 An Analysis of Variance of the Pre-Post Test Mean Self-Concept- of—Academic Ability Scores for the Total Group, Race and College Status.......,........... »j5.10 Categories of Persons Named as . *0 Significant Others in Percent by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Pre—Post Tests... ,5.ll Categories of Persons flamed as 74 Significant Others in Percent by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the POSt-TeStDOOOOOOIOIOOOIIOU... 5,12 Percentage and Changes in Persons " . Named as Significant Others by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students for Pre and POSt-TeSt...oo........... Ranking of Significant Others 1 Identified By Compensatory 1 7Education Students and Regular ‘V*College Students at the Pre and ~(POSt-TeStOCOOOoolooooocolooc.0000 ’"VCategories of Persons Named As ‘Abademic'Significant Others in fPercent by Compensatory Education ’Students and Regulaerollege students” on the. PI'Ba-Test...u o o o o 0 a vi Page 68 a 69 7O 71 72 75 74 74 .76 u Categories of Persons Named As Academic Significant Others in .Percent by Compensatory Educa- tion Students and Regular College Students on the Post—Testooooooooo Percentage and Changes in Persons -Named Academic Significant Others by Compensatory Education Stu- dents and Regular College Stu; dents for Pre and Post-Tests...... Ranking of Academic Significant Others Identified By Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Pre and Post—Tests......................-- Analysis of Variance of Mean Self—Concept—of-Academic Ability Scores for Pre and Post—Tests of "High" and "Low" Achievement Compensatory Education Students... Analysis of Variance For Changes in Mean Self—Concept-of—Academic Ability Scores_from Pre to Post- Tests For All Compensatory Educa- tion Students and Achievement Levels.....IDCCIIOCCCOOOCCOCUIOOCC Mean Self-Concept-of-Academic Ability Scores of Compensatory Education Students by Race, When No Specific Reference Is Identi- fied, When Referring To Other Compensatory Education Students and When Referring to Regular College Students.................. An Analysis of Variance of Come pensatory Education Student's Mean Self-Concept-of—Academic Ability, and When Referring To Other Compensatory Education Students, and Regular College Students By Race and Total Com- ‘pensatory Education Student GrouPOOGQOOOOOOOICICOOCOC0.0.0.... vii Page 77 78 79 80 81 Page Mean Self-Concept-of-Academic Ability Scores on Pre and Post— Tests For Race and Place of Residence Combined................ 84 An Analysis of Variance of Change in Mean Self-Concept-of—Academic Ability Scores For All Compensa- tory Education Students and By. Race and Place of Residence....... 85 LIST OF APPENDICES General Self-Concept-of—Aoademic Ability scaleOIOOUOOOOOOOOOICID... Specific Referent Self-Concept- of—Academic Ability Scale .(Compensatory Education).......... Specific Referent Self-Concept- of—Academic Ability Scale (Regular College Students)........ . Sipificant Cthers Scales o o I o o o o o o ' Academic Significant Others scaleSCICOUCCOOOCICOOCCCOOOO00.... 1: Page 116 118 120 122 123 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The compensatory education movement for underprivileged, or disadvantaged, youth has had tremendous growth in the United States in the past decade. In 1960, the President's Commission on National Goals published its final report. Gardner, in the section concerned with national goals in educa— tion wrote: Ultimately, education serves all of our purposes- liberty, justice, and-all other aims— but, the one it serves most directly is equality of opportunity. It is the high road of individual opportunity, the avenue that all may travel. That is why we must renew our efforts to remove barriers of education that still exist for disadvantaged individuals- barriers of poverty, or prejudice, and ignorance. The fulfillment of the individual must not be depen- dent upon his color religion, economic status, or place of residence.1 The challenge confronting educators today is of vital interest to the total population because of the intellectual demands of an ever increasingly complex society. This chal- lenge is decidedly greater for those individuals dealing with underprivileged, or disadvantaged youth- especially the black pbpulation. The challenge of educating underprivileged, or disadvan- taged, youth is emphasized to an even greater degree when one reviews the available statistics regarding enrollment in institutions of higher education. 1The President's Commission on National Goals, Goals for Americans (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960). p.81. l I . «on 6 u.‘- I DI AM” 2 Degree-credit enrollment in institutions of higher education in the United States has increased tremendously each year since the early 1950's rising from 2,102,000 in 1951 to 6,458,477 in 1966- more than tripling.l In 1951, there were nearly 24 col— lege students per 100 persons in the 18—21 age category. By 1966 there were nearly 46 college students per 100 persons in the same age category- almost doubling the number. However, the total number of blacks enrolled in degree— credit insitutions of higher education numbered only 257,939, or 4.52% of the total student population.5 Regionally, this ranged from a low of .69% in New England to a high of 11.48% in the southeast. This discrepancy is magnified to an even greater degree if one studies the total census figures for ages 18-21. In 1966 the total approached 17,080,000- 14,917,000 whites, and 2,162,000 blacks.5 Thus, the ratio\that exists is approxi- mately seven whites to each black- or 85.5% white and 14.5% black. This means that 42% (6,200,558) of the whites in the 18-21 age group were enrolled in degree—credit institutions of higher education, whereas only 9% (257,959) of the blacks in this same age group were afforded the same opportunity of pur- suing higher.education. Thus, according to the above mentioned figures whites had approximately five times the opportunity of attaining a college education as-blacks. According t; The latest figures, approximately 24% of write males ente- crl?ege and over 10% remain to graduate, 1K.s. Simon, and h.V.Grant, Di est of Educational Statis— . tics-196; (Washington: U.S. Dept. Health, Education EWeIIare, ce 0 Education, 1967), p.75. 2 Ibid., p.75. Ibid. .Ibid., p.90. 5The World Almanac, 1967 (New York: Newspaper Enterprises Associations, Inc., I966) , pfli26. r-* 5 whereas only 10% of the black males enter college and only 5% graduate. The proportion of white and black females entering college is 17% and 10% respectively, with 6.2% of the white females graduating and 5% of the black females graduating. Bach’tround The pervading philosophy of the compensatory education movement has been the belief that programs of compensatory education- Headstart, Upward Bound, etc.- would result in a (significantly greater growth in academic performance, personal develOpment, and social adjustment, for the participant than could, or would, take place in the traditional classroom. Research supporting the above mentioned philosophy has been conducted by Foxworthy2 and Ihrig.5 However, Jensen, .in his scathing article, contends that many of the assumptions on which compensatory educational programs are developed are not valid. He argues that IQ is determined much more by ~ 1Kenneth Clark, "Education of the Minority Poor-The Key to the War on Poverty," in Th3 Disadvanta ed Poor: Education and Em lo ent (Washington, D.C.: Chamber of Commerce of the' Unite: States, 1966) , p.178. David T.Foxworthy, "Success of Selected Students Having Less Than Normal Minimum Admissions Requirements,“ Cooperative Research Project iS-205, United States Office of Educa ion. M "A Study of the Motivation of Students axwell J. Ihrig, "Who Completed the Junior Year of high school and who are , members of Socially, Economically, and Culturally Deprived Areas," Dissertation Abstracts , XXVIII (1968), 5559A. 4Arthur R. Jensen, "How Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement7", Harvard Educational Review, XXXIX (1969), pp. 1- Li. 4 1 than by environmental influences.2 Much genetic make—up, research today indicates that compensatory education does not sustain continuous academic growth, but academic growth that is temporary and not longitudinal.5 Additional findings indicate Hodges and Spicher4 greatly concern those committed 4IJensen cites the following articles by C.Burt for sub- stantiation: "The Evidence for the Concept of Intelligence," British Journal of_§dgcational Psychology, XXV (1955), pp.l58— .; e lstributicn of Intelligence, British Journal of Intelli ence, XXXXVIII (1957), pp.161-l75.; "The Inheritance of Mental Ability," American Ps cholos , XIII (1958), pp.1-15.; "Class Difference in General Intelli ence," British Journal of Statistical Psychology, XII (1959 , pp.l5-55.; l‘Intelligence and Social Mo ility, ritish Journal of Statistical Psycho- lo%¥, XIV (l96l),pp. 5-2E.; "The Genetic Determination of erences in Intelligence: A study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Together and Apart," British Journal of ngcholggy, 57. (1966), pp.157-153.; and C.Burt and M. Howard, "The Multifacto- rial Theory of Inheritance and its Application to Intelligence," British Journal of Statistical Psycholo , X (1957), pp.99-lO4. Jensen cites the following articles for substantiation: K.Davis, "Final Note On A Case of Extreme Isolation," American Journal of Sociolo , 57 (1947), pp.452—457.; H.M. Skeélsnand ' H.B.Dye, "A Study 0% the Effects of Differential Stimulation on-Mentally Retarded Children," Proceeding Address American Association of Mental Difficiencies, 44 (19395, pp.llE-13€.; E.F.Harlow and §.Griffin, "Induced Mental and Social Deficits in Rhesus Monkeys " in S.F. Csler and R.C. Cooke (eds.), Egg Biosocial Basis of Mental Retardation, (Baltimore, Md.: The ohn opkins Press, 1965); and A.R. Jensen, "Social Class and Verbal Learning," in M.Deutsch, I.Katz, and A.R. Jensen (eds.), Social Class EEG” ~and‘Psvcholo ical Pevelgpment (New York: 3315, REInehart a.?_wflston, 196%), p .ll5-l7fi. , See: Janet R. Brown, "An Exploratory Study of Change in 'Self Concept " Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1968) 5990A; I U.S. CommiSSlon on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in Public Schools, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 6?:335: 1967), pp.115-l40; w.L. Hodges, and H.H.Spicher, "The Effects of Preschool Experiences on Culturally Deprived Childp ren," In w.w. Hartup, N.I.Smothergill (eds.), The Youn Child: Reviews of Research, (Washington, D.C.: National Assoc1ation for the Education of Young People, 1967), pp.262-289. _ufiodges and Spicher, Ibid., pp.262-289. 5 to compensatory education, and ultimately equality of educa- tional opportunity. Theoretical Background The general problem, regarding the entire compensatory education situation considered herewith, the formulation of specific questions and hypotheses, and the discussion of the results are.based on, and greatly influenced by, the symbolic interaction theory,1 and the "Social System" perspective of deviance.2 Erving Goffman's "On Cooling the Mark Out"5 pro- vides a unique model for research with those designated as needing.compensafibry education. Symbolic Interggtion Theory ~ Symbolic interaction is a theory'within the discipline ' of social psychology,l1L developed by George Herbert Mead5 and - 1George H.Mead, Mind Self and Societ (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chic 0 Press, I955). See also Head's Philoso h of the Present, Chicago: London Open Court Publishing Company, ' an Movements of Thquht in the Nineteenth Centur , (Chicégo: University of Chicago Press, 1956 . . The original theoretical development is found in Howard S. Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociolo of Deviance, ( Glencoe, IIIinOis: The Free Press, 1965); gecker, TEe Cther Side: Pers ective on Deviance, (Glencoe, Illinois: The tree Press, 1964); and John I. Kitsuse, "Society Reaction on De— viance Behavior: Problems of Theory and Method," Social Prob- lems, IX (Winter, 1962), pp.247-257. 53mins Goffman, "On Cooling the Mark Out," Psychiatry, (1952). pp.451-463. elson N. Foote, "Social Psychology," A Dictionar of the Social Sciences, Julius Gould and William L.Kolb (eds.) ewr or : , e ree Press, 1964), p.665 defines social psycho- logy as "...the overlapping portions of psychology and socio- logy which are particulary concerned with describing and explaining how selves are modified through interaction with gthirsnand how their reciprocating behavior is directed accord- DS 7- ” 5Mead,vop.cit. A ”'1 r'-"' 6 applied to the educational setting by Wilbur Brookover and his associates. One of the early foundational works for the symbolic interaction theory was put forth by Cooley in 1902.2 Cooley elaborates upon the process of taking toward ourselves the at- titudes of others- this latter became known as the "looking glass hypothesis." Cooley wrote: ...socia1 reference takes the form of a somewhat definite imagination of how one's self-that is an idea he appropriates-appears in a particular mind, and the kind of self-feeling one has is determined by the attitude toward this attributed to the other mind. A social self of this sort might be called the reflected or looking glass self. ‘ A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principal elements. The imagination of our appearance to the 'other person; the imagination of his judgment of the appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortifioation.3 'This analogy helps one to understand the fact that an indi— vidual knows what he is like, in part,‘by accurately interpret— ing the reflected attitudes and actions of those about him. Man is highly dependent upon his fellow man for the satisfaction of most of his needs and desires, for this reason he bocomes aware of these attitudes, and usually attempts to satisfy them by his behavior. Of the early contributors to the symbolic interaction theory of self, George Herbert Mead4 has set forth the most Iige Joiner, Wilbrr B.Brookover aid Edsel Erickson, "Introduction Sympos;nm or Self~Concept and its helationship to Academic Acrievement: n Longitudinal Analysis," American Educational Research Association meeting, Chicago, 1965. 2Charles H. Cooley, Human Nature and Social Order (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902). 51bid., p.40. . ead, op.cit. f 7 through and systematic description.l Dai elaborates upon Head's theory of symbolic interaction by making these observa- tions: ‘ The conception of self or roles of a human individual are acquired. An individual is born with only bio- logical needs, but acquires a self in the course of maturation and socialization. But with the growth of self 'the needs for security in self-other or inter- personal relations become as important as, and very often more than, the needs for his logical satisfaction. In fact self-esteem tends to exert an over-all control over all the needs of the individual, biological or otherwise, a serious disturbance of which control may result in Varying degrees of anxiety.2 However, a more succinct summation of the symbolic inter- action theory, as perceived by Mead, is presented by Bernard Heltser.3 Meltzer writes: . ' .The human individual‘is born into a society charac- terized by e bolic interaction. The use of 31 ificant sygbols by tfiose around Eim enables him to pass iron _ e conversation of gestures which involves direct, un- meaningful response to the overt acts of others to the occasional taking of the roles of others. This role taking enables him to share the perspectives of others. Concurrent with rolet ng, the self develops, i.e., the capacity to act toward oneself. Action toward oneself comes to.take the form of viewing oneself from the standpoint, or perspective, of the eneralized other (the composite representative of others, of so- ciety, within the individual), which implies defining one's behavior in terms of the expectations of others. In the process of such viewing of oneself, the indi- ‘vidual must carry on symbolic interaction with himself, AIMorton Deutsch and Robert M.Krauss, Theories in Social Ps cholo (New York: Basic Books, 1965), p.185. Bingham Dai, "Problems of Personality Development Anon Negro Children", N. Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Mur- ray teds.), Personalities in Nature Societ and Culture, (New York; A re A. Knopp Inc., 1955 ,p. 5 O. - 3Bernard N. Meltzer, The Social Ps cholo of Geor e, Herbert Mead (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Division of Fieid Services, es ern c gan University, 1959) pp.25-26. such symbolic interaction goes on—whether the individual is merely "thinking" (in the everyday sense of the word) or is also interacting with another individual. (In both cases the individual must indicate things to himself.) Mental activity 8 involving an internal conversation between his impulsive aspect (the "I") and the incorporated , persPectives of others (the "Me"). The mind, or .mental activity, is present in behavior whenever i E -"<-— .—.._ - --‘——‘ - necessarily involves meanings, which usually attach to, and define, objects._ The meaning of an object or event is simply an image of the pattern of action which defines the object or event. That is, the completion is one's imagination of an act, or the mental picture of the actions and experiences symbolized by an object, defines the act or the object.- In the unit of study that Mead calls "the act", all of the foregoing processes are usually entailed. The concluding point to be made in this summary is the same as the point with which I began: Mead‘s concepts intertwine and mutually imply one another. To drive home this important point I must emphasize that human society (characterized by sym- bolic interaction) both precedes the rise of indivi- dual selves and minds and is maintained by the rise of individual selves and minds. This means then, that symbolic interaction is both the medium for the de- velopment of human beings and the process by which human beings associate as human beings. Brookover stresses that "...it is not the actual behavior ~ of others which directly determines an individual's actions." But, one must recognize that it is the individual's percep— tion of the expectations and acts of others which most influ- ences one's behavior. 1Wilbur B. Brookover, Edsel L. Erickson & Lee M. Joiner, Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement III, Report 0 . . . ice 0 ucation Cooperative Research Project No. 2831, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967, p.5. ‘ "w ”W . 'f'i‘r’s‘f‘fil“|"fi.jfi \ 'a‘ 9 Th2 Social Systgg Perspective of Deviance Most conventional approaches ask who is the deviant,' v,where did he come from, how did he get that way, and is he likely to continue in the same manner. Deviance, in this in- stance the underprivileged or deprived. individuals, can be, studied from a clinical standpoint. One tends to perceive de- viance as a quality inherent in a person's being or behavior, and thus focuses attention on the deviant per se.1 The social system perspective of deviance is viewed as a process of inter- action between at least two kinds of people in a complementary role relationship.2 In essence one perceives deviance as the ‘ product of an interaction process between deviants and non- deviants. Thus, in utilizing this approach one is interested not only in the deviant but also in the non-deviant and the interaction occurring between them.5 _In discussing the consequences:of the social system ' 1Howard S. Becker (ed. ), The 0th -er Side:Pers ectives on Deviance (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, i§C4 4),p. 2. A more compiete explanation of the clinical approach can be found in Albert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hail, 19665, pp.E§-Et. Cohen classifies this traditional approach as the "Emphasis on the Actor." This focuses on the personality, "the kinds of people, theories" and asks "what sort of person would do such a thing?" Also see James Bossatd, Social Chan e and Social Problems (New York: Harper and Brothers, I9355 ,pp. 455-58 “E Carl Rosenquist, Social Problems (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice-Hall, 1940), essie Bernard, Social Problems at Midcentur : P 3V2- 337; U ' ' oles Status and Stress in a Context of Abundance ew York: 'Dtyden Piess, 1957), pp. 216- 241. 2 ‘2Becker, The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance, op.cit., p. . ' 3See Lawrence G. Brown, Social Patholo : Personal andp Social Disor anization (New York: E. S.Crofts E Co., 1958), an arry C. redemeier and Jackson Toby Social Prob- lems In America: Costs and Casualties in an Acquisi tive Society ew or ohn ey Co., 1960). 10 perspective of deviance Becker writes: One consequence is that we become more interested in the process by which deviants are defined by the rest of society. We do not take for granted, as has sometimes naively been done, that a given action is deviant simply because it is commonly regarded so. Instead, we look to the process by which the common definition arises. That is, with increasing , frequency, referred to as the process of labelling. 3 People attach the label "deviant" to others and thereby makes deviants of them. Furthermore, Becker stressed that: ...if we assume, as has often been done, that deviance . is somehow a quality of the person committing the deviant act, we are likely to suppose without looking . any farther into the matter that the person who com- ‘ mits the deviant act is somehow compelled to do so and will continue to do so. On the other hand, if we view deviance as something that arises in interaction with others, we realize that changes in interaction may produce significant changes in behavior. In general, the study of deviance from the interactionist point-of view has four major consequences for research: ‘ (l) The focus of the research is on the interaction process.5 "(2 The roles of people other than deviants are consider— ed as they are involved in the interaction process. i (5) The consequences for the person to whom the label has been applied is studied. In particular, the individual‘s ‘ - Self-definition. . (4) A "lack of sentimentality" must characterize the approach, as false impressions fostered by earlier theoretical i positions may be corrected. That is, if deviance is viewed as arising from the interaction with others, changeg in inter- ‘ -action may produce significant changes in behavior. IBecker, The 0thgr SidezPerspective on Deviance, op.cit., pp. 2-5. Ibid., p.4. 5Cohen, op.cit., pP-102-106. ecker, The Other SidezPerspectives on Deviance, o .cit., w- 0-.— (p.4. , 511.11.” 13.3. i ’ Ibid., p.4. Becker's contention is that because of the abstractiess of norms, society needs to define deviant be- ’ havior in order to establish and maintain boundaries of accept- able behavior. 11 If educational researchers viewed underprivileged, or disadvantaged children, within this perspective, they would be concerned with others as influences upon the behavior of the underprivileged, or disadvantaged, and the consequences of such a label. Self and School Learning Brookover and his colleagues have superimposed Mead's interpretation of human interaction regarding self—concept to the school learning situation. From two postulates Brookover1 derived four Specific hypotheses as a basis for his social psychological conception of school learning. The two postu- lates are: (1) Nearly all human beings learn certain expected types of behavior in every society. .(2) The processes and organic mechanisms necessary for learning culturally required.behavior are not different from the processes and mechanisms necessary for learning the types of behavior taught in the classroom.‘ The derived hypotheses are: (1) Persons learn to behave in ways that each considers appropriate to himself. (2) Appropriateness of behavior is defined by each person through the internalization of the ex— pectations of significant others. (5)' The functional limits of one's ability to learn are determined by his self conception or self image as acquired in social interactions. (4) VThe individual learns what he believes SignifiCant others expect him to learn in the classroom and other situations. 1Wilbur Brookover, "A Sound Psychological Conce tion of Classroom Learning," School and Society, LXXXVII {1959), pp. 84587. Ibid. 5Ibid .. 12 As a result of much research Brookover and his associates1 have revised the earlier statements of position. Based on Median theory, Brookover2 states that there are two underlying assumptions and three propositions as the foundation for this theory of school learning. The underlying assumptions are: (1) ...neither the process not the organic mechanisms necessary for culturally required behavior are different from the processes and mechanisms for learning the types of behavior taught in the classroom. (2) ...a student learns to behave in the classroom , in ways which he oonsideres appropriate to himself (the definition of self as an object).: 1 The propositions are: - (1) A functional limit of a student‘s ability to - ' learn in school is set by his "self concept of ' academic ability."5 _ vfiv- as“- lWilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociolo of ~ Education, (New York: American Book Company, 19645; aiitur Brookover, Jean LaPere, Don Hamachek, Shailer Thomas, and Edsel ErickSon, Improving Academic Achievement Throu h Self- Conce t Enhancement, ooperative Research-Project No. 1636, Uniteg States office of Education (East Lansing, michigan: Bureau of Educational Research Services, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1965); Wilbur Brookover, Ann Paterson and Shailer Thomas, The Relationship of Self—Images to Achievement in Junior Hi h o 00 on cc 5, o-opera lve Research Project No. 835, United States Office of Education, (East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Educational Research ,Services, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1962); and Wilbur Brookover, Edsel Erickson, and Lee Joiner, .op.cit.. . , Ibid;, p.44. Wilbur Brookover and Kenton Schurr, The Effect of S ecial Class Placement on the Self—Conce t-of-ABilit of tfie Educabie Mentally Retarded Child, Grant No. 5—7-700052— nited States Office of Education (East Lansing, Michig :_Research Publication Services, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967), p.17. v“--- WM— 15 (2) A student's self—concept of academic ability is acquired in interaction with his signifi- cant others through his perception of their evaluations of his academic ability. (5) A student's self-concept of academic ability ~ is an "intervening variable" between his percep- tions of others and his attempts to learn in school. As noted, each of the above assumptions and propositions are slightly modified versions of theoretical statements~made earlier by Brookover. Brookover and associates, as cited above, have somewhat alleviated two deficiencies that result from solely applying Head's symbolic interaction theory to the study of compensa— tory education students, or any other student population. .Bnaokover and Schurr1 note that the two important limitations were one, that the Mead Theory was developed in absence of- - any systematic empirical evidence, thus it lacked specificity. And, two, there was no specific reference to school learning per se. When relating to the compensatory education student, the Brookover theory means that for a compensatory education stu- dent to act intentionally to achieve, he must see the task as appropriate behavior or perceive that significant others in his reciprocal role relationship want him to achieve the task. Towne and Joiner5 point out that "...this model for learning should not be interpreted to mean that biological - differences play no role in academic performance." It should also‘he noted that the self-concept of ability is an intervening 11bi_§._. 2Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss, Theories in Social Ps cholo ,(New York: Basic Books, 1965 , p. Richard Towne and Lee Joiner, The Effect of Special Class Placement on the Self— Conce t-of—Abilit of the Educable etard Child, Grant No. 5 ~32-O 10b6001, nited ‘States Effice of Education (East Lansing, Michigan: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1966), p. 6. 3 P 14 variable which mediates between the organic condition of the individual, and sometimes the environmental, and the behavioral outcome. Brookover states: ...We believe that the child acquires, by taking the role of the other, a perception of his own ability as a learner of various types of sh ills and subjects which constitute the school curricu- lum. If the child perceives that he is unable to learn mathematics or some other area of behavior, this self-concept of his ability becomes the functionally limiting factor of his school achieve- ment. "Functional limit” is the term used to emphasize that we are Speaking not of genetic or— ganic limits on learning but rather those perceptions of what is appropriate, desirable, and possible for the individual to learn. We postulate the latter as the limits that actually Operate, within broader organic limits, in determining the nature or extent of the particular behavior learned. By "self-concept-of-ability" Brookover means "...the eval- ‘dation one makes of oneself in respect to the ability to ac- -hieve in academic tasks in general as'compared with others."2 Brookover states that ”self-concept of academic ability refers to behavior in which one indicates to himself (publicly or privately) his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others engaged in the same task."5 This definition is based upon Mead's conceptualization of self as "...an awareness of and articulation of an internalization social process." It is important to note that this self definition should not 1Brookover and Gottlieb, op.cit., p.469. Brookover, Erickson, and Joiner, o .cit., p.8. 3mm. Lee Joiner et al., "Student Definitions of the Educa— tional Expectations of Others and the Development of Educational Plans: A Longitudinal Study of High School Males," A paper presented at meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill.inois (1966), p. l. 15 be confused with such global "selves” as those of Jersild and Rogers.2 1 Others and School Learn is The theoretical model proposed by Brookover and associates, does take into account the influence of others upon the indi— vidual, whether these be regular students or students enrolled in a compensatory education program. But, the model does not predict what changes are expected to occur as a result of interaction, and placement in a compensatory education program. In some ways Goffman's "Cooling The Mark Out"5 suggests a 'unique addition. "Cooling The Mark Out" is an analysis of adapting to failure in role performance by interacting with others. Gof- fman stresses three ways in which a person can lose a role: he can be promoted out of it, he can abdicate it, or he may be involuntarily deprived of it, and made in return something that is considered as a lesser thing to be. According to Gof- fman the "cooling process" is one in which others enable the individual to revise his self definition and adapt to his new role. The interactionist model has been applied to studying the effects of higher education on an individual, by Burton Clark. Clark stresses that "certain components of American 1 higher education perform what may be called the "cooling-out function."5 This process is specifically designated to bridge 1Arthur Jersild, In Search of Self, (New York: Bureau of Pubéications, Teachers’College, Columbia University, 1952), pp. -10. ' aCarl Rogers, Client Centered Therapy: Its Current Prac— tices, Implication and Theory (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin 50., , Pp. - o Goffman, op.cit.. urton R.Clark, "The Cooling-Out Function in Higher Edu- cation," Societ and Self, Bartlett S.Stoodley ed. (New York: The Free Frees, l§€25,pp.155-146. Also in American Journal of 51b1d., p.569. A 1 4-~‘¢ ‘7‘,“ ; 16 the gap between culturally instilled goals and instituionally provided means of realization. Merton states that "aberrant behavior may be regarded sociologically as a sympton of dis- sociation between culturally prescribed aspirations and social— ly structured avenues for realizing these aspirations." Clark notes that an alternative approach to failing un- promising junior college students, and crystalizing a more appropriate self-image, is to side track them, or to engage them in a "cooling-out process."2 This type of student in the junior college is handled by being moved out of a transfer major to a one-or two-year program of vocational busi- ness or semi—professional training. This calls for the relinquishing of his original intention, and he is induced to accept a substitute that has lower status in both the college and society in general.5 The "cooling-out process" in one junior college consists of five phases: (1) Low scores on pre—entrance tests lead poorly qualified students into remedial classes.4 (2) Counselors assist the students in choosing proper courses in light of their objectives, test scores, high school records, and test records from previous schools. (5) A special course designed to assist’students in evaluating their abilities, interests, and aptitudes; in assaying their vocational choices in light of this evaluation; and in making 1Robert K. Merton, "Social Structure & Anomie," in Social Theo and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1§575, p.134. Also see Herbert H. Hyman, "The Value Systems of Different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to The Analysis of Stratification," in R. Ben- dix and S.M. Lipsit (eds.) Class Status & Power: A Reader in Social Stratification (Glencoe, Illinois: The Tree Press, 9 PP - - 2Clark, op.cit., p.572. Ibid. “Ibid. 52mm. 17 educational plans to implemept their choices is required of all students. (4) Poor achievement results in "need for improve- ment notices" and further conferences with a counselor. This directs the student to more advice and self-assessment.2 (5) Finally, poor achievement results in a proba— tionary status. This procedure is not designed to rid the college of a large number of students, but to assist the student to seek an objective at a level on which he can succeed. An important effect is the killing—off of the lingering hepe of the most stubborn latent terminal stu- dents. The phases outlined for the "cooling-out process" are also steps taken in a myriad number of compensatory education 'programs in higher education. Conversely, a more positive process also takes place in compensatory education. One in which reevaluation of role performance takes place through interacting with others and some degrees of success. Two ways ..in which a person can lose a role, as.noted by Goffman, can also be applied to a person gaining a role; namely, "he can be promoted out of it, or he can abdicate it." In essence Brookover and associates5 tried to show that self-concept could be enhanced through positive interaction with others. The "Parental Experiment" was utilized to study 'the effects of working with parents in order to influence students. The "Expert Experiment" was employed to study the veffects of formal presentations by a person defined as an"ex- pert" on low-achieving students. Finally, the "Counselor Experiment" attempted to investigate the effects of counseling 1mm- .ZM-v P-575. this" p.574. Goffman, op.cit., p.451. ilbur Brookover, Jean LaPere, Don Eamachek, Shailer Thomas, and Edsel Erickson, o .cit.. 18 on low achieving students. In the "Parental Experiment” Brookover and associates note that the differences between the cxncrimemtal, control, and placebo groups were not statistically significant.1 How- ever, Brookover pointed out that “it is concluded that self- concept of ability of low achieving students can be enhanced by working with parents and that this improvement in self— concept will be reflected in improved academic performance. The positive academic performance, on the other hand, does not maintain itself when such treatment is discontinued."2 ,In the "Expert Experiment” it is shown that there are no F ratios significant at the .05 level. This indicates thet there are no significant differences among the three groups.9 Brookover concluded that the "expert" presenting material is not an efficient strategy for increasing either self—concept of ability, or school performance. . Finally, the "Counselor Experiment" pointed out that there were no predicted significant changes either within, or between, the experimental and control groups.5 However, Brookover concludes that replication of this experiment is in .order prior to any definite conclusions.6 When the "cooling-out" model of Goffman, and elaborated by Clark, and the "enhancement of self-concept of academic ability" by Brookover and others, is applied to compensatory reducation programs in pre-school, grade school, high school, and higher education, a positive and negative redefinition of) roles takes place. The compensatory education classes would 1_I_b_id_.9 P-97. 22212., p.100. 3gpi_d., p.122. “Lug” p.124. 13-12., P0157- 6‘Egg" p.162. 19 be an interaction situation designed to ease redefintion in both a positive and negative sense. Problem Statement In studying the deprived, or underprivileged, students, whether'they be black or white, and the effect of compensatory education upon achievement and self-concept of ability, from 'the aforementioned perspectives, one would not attempt ex- planation in terms of direct outcomes. For example, instead of explaining inadequate school performance as a direct result . of lack of. inate ability, intervening variablesl which mediate between ability and behavioral outcomes are studied. Brook— over and others 2 stress that self-concept of ability can.be a "threshold concept." This means that self-concept of ability 'functions to limit the learnings attempted; it does not ac- count for variations in achievement within those limits. This research focuses upon the assessment of change in selected areas as they relate to the following general pro- blems: (1) Is admission of a student into a compensatory eduaction program accompanied by social influ- ences (intervening variables) which are gener- ally negative and strong enough to counteract the benefits of the supposedly more ideal educa- tional setting? _(2) Will success in a compensatory eduaction program predict a likelihood of that student achieving _ a cellege degree? (3) Does peer group companionship of the individual, . involved in compensatory education have any bearing upon the individual's success? lIntervening variable is used in the sense of "...any .intervening construct with a maximum amount of operationa1_,.n validity, or direct emperical reference." Melvin H.Marx, "Intervening Variable or H othetical Construct," The Psycho- logical Review, LVIII (1951 , p.256. Breckover, Erickson, Joiner, op.cit., p.11. . 2O SubSumed under this general problem are the more speci- fic’research problems. These are: (1) What happens to the self—concept-of—ability of students engaged in compensatory education programs? (2) Who are the significant and academic others of compensatory education stude ts? (5) Is the change in sclf—concept-of—ability similar for regularly enrolled students, as it is for compensatory education students? (4) Do compensatory education students perceive the same significant and academic others as regular matriculated students? These questions are important since their answers will SUpply insight into the social processes which influence suc- cess or failure of expensive compensatory education programs for those deemed deprived, or underprivileged. The signifi— cance of the research is threefold. Brookover has demonstrated that the constructs from the symbolic interaction theory are relevant to understanding the academic achievement of students . in regular classes. Hence, their first application to the compensatory education situation may provide a theoretically based explanation of success or failure of compensatory educa- tion students. Second, this research explores conditions anecciated with change in academic self—concept which, if identified, might be altered to facilitate the learning of stu-' dents enrolled in compensatory education programs. Third, it examines the possibility of the basic tenets of Brookover's .social theory of learning (being applied) to a broader range of conditions. CHAPTER II OBJECTIVES General Purposes The initial intent of this research was to investigate as to whether the self-concept-of—academic ability (hereafter referred to as SCOAA) of a black or white pre—college student (hereto referred to as Compensatory education Student [CBS] ) would be affected by some type of post-high school compensa- tory education program. This study also attempts to develop a theoretically based explanation for the less than hoped for academic achievement by those students deemed eligible for a compensatory education program. In particular it proposes: (l) to investigate the change in SCOAA of black and ‘ white post-high school CESs. (2) to identify the significant‘others (SO) of those black and waits post-high school CESs. (5) to identify the academic significant others (ASC) of those black and white post—high school CESs. It must be stressed that this research is concerned with ex- amining the conditions and influences which effect self-concept as a functionally limiting variable in academic achievement. Hypotheses Because the predicted order of results is important in the discussion and statement of certain hypotheses, numerical subscripts have been utilized to indicate the passage of time, and also indicates the various times when the schedule was ‘ administered. The subscripts refer to approximate testing dates accord- ing to the following schedule: ‘21 22 Subscript testing date 1 August, 1968 2 May, 1969 The testing schedule is designed to cover a period of time prior to enrollment, but with knowledge of selection, to ‘a compensatory education program through his or her first year in the program. Test I was administered prior to the Ss en- 'rollment in the compensatory education program. Test 2 occur— ‘red during the last week of the 1968—1969 school year and prior to final examinations. The following hypotheses are stated as research hypotheses, not as null hypotheses. When applicable, the hypotheses will be stated in both literary and operational form. Hypothesis I. The SCOAA of Cth will be characterized by an ascending trend from Test I to Test 2. H1: SCOAAI‘.SCOAA2 Hypothesis II. The change in SUOAA of CESs will be great- er than those of regularly matriculated students (hereafter referred to as RMSs). H2: SCOAA (CES), SCOAA (RMS) Hypgthggig III. Those named as SO by CESs do not differ from those named by RMSs. ~H5: SO (CES) = SO (RMS) Jhnuuguggleflg Those named as ASO by CESs do not differ from those named by RMSs. H4: ASO (CES) = ASO (RMS) ltngth§§1§_3; The change in SCCAA is greater among those .. "low" achievement CESs than among those "high" achievement CESs. ' H5: SCOAA (low); SCOAA (high) , _flyngth§§1§_1;, When the CES compares himself with a fellow CES there will be little, if any, difference in per- ceived SCOAA. ’ 25 H6: SCOAA (CES) = sooaa (0:3) Hypothesis VII. When the CLS compares himself with a RMS there will be a lesser perceived SCOAA. H7: SCOAA (CES)<.SCOAA (HMS) Hypothesis VIII. The change in SCOAA will be greater for those CESs removed from their environment, living in a campus dormitory than for those still embraced within the environment,- living at home. H8: SCOAA (resident) >SCC-AA (non-resident) In addition to the aforementioned hypotheses, a number of questions are also investigated. These are: (1) Is the level of SCCAA different for black and white CESs? (2) Is the change in level of SCOAA greater among black or white CESs? (3) Does the level of SCOAA and change in level of SCOAA differ among the black and white CESs and black and white RMSs? (4) Are there any changes in the identified ASO associated with compensatory education program placement? Discussion of Hypotheses Hypothesis I. SCOAA is an individual's view of himself compared to other students. Cperationally, this is defined as a score on Brookover's General Self-Concept of Academic Scale (see Appendix A). The Guttman Scale scores are as follows: 8. 090 Poor; 16.000 Below average; 24. 000 Average; 52. 000 Above aver- ‘age; 40. 000 Superior. The ascending trend is predicted on the basis of the theo- retical work previously discussed. Briefly, being labelled as a CBS, and placed in a compensatory education program is a case -of being removed from one role, the terminated high school student, and placed in.a higher role, a CBS. Through inter- action with the other CESs, prospective CESs, and hMSs, the 24 CES will see himself as being as "good" as any other student- compensatory or regularly matriculated ( "good" is used in the everyday sense of the word). As this"redefinition of self" takes place the SCOAA of the CBS should also rise. It is ex- pected that teachers, parents, and peers play important roles in this "redefinition of self" process. Hypothesis II. Once again, the individual's SCOAA is the student's view, whether he be a CBS or a RMS, of himself compared to other stu- dents. Operationally, this can be defined as a score, pre-test vs. post-test, on Brookover's General Self-Concept-of-Academic Ability Scale (Appendix A). Briefly, this difference will - occur because the CBS is removed from a lesser role, the termi— nated high school student, and placed in a higher role, that of a compensatory education or college student. Whereas, the EMS has not changed roles. He was a college bound high school student and now he is a regular college student. Hypothesis III. In the.early writings of Cooley and Head much is made of ' the "other“ and taking the role of the "other" in interpreting .the actors self-conception. The concept of the SO originates in the writing of Sullivan.1 Sullivan refines the "other" or "generalized other" by indicating that there is a selectivity factor of those "others" with whom an actor identifies.2 Opera- Itionally, SO is defined as answers to the question, "Who are the‘ people you feel are important in your life?" Since "others" are the sources of self definitions, they are an important factor to study from both a Median viewpoint 13a Stack Sullivan, Conce tions of Modern sa chiatr The First illiam Alanson Nhl e semorla ec D. 3.: The WIIIIw KIanson’White Psy chiatrlc Foundation, 1 47), pp. 18-22. ' H.Hyman, "The Psychology of Status," Archiv§§ of Psycho- logy, No.269, 1942, p.80. 5D and from a "social system" perspective. This study will attempt to specify who such ”others” are, will indicate their relative importance in terms of ranked freerency of mention, and will compare those LCs named by libs. The hypothesis of no difference is made on the basis of :ovious findings.1 Othcsis IV The concept of ASCs attempts to particuliarize the SO of Sullivan by placing it within a stated situation, in this case the college setting. This attempt to determine the sources of a particular definition of self, the definition of the self as a student. Operationally, ABC is defined as response to the question, "Who are the people you feel are concerned about how well you do in school?" This research will make explicit who such ASOs are, will determine t eir relative importance in terms of frequency of mention, anc.will compare ASCs named by the CES with those ASCs named by a population of regularly matriculated students. Hypothesis V The hypothesized greater increase in SCOAA among "low ,achievement" CESs (LACESs) versus lower increase in SCOAA of "high achievement" CCSs (HACESs) is based upon the frequency of a one-to-one relationship. Operationally, this can be de- fined as a score on Brookover's General Self-Concept-of Aca- demic Ability Scale (Appendix A) and the classification of a student on the basis of ”course work intensity". Those students classified as LACESs are classified because of the greater degree of tutorial and remedial work necessary to bring them up to college level work. Thus, this student receives greater individual attention and will achieve at a 1Richard Morse, rlll' ‘ ‘ p 26 more rapid rate. Those students classified as HACth are classified thus because of the lesser degree of tutorial and remedial work necessary to bring them up to college level. Therefore, this student realizes fewer individual contacts and greater group contacts. Hypothesis VI The hypothesized equality of comparison of SCOAA of a CBS ~with another CBS is based upon the theoretical work regarding reference groups and "others". Operationally, this can be de- fined as a score on the Specific Reference Self—Concept—of— Academic Ability Scale (Appendix B). This hypothesized equality is based upon the assumption that when one CES compares himself with another CBS the indi- vidual considers the other actor as being his equal. Thus, the cemparisons are similar. Hypothesis VII _ The hypothesized inequality of comparison of SCOAA of 3 CES with a EMS is based upon the theoretical work regarding reference groups and others. Cperationally, this can be de- - fined as a score on the Specific Reference Self-Concept—of Academic Ability Scale (Appendix C). This hypothesized inequality in perceived SCOAA is based 'upon the assumption that a CES considers the other actor as being somewhat "superior",in the everyday sense of the Word. ' Furthermore, the CES perceived the goal of regular matricula- . tion, or-college student status, as being desirable. Therefore, the perceived evaluation of academic ability will be dissimilar. a. , Hypothesis VIII The hypothesized impact of environment on SCOAA upon a CBS removed from a negative environment, slum status, and placed in a more positive environment, a college campus, is based upon the theoretical work'regarding reference groups and "others". A 7" 27 Operationally, this can be defined as a comparison of pre-test results on the General Self—Concept—of—Acadcmic Ability Scale (Appendix A) and the Specific Reference deli—Concept—of Aca— demic Ability Scales (Appendix B and 3) with the results at— tained on the post-test. _This change in SCOAA is beased upon the assumption that the CBS who changes environ out will also change SO anf ASO merely because of change in location. The new SO and A80 that the CES associates with are more inclined toward higher educa- tion thus a more ositive im act is exerted. 9 P Discu§§ion of Questions Questions one,two, and three are included in this research because previous studies dealing with SCOAA indicate that there are some basic differences when one considers the race of the respondent. Morse1 indicates that the mean scores of the SCOAA were significantly greater for the white respondent than the mean scores obtained by the black respondents. Wylie2 also stresses that blacks make more modest estimates of their ability than do white students and that children of lower socio— economic levels make more modest estimates of their ability than do children of higher socioeconomic levels. Thus, the CES may learn different self-definitions because of his race and according to his socioeconomic level. Similiarly, student status-fi-compensatory or regularly matriculated—~-may also have a bearing on selfedefinitions. Question four is included because from a Median perspective, -identifying SOs and changes in who are one's 508 are important concerns to those dealing with 0385. Question five is also included because the identification and change of A805 is 11b__i_d. 2Ruth C. Wylie, "Children' s Estimates of Their School Work ’Ability as a Function of Sex( Race, and Socioeconomic Level, " 1 Journal of Personalit ,XXXI 965),pp. 205-224. firtant. Since 503 are conceptualized as being the “es of self-definition, and .5503 are considered primary sources of academic self-concept, changes or may be explained, in part, as an outcome of chang- _,£icant and academic significant others of the CES. Itive CHAPTER III RELATED LITERATURE Philosophical and Theoretical Framework m Compensatory Education Compensatory education has been practiced on a massive Scale for several years in myriad cities throughout the nation. According to Jensen compensatory education had its theoreti- cal sanctions from social scientists with the belief that IQ's and scholastic achievement could be improved. These social scientists espoused the "deprivation hypothesis" notion which basically states that the academic lag of certain students is mainly the result of social, economic, and educational depriva- tion and discrimination. Deutsch3 elaborates upon this theory by stating that "the lower class child enters the school situa- tion so poorly prepared to produce what the school demands that initial failures are almost inevitable." Mendelaon, in his summary of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Report, asserts that: ...one of the unpleasant facts of life is the gap between the scholastic achievements of the average white and the average Negro student. Experience indicates that it increases as pupils advance from 1Some of the largest and most publicized programs of com- pensatory education are: The Banneker Project in St.Louis (8 yrs.) Higher Horizons in New York City (5 yrs.), More Effec- Schools in New York City (5 yrs.), and other large-scale programs in Syracuse, Seattle, Philadelphia, Berkeley, and a score of other cities. 2Arthur R. Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholas- tic Achievement?" op.cit., pp.2-5. 5Martin Deutsch, "The DisadVantaged Child and the Learn- ing Process," in Povert In America , edited by L.A. Ferman, J.L. Kornbluh and A. Haber, (Ann Arbor, University of Michi- gan Press , 19é8) ,p.477. 29 ”A 50 . grade to grade-that it may represent as much as two years at the high school level.” According to the latest average figures, approximately 24% of white males enter college and over 10% graduate. Only 10% of the black males enter college anf argroximately 5% of them graduate. The proportion for white females is 17% enter college and 6.2% graduate, whereas for blach females it is slightly less than 10% entrance with only 5% graduating. In studies by Sexton2 and Clark5 it is further emphasized that schools in economically deprived areas perpetuate the continuation of this negative growth rate. And, that urban education is one of America's greatest dilemmas. Thus, the primary goal of compensatory education is to remedy the educational leg that exists between disadvantaged students and the growth population, and thereby narrow the achievement gap between "minority" and "majority" students. Ginzberg4 asserts that it is almost universal to state that the disadvantaged child receives an inferior education. 1Wallace Mendelson, Discrimination.(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962). 2Patricia Sexton, Education and Income (New York: Viking ’Press, 1961) and "City Schools”, in lhe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, March, 1965. Kenneth Clark, "Education of the Minority Poor-The Key to the War on Poverty", in The Disadvantaged Poor: Education Em 10 out (Washington D.C.:Chamber of Commerce of the United States,l§66),pp.l75-18S. also see Conant, op.cit., Christopher 'Jencks, "Education: The Racial Gap", The New e ublic, Vol.155, :TEe P EI' S E No.14, Oct.l, 1966, and "Speaking Out u 1c c 0013 Are Failing", Saturdgy.Evening Post,‘April 25, 1966. ' . Eli Ginzberg, The Ne ro Potential (New York:Columbia University Press, 1956). IIso see Kenneth Clark, Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), Robert Hutchins, The Conflict in Education in a Democratic Societ (New York: Harper 5 flow, ,~.I?55), ZEtEur Eestor EducationaI'Wastelands (Urbana:University 0 Illinois Press, 1555) and The Restoration of Learning: A .Pro am For Redeemin the UnfquiIIed Prppise o J_gr can hduca- .§Ion (New IorE:IIfre§ Kfiopp, Inc., 1955,. A 31 Two basic theoretical tenets gui e most of these compensa- tory education programs at any anneatiunal level- the "average children concept" and the "social de;rivaticn hypothesis" The "average children concept" essentially states that all children, except for a rare fee born with severe neuro— logical defects, are basically much aLike in mental development and capabilities. It further avserts that apparent differences in mental development and cap; lllcl‘f in school are due to 'superficial differences in children' s upbringing at home, their preschool and outuof-school experiences, motivations and inte- rests, and the educational influences of their family back- ground.1 Jensen points out that: Children with average or above-average IQ's generally do well in school without much attention. So the remedy deemed logical for children who would do poor- ly in school is to boost their IQ's up to where they can perform like the majority—in short to make them all at least "average children."2 In essence all children are perceived as being more or less hemogeneous. But, become.het3roaeneous because when they are out of school they learn, or fail to learn, items which may either help or hinder then in their school work.3 The "social deprivation hypothesis" is the theory whereby thoSe children of ethnic minorities and the economically poor who achieves "below average" in school do so mainly because they begin school lacking certain necessary experiences which are crucial prerequisites for school learning-namely perceptual, attentional, and verbal skills, as well as the self-confidence, self-direction, and attitudes conducive to achievement in the 1This is the basic premise of the Federal program entitled "Head Start". 2Jensen, 0 .cit., Also see J. N. V. Hunt, Intelligence and Egperience (New York: Ronald Press, 1961). 5E. Gordon and D. Wilkerson, Compensatory Lducation For The Disadvantaged (New York, College Entrance Board, 1966), pp. 158- 52 classroom. Thus, the major aim of preschool and compensatory education is to make up for these environmental lacks as quickly and intensively as possible by providing the appropri- ate experiences, cultural enrichment add training in basic skills. Self-Conggfit Self concept has been studied under a myriad number of labels. Among these has been the ”self", the "real self", the "phenomenal glass self", he "social self", and a multitude of others. It is beyond the scope of this research to assess and compare the hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of studies under- taken to investigate these labels. Instead, generalizations will be made and more detailed attention will be given to the findings of a few studies related to the research reported herein. ' . l. Self-concept is an important variable for explaining the behavior of individuals. 2. An individual's self rating is significantly related to others rating him. 3. The self-concept of an individual can change.3 IWilliam Fitts, "The Role of Self-Concept in Social Per- ception," Dissertation Abstracts, XV(1955), p.462; Ernest R. Hilgard, Human Motives and the Concept of Self," American Psy- cholo ists, IV(1949),pp.574-582; Emory Cowen, "An Investigation Into EEG Relationship Between Two Measures of Self-Regarding Agtitudes," Journal of Clinical Psychology,XII (l956),pp.156- 1 0. 2Frank Miyamotv and Sanford Dormbusch, "A Test of Inter— actionist Hypotheses and Self-Conception," American Journal of Sociolo ,XXI (l956),pp.399-405; Malcolm Helper, "Learning Theory and Self-Concept," Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps cho- lo ,LI(1955),pp.184-194; Richard Vidébeck "Self-Conception ang Reaction of Others," Sociometry,XXIII (l960),pp.551-559§ Melvin Mania,"Social Interaction and the Self-Concept," Journal of Abnormal and Social_Psychology,LI(l955),pp.362-570. , ‘ Hugh Perkins,"Changing Perceptions of Self,"Childhood Ed- ‘. ucation XXXIVCl957),pp.2-6; Janet Brown,"An Exploratory Study of Change in Self-Concept,"Dissertation Abstracts,(l968),pp.283- - 284; Eugene Gaier and WiIIiam White,"Trends in Mearsurement of Personality,"Review of Education Research,h§§¥(196§).Ppegfi' ' Bernard Borislow,"Self Evaluation and Academic Achievement, our- nal of Counseling Psychology,IX(1962),pp.246-253. 4. When measuring self-concept, Ss reports are more likely to have a positive bias than a negative bias.1 5. The individual's self-concept functions to direct his behavior.2 Of particular interest to the research reported herein have been the studies of school-related self definitions of abi- ,1ity reported by Wylie,5 Brooaover,4 and Morse.5 Self Concept and Academic Achievemenp When concerned with the thought that differences in cul- tural learning opportunities result in differences in self- concepts concerning one's intellectual abilities, Wylie found: (1) White girls make more modest estimates of their ability than do white boys. (2) Negro So make more modest estimates of their abi- lity than do white 83. iM.B.Fink,"Self—Concept as It Relates to Academic Under- achievement," California Journal of fiducational Research,hIII (1962),pp.57-62; David Russell, “What hoes “esearcESay About Self-Evaluation,“ Journal of Educational Research,XLVI(l955), pp.561-571; Seth Arsenian, "Own Estimates and Ob ective Measure- ment," Journal of Educational Ps cholo ,XXXIII (1942),pp.291- 502;Richard Brandt,"The Accuracy of Self-Estimate:A Measure of Selg-ngcept Reality," Genetic Psychology Monographs,LVIII(l958), fipo 5" o _ E.S.Snyder, "Self-Concept Theory," The Clearinghouse, (l965),.pp.242-246; John Kinch, "A Formalized Theory of the Self— Concept," The American Journal of Sociology , LXVIII (1956),pp. 481-486. 3Ruth Wylie, "Children's Estimates of Their School-Work Ability as a Function of Sex Race, and Socioeconomic Level." Journal of Personality,XXXI (1963),pp.20§-224. ilbur Brookover,et a1, "Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement," op.cit., BrooEover‘et a1, "Improving Academic Ac—. hievement Through tudents Self-Concept Enhancement," op.cit.. 5Richard Morse, Self-Concept of Ability, Significant Others. and School Achievement_3f Eighth-Grade StudentszfluComparative Investigation 6fINegro and Caucasian Students,M.A. Thesis, Mich- igan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1963; and Socio- conomic Status and Functionin in School: A S bolic Interac- , glonlst Interpretation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Micgigan State Univer- s y, as ans ng, chigan, 1966. (5) 54 Children of lower socioeconomic levels make more modest estimates of their ability than do children of higher socioeconomic levels.l Brookover has investigated the nature of self-concept-of— ability and studied its effects upon the school achievement of a class of white urban students from grade seven through grade twelve. Relevant to the research r ported herein are the con- clusions of a longitudinal analysis of data from grades seven, eight, nine, and_ten; (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ’(9) (10) .Self—concept of ability is a significant factor in achievement at all levels, seventh through tenth grades. The perceived evaluations of significant others are a major factor in self-concept-of—academic ability at each grade level, eighth through tenth. Change or stability in the perceived evaluations of others is associated with change or stability in self-concept. Change or stability in self—concept-of-ability is ‘associated with change or stability in achievement. The associated change in achievement is noted, however, only over longer periods of time ,(5 Years). The relationship of self- concept to achievement is not associated with school attended. Socioeconomic class has a low relationship to self- concept-of—ability and achievement. Furthermore, the relationship of SES to achievement decreases from grade seven through ten. Change analysis in- dicated no association between SES and self-concept or achievement. Self-concept is not merely a reflection of memory of past performance. There are no consistent sex differences in the re1a~ tionship of self-concept with achievement. Self-concept-of—ability is not merely a reflection of memory of how teachers graded in the past, but memory of how teachers graded is more relevant than memory of past performance. Self-concept is not merely a reflection of past performance.2 lWylie, "Children' 8 Estimates of Their School-Work Ability as a Function of Sex, Race, and Socioeconomic Level, " p. 223. 2Brookover et al, "Improving Academic Achievement Through‘ Students' Self-Concept Enhancement," pp. 201- 202. 55 Morse utilized the data on the black respondents from the Brookover research for a comparative study of self-concept- of-ability and school achievement for black and white students. He concluded that: (l) The relationship between students' general self- concepts-of—ability and the evaluation they per— ceived their parents to hold of their abilities were not significantly different among black and white students. (2) The realtionship between the students' .general self-concepts-of—ability and the evaluation they perceived their peers to hold of their abilities was significantly greater among white students than . among the black stacents. (3) The relationship between GPA and measured intel- ligence was significantly lower among black stu- dents tham among white students. (4) The relationship between self-concept-of—ability and GPA was significantly lower for black students than among white students. (5) The mean scores of white stud ents on perceived evaluations, self-concept-of~aoility, grades, and measured intelligence were all significantly greater than the mean scores of black students. (6) Self-concept-of—ability was a better predictor of classroom achievement than IQ for both black and white students. (7) IQ was weighted significantly higher as a predictor of achievement among the white students than it was among the black students.1 Morse concludes his research by saying that "the black students' conception of his ability to succeed in school and his motivations to do so apparently provide a better basis for forecasting his school achievement than measure of intelligence. Subsequent research by Morse relevant to socioeconomic status and functioning school allowed him to make the following . statements: (l)- To the extent that there is variable functioning in "2 lRichard Morse, "Self-Concept of Ability Significant Others and School Achievement of Eighth-Grade Students: A Com- parative Investigation of Negro and Caucasian Students," op,cit.. 21bid., p. 160. 56 school among pupils with different socioeconomic status, there are parallel differences in the behavior that is viewed as proper, required, ne- cessary, and/or desirable among those pupils. Further, these definitions of appropriate attitudes and behavior are derived from, and reflected in the evaluations and expectations pupils with different _socioeconomic status perceive other persons important in their lives to hold of them,‘and in the pupils' self-concepts. (2) The fact that variable functioning in school among pupils with different socioeconomic status may, in part, be accounted for in terms of the individual pupil's association with significant others does not preclude the probability that the same social- psychological processes may account for variable functioning in school among pupils with similar socioeconomic status. In fact, the results of this investigation support the conclusion that the same social-psychological influences account for the observable differences in functioning in schooll among pupils with similar socioeconomic status. Additional research which may grow out of this study is suggested by Brookover's efforts to enhance the self-concept of low-achieving students: It is concluded that the self-concept of ability of low achieving students can be enhanced by working with parents and that this improvement in self-concspt will be reflected in improved academic performance. And, by noted anthropologists Georges and Louise Spindler: Children are decisively influenced by the culture of their home and nonschool community. The teacher must identify this culture and understand how it has molded the child's thinking and affected his (or her) ability to learn, then devise effective strategies of instruction in the light of this understanding.3 1Morse, "Socio-economic Status and Functioning in School: A Symbolic InteractioniSts Interpretation," Op.cit.. 2Brookover et al, "Improving Academic Achievement Through Students' Self-Concept Enhancement," p.100. 5Forward to John Gay and Michael Cole, The New Mathematics and an Old Culture (New York: Holt, Rhinehart, andWinston, 9 P-Vi- ' 57 Effects of Compensatory Education On IQ and Achievement The success of compensatory education is assessed in one or both of two ways: by gains in IQ and/or in scholastic ac— hievement. Jensen maintains that the massive compensatory ed- ucation programs have produced no appreciable gains in intel- ligence or achievement, but admits that the majority of small- scale experiments have been successful in boosting the IQ and the scholastic achievement of the disadvantaged child.1 Heber reviewed over 29 intensive preschool programs for disadvantaged children and found they resulted in an average gain of between 5 and 10 points in IQ, with the gain being si- milar for those children initially below 90 IQ as for those of .90 IQ and above.2 The results are more gratifying.when the program is ex— tended beyond the classroom into the child's home, and there is intensive instruction in specific skills under short but highly demanding daily sessions. In such a study conducted by Bereiter and Engelmann above a third of the children showed gains of as much as 20 points in growth.5 Deutsch worked with an intensive preschool program.at the Institute Of Developmental Studies. The participants, all negro children from a poor New York city neighborhood, were divided into the experimental group (B) and the self-selected control 1Jensen, 1969, op.cit.. 2R.Heber, Research on Education and Habilitation of the Mentally Retarded, Paper read at conference on Socio-cultural Aspects of Mental Retardation, Peabody College, Nashville, Tenn., June, 1968. ~ 3C.Bereiter and S. Engelmann, An Academically Orientated Preschool Fer Disadvantaged Children: Results From the Initial Experimental Group. In D.W. Brinson and J.Hill (eds.) Psycho- ‘lo and Earl Childhood Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1963. No.5, pp.l7—56. group (Css). The E group received intensive educational en— richment while the Css group received no enriched education. The initial average Stanford—Einct Ids for the E and the Css groups were 95.52 and 94.69 respectively. After two years of enrichment the E groups had a dean IQ of 95.55 and the Css groups had 96.52.l Hodges and Spicher2 have sun arized a number of preschool intervention programs designed to improve the intellectual capabilities and scholastic success of disadvantaged students. The Indiana Project focused on deprived Appalachian white children five years of age, with Ids ranging from 50—85. The children spent one year in a special kindergarten with a struc— tured program designed to remedy diagnosed deficiencies in lan- guage development, fine motor coordination, concept formation, and socialization. Evaluation extended over a two year period and was measured against three control groups (regular kinder- garten, children who stayed at home during the kindergarten year and children at home in a similar community). The average gain versus the control group was 10.8 IQ points on Stanford- Binet and 4.0 points on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. The Perry Preschool Project at Ypsilanti, Michigan also was directed at disadvantaged preschool children with IQs rang- ing from 50-85. This program was aimed at remedying verbal prerequisites for first—grade learning. This project involved parental involvement as well as child participation. At the end of one year there was an 8.9 IQ gain on the Stanford-Binet. The Early Training Project at Peabody College is described as a multiple intervention program, meaning it included not only IF.Pow1edge, To Change a Child— A Report on the Institute for Developmental Studies, (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967). ‘ZW.L.Hodges and H.E. Spicher, The Effects of Preschool Experiences on Culturally Deprived Children, in W,W.Hartup and N.L.Smothergill (Cds.) The Young Child: Reviews on Research (Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1967), pp. 262-289. ‘ _, I \. 29 preschool enrichment but work with tie disadvantaged children's mothers to increase their ability to stimulate their child's cognitive develOpment at home. Two experimental groups, with two and three summers of preschool enrichment plus home visits by the training staff, experienced an average gain of 7.2 IQ points over the control group. Another program, the lurham Education Improvement Program has focused on preschool children from impoverished homes.1 In introducing the program it maintains tlat: Durham's disadvantaeed youn“sters are considered normal at birth and hotertially normal academic achievers, though the? {re freouently subjected to conditions jeopardizin: their physical and emotional health. It is furt er assumed that they adapt to their environment according to the some laws of learning that apply to all children.2 The IQ gains over an eight to nine monnhs' interval for various groups of preschoolers in the program on a pre-post test basis on three different tests were 5.52 on Peabody Iicture Vocabulary, 2.62 on Stanford-Binet, and 9.27 on tle :echsler Intelligence Scale for children.5 Karnes4whose preschool program at the aniversity of Illinois is based upon an intensive attempt is ameliorate specific learn- ing deficits in disadvantaged three year 0168. The group with an average age of between 3 years 5 months and 4 years 1 month showed a gain of 16.9 IQ points on Stanford—Dinet, while a con- trol group showed a loss of 2,8 IQ points over the same period. 1 , a- . . i Durham hcucatlonal In rovement r'rorrcam1 1966-1§§2 (Durham,Nc:C, 1967). ‘ Ibid., p.iii. 3 ” , Durham Educational lm rovement Program, Research, I966-l967 (Lurham,N.C., 1967). M.B.Karnes, A research program to determine the effects of various preschool intervention programs on the development of disadvantaged children and the strategic ages for such inter— vention.' Paper read at American Educational Research Associa- tion, Chicago, February, 1968. 40 Thus, the net gain was 19.7 I? points for the experimental groups. However, an example of what can happen when a small-scale project gets translated into a large—scale program, we can cite Clark's1 enthusiastic and Optimistic description of a "total push" intensive compensatory education program which originated in one school serving disadvantaged children in New York City with initially encouraged results. 01 rh'ctated,'”these posi- tive results can be duplicated in every school of this type,"2 Clark's successful program was the basis for Higher Horizons program which was implemented in over 40 other New York schools. After three years of the program the children in it showed no, gains whatever and even averaged slightly lower than similar children in ordinary schools in achievement and IQ.5 By and large many of the studies previously cited conclude that growth in IQ and achievement can be realized over a long period of time. That is to say that change will take place over a short period of time, but meaningful change in either IQ and/or scholastic achievement must continually take place over a period of years. Perception Of The Compensatory Education Student One of the basic assumptions of this research is that being labelled as a CBS and placed in compensatory education is an instance of being removed from one role and placed in-another role, a lesser role, a role having lower status than the role of a regularly matriculated student. ' 1K.B.Clark, Educational Stimulation of Racially Disadvan- taged Children, in A.H. Parson (ed.) Education In Depressed Areas (NewYork:Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965), pp.142-162. 21bid.,.p.l60. 3United States Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isola- tion In The Public Schools.Vol.I (Washington,L.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Frinting_0?fice, I957}, p.125. - To understand the 0383 one must review some of the litera- ture pertinent to the black population. For when one discusses compensatory education they are, in a majority of cases, act- ually speaking of the black population. It must be remembered that the source of one's self-con- cept is not internal, it is learned. Shis learning takes place primarily in the environment of the family, its friends and the peer group. All these groups are restricted in range of impact by social class barriers.l Opportunities for social learning are therefore limited by pressure exerted from groups above and below; thus, restricting social participation in all facets of society.2 » The self-concept of the black is further contaminated by the central fact that it is based upon the complex color-caste system. Thus, the black person cannot be unmarked by the ex- periences of caste discrimination based upon skin color.5 The salt—concept of the black person is damaged by the overwhelming fact that.the world in which he lives says, "white is right, black is bad."4 In the early drawings, stories, and dreams, black child- ren appear to have wishes of being white.5 Thus, black children 1For a complete discussion see 2.J. Havinghurst and Alli- son Davis, "Social Class, and Color tiff srences in Child Rearing," in Clyde Kluckhohn et al. Personality in Nature, Society and Culture (New York: KnOpp Co., 19557, pp. 508-520. Ibid. 3Abraham Kardiner and Lionel Cvesey, The Mark of Oppressions: é§2%§r%fii%ggfién the Personality of the American Negro (Cleveland: or b is ing Co., 1962). 4Jean D. Grambs, "The Self Concept: Basis of Reeducation of Negro Youth," in 'william Kavaraceus, John Gibson, Franklin PattersOn, Bradbury Seasholes and Jean Grambs, Negro Self Con- ce t:Im lications for School and Citzenshi (iew Yerk: McGraw- HiEl Dock Co., 19555, pp.ll-BE. sArthur Cole and John Dodd, "A Comparison of Negro and White Adolescence, Drawings of A Man and Woman," Negro Educa- tional Review, Vol. XVIII, July, 1967, pp. 65-69. have a more difficult time than white children in racial identi-' fication.1 This identification is also related to color itensity: the darker black is able to see himself as a black earlier than a light colored one.2 overvalue all those traits of appearance that are most white. The impact on the black community is to Evidence is clear that in almost every black family, the light— er children are favored by the parents.5 It is also interest- ing to note that most of the black leadership group are not black in appearance, many being almost completely white in terms of major physical appearnce4- however, with the rise of the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Front and other militant groups this idea of lightness is slowly changing. What effect dees this all have on the development of a black child's personality. Dai states: The personality problems that are more or less peculiar to black children are closely associated with the peculiar social status.that their elders are socially and legally compelled to occupy in this society and the peculiar evaluations of skin color, hair texture, and the other physical fea- tures that are imposed upon them by the white majority....So far as the personality development of black children are concerned, the most important conditions resulting from living under caste restrictions seem to be the preponderance of lower class families with their special code of conduct, broken homes accompanied by the dominance of maternal authority, and other physical features. Each of these cultural situations is apt to leave its inde- 5 lible imprint on the personality of the black child. j:Kenneth Clark and Mamie Clark, "Racial Identification and Preference in Negro Children," in Eleanor Maccoby, et al. (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rhine- hart, and Winston, Inc., 19587, pp:€O2-611. 21bid., p.605. 51bid., p.606. 4Ibid., p.607. ‘. 5Bingham Dai, "Problems of Personality Development Among Negro Children,“ in Kluckhohn and Murry (eds.). cp.cit.,p.560. The damage to the black child's self—concept appears to 'be greater among males than females.1 As previously cited this. could well be one of the results of the lack of a strong male influence in many black families. , As a result of the aforementioned facts Kavaraceus'indi- cates that "...it is clear that the life experiences of the 'black children are not such as to aid him in developing a posi- tive sense of himself or of his place in his world." Recent research indicates that black children are res- ponding to their so-called "caste position" by selecting lower goals and lower standards for themselves, even when their fam-' ily,.socio-economic status and innate capabilities would indi- cate higher achievement motivation.) It is felt that in order to remedy the situation of lack of black motivation and aSpirations the life experiences of the blacks must be geared toward developing a more positive sense of himself. Grambs suggests that: ...The Negro child, from earliest school entry through graduation from high school, needs con- tinued opportunities to see himself, and his racial group in a realistic positive light. He needs to understand what color and race mean, he needs to learn about those of his own race who have succeeded, and he needs to clarify his understanding of his gwn group history and cur- rent grdup situation. -Present1y, this recommendation is grossly lacking in the public schools. Textbook studies have shown that the content 1David and Pearl Ausubel, "Ego Development Among Segre- gated Negro Children," in A.Harry Passow (ed.), Education in De ressed Areas (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Coglege, Columbia University, l965),p.113. 2Kavaraceus et al., 0 .cit.,p.94. 3Albert and Bernice Lott, Negro and White Youth (New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965). 4Grambs, 0p.cit., p.21. is lily-white.1 The pictures_that do a pear are usually Booker T.Washington, George Washington Carver, or foreign na- tionals.2 Trager and Yarrow documents that materials can and do have a strong impact upon the child's perceptions of himself and others. When a story describing a black child as a funny slave (Little Black Sambo) was read aloud to yount children, white and black children's feelings were affected, particularly when the white children pointed this out in the schoolyard.5 Studies of teachers attitudes toward the children show that the black child is rated lowest in all rankings of groups on a Bogardus type social-distance scale.4 To show that tea- chers can make a difference Rosenthal and Jacobson picked about five children at random from each of the classes in an elemen- tary school and then informed the classroom teachers that, ac- cording to test results, the selected children were expected to show unusual intellectual gains in the coming year. Group IQ tests administered by the teachers'showed a significantly larger gain in the "high expectancy” students than their class- mates. Neimeyer concludes his discussion by stating: ...the chief cause of the low achievement of the children of alienated groups is the fact that too lAbraham Tannenbaum, "Family Living in Textbook Town," Progressive Education, Vol.51, No.5, March, l954,pp.l55-141; Martin Mayer, "The Trouble With Textbooks," Harpers Magazine,o Vol.225, July,l952,pp.65-71; Ctto Klineberg, "Life is Fun in a Smiling, Fair-Skinned World," Saturday Review, February 16,1965; Albert Alexander, "The Gray Flannel Cover on the American His- tory Textbook," Social Education, Vol.24, January, 1960,pp.11-14. 2Lloyd Marcus, "The Treatment of Hinorities in Secondary School.Textbooks (New York: Anti-Deformation League of B'rai B'rith, 1961); Jedi Nelson and Gene Roberts Jr., The Censors and The Schools (Boston:Little, Brown and Co.,l965). 3Helen Trager and Marian Tarrowz They Learn What They N Live and Prejudice in Young Children ew York: Harper and Row 00’ 0 4Jean Grambs, "Are We Training Prejudice Teachers," School and Society, Vol.71, April 1, l950,pp.196-l98. R.Rosenthal and L.Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom (New York: Holy, Rhinehart and Winston,l968). many teachers and principals honestly believe that these children are educable only to an ex- tremely limited ext n . And when teacLers have a low expectancy levo” for their childrens' learn- ing, the children seldom exceed that expectation, which is a self-fulfilling propkecy. Once the child is convinced that the school is irrelevant to his immediate meets and future goals he task of education becomes nearly impossible. hardincr and Cvesy talked to one junior high school student who had failed all his subjects for two years. The boy stated: ' I don't like it. It seems to bore me. It seems silly just going there and sitting. And most of the time it is so hot and they just don't do any- thing about it and the teachers just talk, talk, and you never learn anything.4 Kardiner and Cvesy further state that: It is difficult to conceive a more hopeless and despirited group than a high school class of Negro adolescent girls; nor a more bored and re- sentful group than a high school class of Negro boys.3 Deutsc '3 research stresses that the lower-class black child receives about one-half to one~third less instructional time in the primary grades the do white children from the same slum environment. he indicates the time samples indicate that as much as 80% of the school day was eBanneled into disciplining, and secondarily, into ordinary organizational details. lJohn Neimeyer, "Some Guidelines to Desirable Elementary Scool Reorganization," in Programs for educationally Disadvantaged (Washington D.C.: United States Office of Education Bulletin, 1965, No.173,p.81. A.Kardiner et al., The Psychological Frontiers of Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945),p.264/ 3Ibid.,‘p.72. Martin Deutsch, Minority Groups and Class Status as Re- lated to Social and Personality Factors in Scholastic Achieve- Eggfi (Ithaca: The Society for Applied Anthropology, Cornell University Press, l960),p.25. AG Enhancement of Calf—Concept Can the self-concept of the black child be changed in a positive direction by e uca tion: Lott and Lott state that: ...we would predict a real change in the level of academic accomplishments among Legros would' be one of the major consequences of a giea ter availability of Na rro Izodels wlO could illustrate that such achievement 'yays off' anl tliereby increase the expectation that the Negro youth, too, might reap tangible benefits from his aca- demic labors. A study by Campbell, Yarrow and Yarrow suggests that an integratedcamp experience did have a signficant effect on the self-perceptibns of children, especially the black children.2 Clark and Plotkin point out that when black students are accepted into institutions of higher learning they are_more likely to earn a degree than their white peers. They indicate that "...the net dropout rate is one-fourth the national one. Fewer than 10% of the black students failed to obtain a degree, while approximately #0% of the white students did not complete college."5 Patton states that the Jackman Student Relocation Program involuntarily uprooted 40 black high school students in 1965 and placed them in new homes away from their previous environ— ment. Of the 40 only 1 drOpped out of the program, with the 59 now attending colleges. .Recent research in the area of self—concept enhancement —_T Albert and Bernice Lott, or .cit.. 2John Campbell, Leon and Nariern Yarrow, "A Study of Adapta— tion to a New Social Situation,"; "Acquisition of New Norms: A Study of Racial Iesegregation,'; and "Personal and Situational Variables in Adaptation to fliange,” The Journal of Social Issues, Vol.14, No.1, l958,pp. 5-59. 3Kenneth Clark and Lawrence Plotkin, The Negro Student at Integrated Colleges (New York: National Scholarship Service and Fund For Negro Students, l965),pp.18—19. 4Betty Patton, "Jould You Go Out of Your hay?" Concern, . December, 1969,p pp 18-21. 47 have come to some strong conclusi is. Most experimental work has dealt with self-evaluatitn of abilities, with changes in the students self—rating being rel :ed to artificially induced "successes" and 'failures” in an e‘ arimontal task.l All investigations conclude tw', roarning is a prime. source-of individual differences i; nvlfmeraluations of all kinds, including self—estimates cf 'c: am‘c ability. 'Like Brookover2 they have r iscd dot tr :9 to whether the brief, superficial learning si ant QLS :rovjfed by the eXperimental manipulations could be gypecied TC cj":~e self-evaluaticns of abilities that are h red on a lifetj e of learning. Many institutions that previausly rdr ~rograns of Upward Bound, SPUR, etc., in the summer before the student was to enter the insti- tution, as a result of eva nation, are changing the mode of their 5 in.the freshman or sophomore year in high school. They state _program. Many are now making initial contact with the students that it seems plausible that l ng-term cultural learning oppor- tunities could create more positive self—estimates of their ability. ‘ lSee Howard and L.Bukowitz, "Reactions to the Evaluations of One's Performance," Journal of Persanality, 1958, Vol.26,pp. 494-507; E.Stotland and A.Zander,“Effects of Public and Private Failure on Self-Evaluation,” Journal of Abnormal Social Psycho— logy, 1958, Vol.56, pp.225-229; L.Festinger, Jane Torrey and . illerman, "Self-Evaluations as a Function of Attraction to The Group," Human Relations, 1954, Vol.7, pp.161-l74; J.Diggory and D.Magazines, "Self-Evaluations As A Function of Instrument- ally Relevant Capabilities," Bulletin de 1' Assembly Interna- tionale de Psychological Applications; 1959, Vol.8,pp.2-I9;J. Doris, flEffest Anxiety and Blame Assignment in Grade School Child- ren," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1959, Vol.585pp. 181-19CEWJ.Doris and S.Sarason, “Test Anxiety and Blame Assign- ment in a Failure Situation," Journal of Abnormg180cia1 Psycho- 10 9 1955,9Vol.50, pp0555’5380 ' ‘ 2Brookover, et al, gp,cit.,pp.209-2l2. 5BI'O‘VII , 02 .011: 0 ,pp o283"284 . Cfiffi”l;31 IV 17E{( ()3; jI?li?§E3 ) C‘ ‘— ,.- Research Strete~fi ~ This research, entitled ”The hffect of Compensatory Education on The Self-Concept-of—Acaiemic Ability of Black and White Post High School fitufients,” is designed as a longitudinal study. However, for dissertation purposes, this phase deals with the time frbm admission into the compensatory education pro- gram until entrance into the regular college. This research utilizes an abreviated version of the "time- series" design put forth by Campbell and others.1 When the "time—series" design is diagrammed for this research it will look like this: Cl x 02 (C=testing, x=change in condition.) The essence of the "time-series" design in the presence of a perio- dic measurement process on some group or individual and the introduction of an experimental change into this time-series of measurement, the results of which are indicated by a disconti— nuity in the measurements recorded in this time series.2 1See Donald Campbell, ”Factors Relevant to the Validity of Ex eriments in Social Settings," Psychological bulletin, LIV (1957 , pp.297-5l2; ponald Campbell, ”From uescription to Ex— perimentation," Problems in Neasuring Change, ed. Chester Harris (Madison, Wisconsin: University of aisconsin Press, 1965), pp. '212-242; Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley, "prerimental and Quasi-experimental nesigns for Research on Teaching," handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N.L.Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965),pp.171-246; Joyce Sween and Jonald Campbell, "A Study of the Effect of Proximally Autocorrelated Error on Tests of Signi- ficance for the Interrupted Time—Series Quasi-Experimental De- sign," an unpublished manuscript (Northwestern University, 1965); and Joyce Sween and Lonald Campbell, The Interrupted Time—Series as Quasi-egperiment; Three Tests of Significance, an unpublished manuscript (Northwestern University, 1965). 2Campbell and Stanley, Ibid. , p.207. 48 In this particular research, test one was administered while the 85 were not members of the experimental compensatory education program, but had been selected to become members of the program. The change in condition,enrollment in a compensa- tory education program, occurred at X. lest two was administer- ed at the end of one year of enrollment in, and usually the conclusion of, the compensatory education program. This particular experimental design (time—series) typi- fied much of the classical ninetewth—century experimentation in the physical sciences and in biology, but until recently has not been used-extensively in educational research.1 Campbell and Stanley also outline 12 factors jeopardizing the validity of various experimental design. Fundamental to this listing is a distinction between internal validity and external validity. Internal validity is the basic minimum without which any experiment is-uninterpretable: 'Did in fact the experimental treatments make a difference in this specific experimental instance?"2 External validity asks the question of generalizability: "Th what pepulations, settings, treatments, variables and measurements can this effect be generalized?" Relevant to internal validity, eight different classes of extraneous variables will be presented. They represent the effects of: 1. Sister , the specific events occurring between the first and second measrurement in addition to the experimental variable. 2. Maturation, processes within the respondents operating as a function of the passage of time per se (not specific to the particular events), including growing older, growing hungrier, grow— ing more tired and the like. 1See‘Towne and Joiner, op.cit., and Brookover and Schurr, op;cit.. 2Campbell and Stanley, cp.cit., p. 175. 5Campbell, "From Description to Experimentation," pp. 212-214. 6.. 7. 8. SO Testin , the effects of taking a test upon the scores of a second testing. Instrumentation, in which changes in the cali- bration of a measuring instrument or changes in the observers or scorers used may produce changes in the obtcined measurements. Statistical rerres ion ,Operating where groups have been selected on the basis of their extreme scores. BiaseS' resulting in differential selection of respondents for the comtaiison groups. Experimental mor: ali y, or vAfferential loss of respondents fro: tae c starison groups. Selection, matur :tion, interaction, etc. which {nicertain Of the multiple group quasi-design is confounded with, i.e., might be mistaken for, the effect of the engrimental variable. The four factors jeopardizing external validity or representativeness are: 1. Although Campbell accepts the Fisher tradition The reactive or inter actior effect of testing, in which a pretest might increase or decrease the spondent's sensitivity or responsiveness to the experimental variable and‘thus make the results obtained for a pretested population unrepresente- tive of the unpretested universe from which the experimental respondents were selected. The interaction effects of selection biases and the experimental variable. Reactive effects of exper'mental arrangements, which would preclude generalization about the effects of the experimental variable upon persons exposed to it in non-experimental settings. Multiple-treatment interference, likely to occur whenever multiple treatments are applied to the same respondents, because the effecti'of prior treatments are not usuall1y erasable. 5 for in- terpreting change he also asserts that such conditions are often impossible and unnecessary in practice. What is neces- sary when there is evidence of change which one wishes to inter- pret causally is that other plausible, probable and causual AlCampbell and Stanley, op.cit., p.175. 21bid., pp.l754l76. See R, A Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers ELondon: Oliver and Bond, 1925); and The Des1gn of Experiments London' Oliver and Bond, 1955). 51 explanations can be ruled out. The above mentioned classes of frequently plausible rival hypothesis regarding internal validity and external validity are tampbell's answers to the rigidity of the Fisher method. ' In analyzing the problems distinct to the time-series design, Campbell states that the designs most definite weak- ness is its failure to control history. That is, the rival hypotheses exists that not X but some more or less simultaneous event produced the shift.1 However, Campbell stresses that the researcher could plausibly claim experimental isolation in the sense that he was aware of the possible rival events that might cause such a change and could plausibly discount the likelihood that they explained the effect.2 Among the possible extraneous stimuli which may be considered as cauSing change in the experimental instance are: the person doing the data collection, time of day, physical surrouniings of the respon- dents during testing, changes in the weather and season, sex and race of the interviewer, or events surrounding the collec- tion.of data. These and other possible historical stimuli are considered in this research. , The extraneous variables of maturation and testing are ruled out since they do not plausibly explain changes occurring between particular observaticns which do not occur in previous or later time periods.- Likewise, there is no plausible reason for expecting instrument error to occur on one particular occa- sion rather than on earlier ones. Regression effects are usu- ally an orderly function of time and are thus implausible ex- planations. Selection and mortality are ruled out since coin- cidendes of subject changes do not plausibly explain the effects of X. The time-series design controls all other factors that Campbell considers under external validity.9 . 1Campbell and Stanley, op,cit., p.209. 22mm. 3Campbell, "From Description to Experimentation," pp.22l-* 223. 52 Instrumentation All instruments utilized in t1 is stuly were originally deveIOped by Wilbur Brook over an: his associates for use in his longitudinal study of high school students.1 The instru- ments developed by Brookover and others are: General Self-Con- cept of Ability Scale, Academic Aspirations Scale, Academic Expectation Scale, Significant Cthers 1est, and Academic Signi- ficant Others Test. ’ ' An extensive revision of the Brookover scales are not intended in this research. Therefore, the difficulty level of the vocabulary used in the scales was determined prior to their being used with 0388. Towne and Joiner2 point out that as a result of analysis of the scales, through reference to the Thorndike-Large word list,5 the vocabulary used in the General Self-Concept of Ability Scale were at, or belOw, the third grade level with the exception'of ten words. Of the ten words, seven were at the fourth grade level and the remaining three« (high school, advanced, and unlikely) were at the sixth or seventh grade levels. This -horndike—Lorge analysis le ds one to be Optimistic regarding the use of the Brookover scales with CESs in testing situations. Tiis conclusion is based upon. two factors- the age of the responients and their reading ability. ,For this researCh the General Self-Concept of Ability Scale ( for SCOAA see Appendix A), the Significant Other Test (for SO see Appendix D), and the Academic Significant Other ‘ Test (for ASO see Appendix E , were administered prior to the respondents entree into the compensatory education program, and to the regular college. For the post-test there were two l 2 Brookover, Patterson and Thomas, op.cit., p.16. Towne and Joiner, op.cit., p. 65. 3Edward Thorndike, and Irving Lorge, The Teachers' Word Book of O 000 Words (New York: Teachers College, Columbia niversity, l . 55 modifications in the SCOAA to elicit data with respect to the influence of peers. On Appendix B these directions were added to the SCOAA: "You are now taking some courses in Compensatory Education which are not college credit courses. Answer the following questions as if you were taking compensatory educa- tion level courses." And, to Appendix C these directions were added to the SCOAA: "You are now taking some courses that are college credit courses. Answer the following questions as if you were only taking college level courses." I Extensive reliability findings regarding the SCOAA scale have been reported previously. Coefficients of reproducibility of .95 for males and .96 for females were computed for 1050 seventh grade students.1 Reliability coefficients calculated by Hoyt's Analysis of Variance were .82, .91, .92, and .86 for males and .77. .84, .84, and .84 for females in the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth grades.2 Correlations of .75 for males and .77 for females were reported in one year test-retest study.3 I . Validity studies of the SCOAA scale have also been report- edgt To test for concurrent validity, correlations were run between the SCOAA scale and the specific subject self-concepts; correlations ranged from .54 to .75.4 Evidence of construct validity was derived from correlation between the SCOAA scale and Perceived evaluation of others. Correlations varied from .60 to .84.5 Predictive validity was determined by correlating the SCOAA with grade point average correlations ranged from .69 to .72.6 1Brookover, et al., 0 .cit., p.51., 2&0 1 P052? 3.1111. 4&0 9 13-55. 511111., p.56. 61bid., p.56-57. Careful administration of the testing schedule was im-. portant to this undertaking. All instruments were administered via mail to Rth sample, and per i Livi ual contact for the 0385 sample. One must be quite careful for Baratzl reports "that black subjects report more anxiety, an? less reliability, when tested by a white examiner than when tested by a black examiner." He also indicates that reported anxiety and relia- bility is subject to the social setting of the test situation. With_these factors in mind, administration of the instruments was handled by the Dean of Students of compensatory education in as matter-of—fact fashion as possible. The first testing took place prior to regiStration in compensatory education, but after actual acceptance into the program. Summer Orientation for CCSs was correlated with Orientation for all RN88. There were seven sessions, each session comprised of approximately 180 RMSs and 50-40 338. When the 0388 completed registration , for the Fall semester, on the third morning of Crientation tley were given the sche- dule which was to be completed before they concluded the regis- tration process. The final testing took place string the last week of the semester. Each student came to the compensatory education office to pick up their final stipecd. At this time they were aSked to complete a schedule and return it to the Dean of Stu- dents before leaving the office. If there were any questions regarding the schedule they were answered frankly. It was emphasized that the student should answer the questions in re- lationship to their conceptions and not on what answers they thought the researcher wanted to hear. 1Stephen Baratz, "Effect of Race of Experimentor, In- structions and Comparison Populations Upon Level of Reported Anxiety in Negro Subjects," Journal of Personality and Social ,Ps cholo , XII (1967), pp. 194—197. 55 The schedules for the RMSs were administered on the. same time sequence as the 6283. However, instead of individual contact the schedules were administered via mail. ‘In order to insure the accuracy of the responses the Ss, compenSatory education and regularly matriculated, were given an IBM sheet on which they could record their responses. These sheets were sent through a scanner and punched. The data was then run through the computer in order to check to see if all the responses registered. Those that did not register were pulled and checked. In most instances all.the reseacher had to do was darken the responses. For identification purposes the researcher filled in the identification box. This included an identification number, sex of the Ss, status of the Ss (RMS or CBS), the race of the 83 (black or white), their location of residence (home or on campus), and course difficulty (high pr low). To divide the subjects academically each type of course was allocated a weighted number. The numerical breakdown of courses registered in is as follows: ‘ Weight Type of Course 1 ' tutorial 2 remedial 5 regular course If a CES subject achieves a numerical rating of 10 or below he will be designated as a "low achievement student (LACES)." If a subject achieves a numerical rating of 11 or over in course difficulty distribution he is designated as a "high ac- hievement student (HACES)." The numerical rating cf 10 or be- ' low was utilized to designate LACES because that 5 had a pre- ponderance of tutorial and remedial courses. Whereas, those 83 with 11 or above had more remedial and regular courses.” After all this information is added to the 85 IBM sheets this is also punched and verified. 56 Sample and Sampling Procedure The population eligible for placement in compensatory education must meet the following gui‘eslines: Eligibility Requirements . Applicants for admission to the compensatory education program must meet the following requirements: . 1. Be a New York high school graduate or hold a New York State High School Equivalency Diploma. - - 2. Live in a defined poverty area within the county. (OEO Guidelines). 5. Be a citizen of the U.S. or have filed a Declaration of Intent. 4. Be entering college for the first time (no prior college experience). 5. Be highly motivated to attend college. 6. Possess the potential to succeed in college. There are no restrictions regarding age, sex, race, color, religion, marital status, or national origin. The sample includes only those students who meet the above mentioned requirements and were selected for enrollment in compensatory education for the 1968—1969 academic year- this includes 190 students. In choosing the 190 participants a total of 54 high schools, 50 community agencies and numerous profes- sional and non-professional conferences were visited, with 1517 students and 307 guidance counselors contacted. Table 4.1 indicates that as a result of these many con-- tacts 1291 applications were received. Table 4.1 Distribution of Applications Received f Status of Application figumber Acceptable 991 Not Meeting 030 500 Guidelines Total l 1291 Upon review, some 500 of these applications were considered ineligible for not meeting one or more of the above mentioned' criteria. Of those eligible Table 4.2 indicates the decisions 57 rendered with respect to possible acceptance. Table 4.2 Decisions On Applications Received. Decisions Number % Accepted 480 49 "Hold" Status 258 - 26. Not Meet Program 58 04 Standards W/D of Failed to 2l5 21 Complete Application __ Total A §§l L 100 Of those eligible 480, or 49% were accepted, 258, or 26% were put on a "hold" status;1 215, or 21% withdrew their applica— tion, or were made inactive for not completing their applica- tion; and 58, or .04% were referred.2 , ' Although a wide variety of high schools are represented, the geographic area considered is traditionally that of low- incomed or disadvantaged, the age range is wide, the sex dis- tribution includes male and female respondents, and the subjects are both black and white. The sample cannot be considered re- presentative of the typical CBS. For instance, students that are academically prepared and capable of achieving a regular college status are not encouraged, in fact discouraged, from applying to compensatory education. Similarly, those who have 'not achieved in high school, for a sundry variety of reasons, are encouraged to apply to compensatory education. It must also be recognized that there may be schools out of the identi- fied geographic district that follow the same characteristics 1Hold status means that the student is acceptable but there is no room at the present time. Should any additional opening become available they will be filled from this group. 2Referred means that the student does not meet the mini- mum standards. These people are referred to vocational coun- selling for directions as to future vocational possibilities. 58 as those within the district, but because of geographic loca- tion are not included. Likewise, instead of selecting subjects at random, the researchers accepted for study all students initially placed in compensatory educationa as a result of identification. How- ever, the lack of randomness does inhibit generalizations since it cannot be claimed that subjects are representative of the compensatory education population in general. But, this re- ~ search is not totally concerned with generalizing findings at this point. Therefore, the lack of total randomness is not a severe limitation. As Goods and Fatt point out the selecting of subjects by the procedure used above has advantages when attempting to include "...extreme cases, sets of cases which seem contradictory, 'ideal' cases, etc."1 A Of the 190 students selected for participation in com- ipensatory education the racial analysis indicates that 88% of the students were black and 12% were white. There are more males (56%) than females (44%), and more than half (61%) of the students had been out of school for less than a year before entering compensatory education. Of the remainder, 15% were out of school for one year, 8% for two years, and the balance (18%) had been out of school for up to ten years. Most of the students are single (81%); however, there are more females (55%) who are married than males (8%). Nearly 90% of the single students were living with parents, but virtu- ally all were self—supporting. There were 21% of the students with one or two dependents, while 15% had up to six dependents. A majority of the students, 59%, come from homes that have an annual family income of between $0000 to 32900. About 22% come from families that have an income of between $5000 and 1William J. Goods and Paul Hatt, Methods in Social Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 5 , p. . 59 and 35999. Another 12% come from homes that have an annual family income of between $6000 to $7499. And finally about 7% come from a family with an annual income of 37500 and over. Table 4.5 Annual Family Income of CESs. Family Income % of Students 0000-2999 59 5000-5999 22 6000-7499 12 7500 and over 7 Of particular interest to any study dealing with self- concept is the educational background of the parents. More mothers (77%) had completed grammar school, but not high school than fathers (55%). About 25% of the fathers were high school graduates while this was true for 50% of the mothers. In gen- eral, in only 18% of the instances did the father have a higher educational level; whereas, for 48% of the sample the mothers educational level was higher. The remaining 54% had parents who received a comparable education. Only beyond the high schOol level is the father's educational level equal to, or more than, the mother. However, the number involved (15) repre- sents only 0.17% of the total sample. In summary, it might be said that the typical CBS for the 1968-1969 academic year was: male, black, 18 years old, had been out of school less than a year, was living at home but was self- supporting, and had come from a home in which both the mother and father had completed grammar school, but not high school. 0f concern to the researcher is subject mortality. Table 4.4 breaks down the reasons for dropping subjects from the sam- ple. The basic reason fro withdrawal from the sample is the fact that the student was not present at the pre and post test situation because they either withdrew from the program or were asked to leave, phased out before completion of the program. 60 Table 4.4 Reasons for certain subjects not to be included in final analysis. Reason humber W/D from program..........20 Phased 0ut................20 No Pre or Post Test.......lfl Total ' 59 Finally, for reason beyond the control of this research pre and post tests were not ascertained for -ert in individuals. Thus, the final sample was whittled from 151 to iZl. The final sample consists of 50 fans ‘ blacks, and 15 whites. , H U J F4 a H 2‘!) 7f! \- H r« p: L... Table 4.5 Final Sample of OHS by Sex and Race. Sex Race black White Sale 64 7 Female 44 6 L The comparative group, not control group, consists of RMSs selected on a purely random basis. This group consists of 7 males and 10 females, as well as 7 blacks and 10 whites. _ The comparative group is relatively small because New York State law forbids the State University of New York from distributing applications which solicits the applicants race. Thus, as the prospective student was interviewed for admission, and identified by an admissions counselor, the name was for- warded to the researcher. In some cases the high school gui- dance counselor indicated to the Admissions Office the race of a candidate. 61 Table 4.6 Final Sample of Regularly Matriculated Students by Sex and Race. Sex Race Black White Male 4 5 Female , 5 L 7 0f the CESs who entered the program in September, 1968, and have completed the 1968-1969 academic year Table 4.7 indi- cates their progress. About 79%, or 150 students, matriculated as full-time college students; 10.5%, or 20 students, withdrew from the program; and 10.5%, or 20 students, were phased out of the program. Table 4.7 Status of BOP Students at the End of One year. H FER CENT STATUS NUMBER Matriculated 150 79.0% Withdrew 20 10.5% Phased Out __gg 10.5% Total 190 100.0% 62 dethods of Analysis Multivariate analysis of variance, like the more fami- liar univariate analysis of variance, facuses upon differences between groups or between experimental conditions- in the case of this research both groups (flack and White, Male and Female, and the Residential and non-Residential) and conditions (regu- larly matriculated and compensatory education) are considered. In analysis of variance, the matter at issue is that of sub- jects, with groups defined by the levels of classification of one or more dependent variables. It must be noted that multi- variate analysis of variance is appropriate to scientific prob- lems of detecting and characterizing differences among experi- mental groups on many variables simultaneously. It must also be noted that a multivariate analysis of regression and covariance is particularly powerful in allowing conclusions to be reached despite some pre—experimental dif- ferences among groups.1 The conception of factor models as descriptions of patterns of association among statistical variables was originally part of a theory contributed to educational psychology by Spearman. He attempted to explain the observed intercorrelations among , IFor a more thorough discussion of multivariate analysis see R.B.Cattell (ed,), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Ps cholo .(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co , 1966), especially CEEEEEE§E%,8,25 and 28; and Dean Whitla ed.), handbook of Measurement of Assessment in the Behavioral Sciences (Reading, Kassachusetts: AddiSon-Wesley, 1967). 2see C. Spearman, General Intelligence, Objectives deter- 'mined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 1904, Vol.15, pp.201-295; Abilities as Sums of Factors, or as Their Products. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1957, V01. 28, pp.629-651; The Proof andgfieasurement of Association Between ggolghings. American Journal of Psychology, 1904, Vol.15, pp. 65 mental tests as the effects of feneral and specific factors of ability. Spearman‘s theory became a contribution to multi- variate statistics zwhen the efforts of Thomson,1 Burt,a hol- zinger an Harman,5 and Thurs ton,4 and others to prove or dis- prove the multivariate theory cultimated in Thurston's multiple factor analysis model. It should be noted that all subsequent statistical developments of the technique of factor analysis depend directly on Thurston's model.5 All hypotheses related to self—concept-of—academic ability, and significant and academic signficant others, will be tested for significance by utilizidg the multivariate analysis of variance with planned orthogonal comparisons. Classification factors will be race (White-Black), sex Male-Female), pro- grams (compensatory e ucation—regularly matriculation), and course difficulty (high-low). The distribution of high class score students and low class score students will be disprOpor- tionate. A functioning computer program foe multivariate anal- ysis of variance with unequal subclass frequencies by least squares will be utilized. Rejection level will be set at .05 for all hypotheses. 1G. H.’ Thomson The Factorial ,n l".:is of human Ability (Boston: Boughton I'zifflin, 1959). see C.L.Burt, The Factors of the Mind: An Introduction to Factor Analysis in Psychology (New York: Macmillan, 1941); TrCorrelation Between Persons," british Journal of Psychology, 1937. Vol.28, pp.59-96; and "The Structure of the Mind: A Re- view of the Results of Factor Analysis," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1949 V01.19. pp.100-111, 176-199. 3K. J. Holzinger and h... Harman, Factor Analysis (Chicago: Univerisyt of Chicago Press, 1941). . L.L.Thurston, Multiple Factor Analysis (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1947). 5M. G. Kendall, A Jourse in Multiva iate Analysis (New York: Hefner, 1957). ANALYSIS CF DATA The results of this investigation, relevant to the primary hypotheses and questions identified in Chapter II, are presented in this chapter. Since the primary focus of this ‘research is on self-concept-of—academic ability, significant others and academic significant others, the author first examines_ the initial relationships to sex, race, and college status. Tests of major hypotheses and questions follow. This data is based upon information from 158 regular college students and compensatory education students in a New York State College. Self-Concept-of—Acadenic Ability By Sex, RaceA And College Status Prior To Enrollment In Compensatory Education Or- Regular College Prior to enrollment as a regular college student, or as a compensatory education student in August, 1968, males and females had equal mean self-concept—of—academic ability scores- mean 28.22. The black students had signficantly higher self— concept-of—academic ability scores, mean 28.50, than their white counterparts, mean 27.85. And, the regular college stu- dents SCOred significantly higher on the self—concept-of—aca- . demic.ability scale, mean 29.55, than the compensatory education students, mean 28.06. It is apparent that all categories, males and females, blacks and whites, and regular college and compen- satory education students, have a relatively high academic self- concept. ' ‘ Table 5.1 Mean Self—Concept—Of—Academic Ability Scores for Sex, ' Race and College Status on the Pre-Test. 64' 65 SEX RACE CQLlhdh STATUS Con ensatory Regular Male Female Black White sducation College Number 78 60 115 25 121 17 Mean Self— Concept or n 7px. I; by O O 1! Academic 28.22 20.22 28.20 a7.e5 20.06 25.55 Ability 1 *Significant beyond the .05 level Males and females identified essentially the same groups as significant others and academic significant others. Both sexes identified parents most frequently as significant others and academic significant otkers. However, the percentage rang- ed from 85 tp 88 percent for significant others, and 77 to 85 It should be noted that the category of teacher is the only category that is men- tioned more frequently as an academic significant other than as a significant other. percent for academic significant others. Table 5.2 Categories of Persons Named As Significant Others and Academic Significant Others in Percent By Sex On the Pre—Test. ' Category of MALE FhHALE . , 'Persons Significant Academic Significant Academic Others Significant , Others Significant Others Others parent 85 85 as 77 offspring 12 01 55 12 relative 47 55 62 57 friend. 41 56 go 48 teacher 15 55 22 50 spouse 01 01 01 01 self 01 01 01 01 Blacks and whites gave essentially the same distribution 66 of72responses when identifying significant others and academic siygnificant others. Parents are most frequently mentioned as significant others (blacks 85 percent-whites 91 percent), and as academic significant others (black 78 percent-white 87 per- ceurt). Again, each category, except teachers, are identified as significant others less frequently than as academic signifi- caurt others. Teachers were cited more frequently as academic 3 significant others than as significant others. ' Table 5.5 Categories of Persons-Named as Significant Others and Academic Significant Others in Percent by Race On The Pre-Test. ' 'Whi‘ e Blac Category of Significant Academic Significant Academic Others ‘ Significant Others ' Significant ‘Persons Others Others ‘ parent ' 91 ~ 87 E5 78 offspring 22 ' 15 21 01 relative ‘ p 57 5O 55 37 friend ‘ 65, 45 ‘ ,46A- 41 teacher 55 . 57 15 ' 57 Spouse_ _Ol 01 ' 01 Ol self ‘ 01 01 . 01 “ ' 01' , Considering the college status of the student, parents are again the most frequently mentioned significant at are (regular cellege 90 percent-compensatory education 84 percent), and academicsignificant others (regular college 94 percent- compensatory education 78 percent), As was the case when males and females, and blacks and whites were compared, the regular college students and compensatory education students identify each category, except teachers, more frequently as significant others than as academic significant others.“ Teachers were loited more frequently as academic significant others than as ”A ‘fi \J significant others. Table 5.4 Categories of Persons Named as Significant Others and Academic Significant Others In Iercent By College Status On The Pre-Test. Regular College Compensatory Education Category of Significant §9a5§mic Significant Acacdemic _ Persons Others Biggigl art Ltners ‘ giggigicant parent 9O ' 84 84 78 offspring OO 00 24 12 relative 82 - 55 5O 55 friend 82 59 45 59 teacher 29 55 17 59 spouse oo oo 09 . 08 self 00 00 O6 O6 Self-Concept-of—Acedemic Ability By Sex; Race and Current Status of Withdrawn and Currently Enrolled Compensatory Education Students Prior to completion of their compensatory education pro- gram a number of students withdrew. There was no significant difference in the mean self-concept—of—academic ability scores of the students who withdrew from the compensatory education ' program and those who completed the program. Table 5.5 Mean Self-ConCept-of-Academic Ability Scores For Continuing'and Withdrawn Compensatory Education Students. qStatus _ Compensatory Education Students Number wean Self-Concept-of-Academic Ability Scores Withdrawn 5O ' 28.95 Continuing 121 28.06 Difference ' .87 N .S . ‘ N .S.( .05 68 Tablsl5.6 Mean Self-Concept-of-Acaiemic Ability Scores By. Sex and Race Of Continuing and Withdrawn Compensatory Education Students. SEX RACE Status Male Female Black White ‘ N Self-Concept 'N’Self—Concept N Self— N Self— of-Academic of—Academic Concept ‘ \Concept .Ability Ability of of - Academic Academic Withdrawn 14 50.15 16 26.58 25 28.59 5 28.48 Continuing 71 28.22 50 28.22 108 28.50 15 27.85 Difference 1 .89" , 1 . em .29 .65 *p< .05 The-male withdrawn compensatory education student had a ' significantly higher mean Self-concept—of-aoademic ability score than the continuing male compensatory education student, whereas, the female continuing compensatory education student had a ' ‘significantly higher mean self-concept—ofl—academic ability score than the female withdrawn compensatory education student. ‘With race controlled there was no significant difference in mean self-concept-of-academic ability scores of black and white continuing and withdrawn compensatory education students; It is apparent that all categories of withdrawn and con- tinuing Compensatory education students; males and females, and blacks and whites-have a relatively high mean academic self concept-score. Hypotheses and Questions The hypotheses and questions in this research are mainly concerned-with impact, or change, in mean self-concept-of-acae 'demic ability scores, significant others, and academic *% 69 or enrollment in a compensatory education we ram after one year. Thus, the following hypotheses will heel with an analy- sis of change from a pre (Test IO to post " Hypothesis I: The self-concept-of—acadehic ability of compen- by an ascend- ing trend from Test 1 to Test 2. H : SCOAA SCCLQA 1 l< “.f Statistics: Heats and Univariate Analysis of Variance d :2 . {‘I'V‘l) There was e si giji int positive banks in mean self- concept-of—acuiem c abi,fxy scores for he tctrl compensatory st ;. There was also 6 lf—concept-of-academic c t education student grouj from Test I to T a significant positive orange ’n mean se ed ability scores for black compensatory qucwtion students as well as male compensatory educ tion ntuients from Test I to Test 2. There was no significant clunre in menu self—concept- of—academic ability scores for white compensatory education students or female compensatory educrtion students from Test I to Test.2. Thus, hypothesis I holds true for the total com- pensatory education student group, male and black compensatory 'education students, but not for female and white compensatory education students. ' Table 5.7 Changes in Kean Self-Concept~of—Academic Ability Scores of Compensatory Education Students By Race 71 1.. 1.3080 and Sex From Pre to Iost Compensatory 'Mean Self-Concept—of—Academic Ability Scores Education Students N Pre Test Post Test ChangegPost-Pre)_ Total Group 121 28.06 28.75. - .69* 'Black 108 -8.19 28.99 .79’ White 15 26.92 26.77 -.15 Male 71 28.15 ‘ 29.06 .92* Female 50_ 27.95 28.52 .56 *p<}05 70 When the variables of sex and race are cembined it is noted that white and black male , and black female compensaa tory education students had a significant positive change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores from Test I to Test 2; whereas, white female compensatory education students changed significantly in a negative manner in mean self-concept- of academic ability scores from Test I to Test.2. Therefore, Hypothesis I holds true for the total compensatory education group, both male and female black compensatory education stu- ‘ dents, and male white compensatory education students, but not for female white compensatory students. Table 5.8 Changes in Mean Self-Concept-of-Academic Ability ' Scores of Compensatory Education Students By Race and Sex Combined From Pre and Post Tests. Race and Sex Mean Self-Concept—of—Academic Ability Scores Stuggnt ' 7 N Pre-Test Post—Test ChangeCPost-Pre) white male _7 26.429 27.429 1.000* ~black male 64 28.515 29.254 .9195 white female 6' 27.500 26.000 -l.500 black female 44 28.025 x 28.656 .615* * pQOE i' i .Rypothesis II: The change in.mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores of compensatory education students will be greater than the changes in the mean self-concept-of—academic 'ability scores of regular college students. Statistic: Univariate Analysis of Variance .“3 005 When_the total group of regular college students and come pensatory education students are combined there is a signifi- cant positive change in mean self-concept—of—academic ability 71 scores from Test I to Test 2. There was no significant dif- ference in the change in mean self-concept—of—academic ability, scores between black and white regular college or compensatory education students. And, there was no significant difference in the change in mean self-concept—of—academic ability scores between regular college students and compensatory education students. ' Table 5.9 An Analysis of Variance of the Pre—Post Test Mean _Self-Concept—Cf—Academic Ability Scores for the Total Group, Race and College Status. . - Total Group Race College Status Means Squared 29.5472 5.8695 .0111 Univariate P 6.8125 1.5625 .0026 ‘ Pre-Post ' Probability for regular college and compensatory education students . .0101* .2452 .9596 r L J , # P< .05. Thus, Hypothesis II is rejected because there was no significant difference in the change in mean self-concept-of- academic ability scores between regular college students and ,'cOmpensatory education students. However, there was a signi- ficant positive change in mean self—concept-of—academic ability 'scores from Test I to Test 2 for the total group of compensatory education students and regular college students. Therefore, the compensatory education student did have a significant posi- rtive change in mean self-concept-of-academic ability scores. from Test I to Test 2, but so did the regular college student. gflypothesis_III. Those named as significant others by compensa- tory education Students do not differ from those named by regular college students. ' 72 H5: $03 (0383) = 808 (RMSS) Statistic: Univariate Analysis of Variance «‘005 To elicit from the students which persons they perceived as significant others they were asked, "Who are the people that you feel are important in your life?" These responses \uere grouped into seven categories; parents, offspring, rela- tives, friends, teacher, spouse,and themselves. 0n Test I there was a significant difference in-signifi- cant others identified by the compensatory education students and the regular college students in the categories of off4 spring, relatives, and friends. The compensatory education ' students chose offspring more frequently, while the regular .college students identified relatives and friends more fre- _ quently. It should be_noted that the significant difference in the category of offspring between the regular college stu—N dent and compensatory education student should be discounted. since none of the regular college students were married; nor had children. Whereas, because of the wide age range of the .compensatory education students, there were some that were married and had children. There was no significant difference between regular college students and compensatory education students in the categories of parents, teachers, spouse, and themselves as significant others, Table 5.10 Categories of Persons Named as Significant Others in Percent by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Pre-Post. Significant Compensatory Regular College Probability . Others Education Stu- Students , . dents‘ parent , '84 790 .117 offsPring 24 ' 00 .011* relative 50 , 82 .007’ friend 45 82 , ' .014* teacher ’ 17 - 29 .716 spouse . Ol 00 .158 self 1 01 . 00 , .290 *p(.05 75 On Test 2 there were significant differences in signi- ficant others identified by compensatory education students and regular college students in the categories of offspring, self, relative, friend and teacher. Teachers, offSpring and themselves were more frequently identified by compensatory education students while re: ula r college students identified relatives and friends more frequently. Table 5.11 Categories of Persons Named as Significant Others in Percent by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Post Test. Significant Compensatory Regulaerollege Probability Others Education ‘ Students ~ . ‘ Students parent 84 94 - ' .117. offspring 40 00, .011* relative, 55 76 . .OO7* friend ' 55 71 .014* teacher 49 29 .Ol6* spouse. - 21 ’00 .158 self 61 ‘ OO ', .OO2* *p<.05 ‘ During regular college enrollment or enrollment in a compensatory education program there was no significant dif- ference in the changes from Test I to Test 2 when identifying parents, relatives, friends, and spouse as significant others, between compensatory education students and regular college students. There was a significant difference in the changes from Test I to Test 2 between compensatory education students and regular college students when identifying significant others for the categories of offspring, teacher and themselves. .All these changes were for compensatory education students. Table 5.12 Percentage and Changes in Persons Named as Signi- ficant Others by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students For Pre and Post-Test. 74 Significant Compensatory Regular Pre-Post Probability Others Education College for Compensatory Educa- Studsnts Students tion and Regular College ? Students Combined Pre Post Pre Post parent 84 84 9O 94 .9122 offspring 24 40 00 00 .0499‘ relative 55 53 82 76 -.5594' friend 45 55 82 71 .0811 teacher 17 49 29 29 .0369* spouse Ol 21 00 00 .5851 self 01 61 OO 00 .OOOl’ "M -05 When significant others were ranked according to fre- quency of choice by regular college students and compensatory .education students at Test I and Test 2, parents rank first. Teachers rank fifth at Test 1 and Test 2 for compensatory education Students, and fourth at Test I and Test 2 for regu- lar cbllege s Table 5.15 tudents. Ranking_of Significant Others Identified By Com-. pensatory Education Students and Regular College Students at the Pre and Post-Tests. Regular College Students Compensatory Education Students Pre %’ Post , % . Pre % parents 84 parents 84 parents ~9O relatives 5} self' 61~ relatives 82 friends 45 relatives 55 'friemds 82 offspring 24 friends 55 teachers 29 teacher 17 teacher 49 i spouse Ol offspring 4O . self 01 spouse 21 ! Post % parents 94 relatives 76 friends 71 . teachers 29 ' The regular college student never identified offspring, spouse or themselves as significant others. 'However, once .again it must be emphasized that regular college students are 75 not usually married upon entering college and would not identi- fy spouse or offspring as significant others. There is basic agreement between regular college students and compensatory education students when identifying parents, relatives, friends, and teachers as significant others. Thus, hypothesis III holds true for compensatory education students and regular college students in the significant others categories of parents, relatives, friends and teachers, but not for the significant others categories of offspring, spouse and them- selves. It is noted that from Test I to Test 2 the compensa- tory education student identified the teacher 52 percent more often as a significant other than did the regular college stu- dent. Hypothesis IV: Those named as acafemic significant others by .compensatory education students do not differ from those named by regular college students. H4 : ASOs (CESs) = ASOs (RKSs) Statistic: Univariate Analysis of Variance 5‘: .05 To elicit from the students which persons they perceived as academic significant others they were asked, "Who are the people that you feel are concerned with how well you do in school?" These reSponses, as was true of Hypothesis III, were grouped into seven categories; parents, offspring, relatives,- friends, teachers, spouse, and self. In both Test I and Test 2, compensatory education students and regular college students most frequently named parents as academic significant others. ’On Test I there was a significant difference in the com— pensatory education students and regular college students identification of relatives and friends as academic significant others. In both cases the regular college studentscchose rela- tives and friends more frequently then the compensatory educa- .tion students did. There was no significant difference when regular college students and compensatory education students 76 identified academic significant others for the categories of parents, offspring, teachers, spouse and self. Table 5.14 Categories of Persons Named as Academic Signifi- ' cant Others in Percent by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Pre Test. Academic I Compensatory Regular Probability Significant Education College ‘ Others t Students Students parents 78 . 94 .198 offspring 12 00 .065 relative 55 55 .040* friend. 59 59 .048* teachers . 59 ’ 55 .172 spouse 01‘ 00 .139 _self 02 00 .292 *P<.-05 ' On Test 21a larger proportion of the compensatory educa- ation students identified themselves as academic significant . others than the regular college students. There was no signi-_ ficant difference between regular college students and compen- satory education students for the academic significant others categories of parents, offspring, relatives, friends, teacher, and spouse. Table 5.15 Categories of Persons Named as Academic Significant Others in Percent by Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Post Test. Academic Compensatory Regular Probability Significant ' Education College Others Students - Students ' parent ‘ ‘ 75 ~ 94 - .148 offspring 19 p 00 . _. .055 relative 4O 47 .167 .friend . 4O 59 .117 teacher 44 47 .921 V‘spouse 16 01 .451 . self ' 55 OO . .001t ItP‘oOS I 77 During regular college enrollment, or enrollment in a compensatory education program there were no significant changes in the categories of parents, offspring, relative, friend, teacher and spouse from Test I to Test 2 as academic significant others by either the regular college student or the compensatory education student. significant increase in the academic significant other cate— gory of self for the compensatory education students. lowever, there was a Table 5.16 Percentage and Changes in Persons Named Academic Significant Others by Compensatory Education Stu- dents and Regular College Students For Pre and Post-Test. Academic Compensatory Regular Pre—Post Probability .Significant Education College for Compensatory Others Students Students Education and Regular College Students Combined Pre Post Dre Post parent 78 75 94‘ 94 .859 offspring l2 19 00 00 .724 relative 55 4O 55 47 .595 friend 59 4O 59 59 .975 teacher 59 44 55 47 .785 spouse Ol 55 00 00 .001* l sp< .05 When the academic significant others are ranked according‘ to frequency of choice by compensatory education students or regular college students on Tests I and 2 the parent ranks first and the teacher ranks third. Friends rank second on both Tests I and 2 for regular college students, and ranked second on Test I and fifth on Test 2 for compensatory education stu- ,dents. The radical change from seventh in Test I to second in Test 2 by compensatory education students may be explained by citing the fact that the compensatory education student now became more aware of his academic success, and perceives that he needs a positive attitude in order to achieve further. Table 5.17 Ranking of Academic ii nificent Others Identified By Compensatory Education Students and Regular College Students on the Ire and Post—Tests. Compensatory Education Students Regular College Students are , ‘ 55 Post 96 Pre 273 Post 56 'parents 78 parent 75 parent 94 parent 94 friend 59 self 55 friend 59 friend 5 teacher 59 teacher 44 teacher 55 teacher 47 relative 55 relative 40 relative 55 relative 47 offspring l2 friend 40 ‘ spouse Ol offspring 19 self 01 spouse 16 Therefore, Hypothesis IV is rejected because the regular rcollege student never identified offspring, Spouse or self as academic significant others. Powever, it must be emphasized ‘again that most regular college students are not married upon entering college thus the non—identification of offspring and spouse should be minimized. There was basic agreement between regular college students an: compensatory education students when identifying parents, relatives, friends and teachers as academic significant others. Thus, Hypothesis IV holds true. for compensatory education students and regular college stu- dents in the academic significant otEers categories of parents, relatives, friends, and teachers, but not the categories of spouse, offspring and self. Hypothesis V: The change in mean self-concept-of-academic ability scores is greater among "low" achievement compensatory education students than among "high" achievement compensatory education students during compensatory education. H SCCAA (1311038)) SCCAA (HACJS) 5: Statistic: Univariate Analysis of Variance °(=,o5 'To clarify a compensatory education student as a "high 79 achiever" or "low achiever" the researcher examined the degree of tutorial, remedial and regular class enrollment during compensatory education. Each type of instruction was weighted in the following manner: ‘ weight Type of Instruction 1 Tutorial 2 Remedial 5 Regular College Course Those compensatory education students identified as "low achievers“ were classified in this manner because of the .greater degree of tutorial and remedial work necessary.to ,bring them up to college level achievement (a weighted score of 11 or below classified the compensatory education student ‘as a ”low achiever"). Those compensatory education students identified as a "high achiever" were classified thus because fewer tutorial and remedial courses were necessary to bring them up to college level aChievement (a weighted score of 12 or above categorized the compensatory education student as a "high achiever"). ' At Test I there was a significant difference in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between the "high" and 910w"'achievement compensatory education student, with the , "high achiever" having a higher mean self-concept-of-academic ability Score. However, at Test 2 there was no significant difference in mean self-concept—of—academic ability scores between "high" and "low" achievement-compensatory educatiOn students. Table 5.18 Analysis of Variance of Mean Self-Concept-Of—Academic Ability Scores for Pre and Post-Tests of "High" and "Low” Achievement Compensatory Education Students. 'Testing Time Achievement Probability of Difference Between " High. 7 Low "High? and "Low" Achievement Studentg pr. 28.42 27.65 .059* . . Post 28.84 28.65 - .597 *pCOS 80 Table 5.19 indicates that there were significant dif- ferences in the changes in mean self-concept-of—academic abir lity scores for the compensatory education student group as a whole. However, there were no significant differences in the change in mean self—concept-of—academic ability scores for "high" and "low” achievement compensatory education students. Thus, Hypothesis V is rejected because there were no significant differences in the changes in mean self-concept- of—academic ability from Test I to Test 2 between the Thigh" and "low" achievement compensatory education students. 'How- ever, the mean self-concept-of-academic ability scores, from Test I to Test 2, changed 1.00'for the "low" achievement com- pensatory education student, while the "high" achievement com- pensatory education student changed but .42. Table 5.19 Analysis of Variance For Changes in Mean Selfe Concept-Of—Academic Ability Scores from Pre to Post Tests For All Compensatory Education Students and Achievement Levels. All—Compensatory Achievement Education Students ‘ Level Means.Squared 58.5140, 8.9118 Univariate F 6.4186 .9809 Pre-Poet , Probability for Regular College and Compensatory Students Combined .0127* .5241 *p< .05 Hypotheses VI and VII deal with the compensatory educa- tion student's perception of his self-concept-of-academic '.ability when he compares himself with specific others. .éi7337_239thesis VI: When a compensatory education student compares himself With another compensatory education student there will be no difference in mean self—concept-of-academic ability scores 81 ‘between his own mean score and the mean score attained when using another compensatory education student as a referent. Hypothesis VII: When a compensatory eéucation student compares Zhimself with a regular college student the compensatory educa- tion student will have a lower mean self~concept-of—academic ability score than his own mean score and the mean score at- tained when using a regular college student as a referent. Statistic: Univariate Analysis of Variance C(= .05 Table 5.20 Mean Self-Concept—Cf—Academic Ability Scores of Compensatory E ucation Students by Race, When No Specific Reference Is Identified, When heferring To Other Compensatory Education Students and When Referring to Regular College Students. Self-Concept-of WFSelf-Concept Self-Concept— Race N Academic Ability of-Academic .‘ of-Academic Score When Speci- Ability Score Ability Score fic Reference is hhen Referring When Referring Identified to Other Com- to Regular pensatory Ld- 4 College Students -ucation Students White 15 26.77 ’ 28.54 . 2e.oo Black 108 28.99 ' 29.58 28.90 » h } Table 5.21 An Analysis of Variance of Compensatory Education Student's Mean General Self-Concept-Cf—Academic Ability, and When Referring To Other Compensatory Education Students, and Regular College Students By Race and Total Compensatory Education Student Group. ' - 82 Total Compensatory Race of Compensatory Education Student Education Student Group vs.other vs.regu1ar vs.other vs.regular compensatory college compensatory college education students education students students V students Means Squared 62.5557 5.5058 16.0645 5.5124 Univariate F 25.2865 1.2165 6.4959 1.9549 Probability of Difference be- tween General Self-Concept- of-Academic Ability and Referent Self- Concept-of-Acaa .demic Ability .OOCl* .2725 .0121* .1647 ”TX .05 Hypotheses VI and VII will be treated together. In order to gather the necessary data the General Self-Concept-Of-Aca- demic Ability Scale was administered with two sets of direc- tion---" You are now taking some courses in the compensatory education program which are not college credit courses. Ans— wer the following questions as if you were only taking compen- satdry education courses.” And, "You are now taking some courses that are regular college credit courses. Answer the following as if you were only taking college credit courses." When the compenSatory education student answers the questibn, "You are now taking some courses in the compensatory education program which are not college credit courses. Answer the following questions as if you were only taking compensatory education courses," this will elicit a self-concept-of—academic ~ability score when the compensatory education student is using other compensatory education students as a referent. Whereas, when the compensatory education student answers the question, ”You are now taking some courses that are regular college s 5 credit courses. Answer the following as if you were only 'taking college credit courses," will elicit a self-concept— ~of-academic ability score when the compensatory education student is using regular college students as a referent. When the white compensatory education students refer to other compensatory education students they perceive themselves as having a high self-concent-of~academic ability score than other black or white compensatory education students. Whereas, ‘when the black compensatory education students refer to other compensatory education students tley perceive themselves as not being different in self-concept-of—academic ability scores than other black or white compensatory education students. However, when black and white compensatory education ' students refer themselves to black or white regular college students they perceive themselves as not having a different ' self-concept-of—academic ability score. Therefore, it can be concluded that the black compensatory education students per- ceive themselves with little variance, when referring themselves to other black or white, regular or compensatory education students. Whereas, when the white compensatory education stu- dents refer themselves to black or write compensatory education students they perceive themselves as having a higher self- concept-of—academic ability score than black or white compensa- xtory education students, and a lower self-concept-of—academic ability score when they refer themselves to black and white regular college students. Table 5.21 indicates that the total compensatory education student group perceived themselves as having a significantly higher mean self—concept—of—academic ability score when they referred themselves to other black or white compensatory educa- tion students, and they perceived no significant difference in mean self-Concept—of-academic ability scores when they referred themselves to black or white regular college students. . Therefore, Hypothesis VI is rejected for the white com- pensatory education student, but not for the black compensatory education student. Hypothesis VII is also rejected because 84 there was no si gnificant difference in mean self— concept- of- academic ability scores for white or black compensatory educa— tion students when they compared themselves to white or black regular college students. Hypothesis VIII: The change in mean self—concept-of-academic ability scores will be greater for compensatory education students living on campus than for those compensatory educa- tion students still living in their ghetto homes. ‘ H8: non-resident (SCCAAJ‘) rwsident (SCOAA) Statistic: Univariate Analysis of Variance .(= There were 27 black and no white compensatory education students removed from their environment and placed in campus housing; while 15 white and 81 black compensatory education students remained housed in their normal environment. Table 5.22 Mean Self—Concept—Cf—Acedemic Ability Scores on Pre and Post Tests For Race and Place of Residence Combined. Race and Place of N Mean Self—Concept—Cf—Academic Ability Residence Scores Pre—Test Post-Test white resident 0 ------ --——--- ‘white non—resident l5 2‘.92 26.77 black resident 27 28.19 ' 28.55 black non-resident L81 28.20 29.21 The mean self—concept—of—academic ability scores were significantly increased from the beginning to the end of the Icompensatory education program for all compensatory education students. However, there was no significant difference in the change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between 85 black and white, as well as resident and non-resident compen- satory education students. _Table 5.25 An Analysis of Variance of Change in Mean Self-‘ Concept-Of-Academic Ability Scores For All Compene satory Education Students and By Race and Place and Residence. All Compensatory Race Place of Education Students Residence Pre—Test Change Pre-Test Change Pre-Tesd Change Means Squared 95256.4050 58.5140 18.7553 10.4751 .0051 15.1235 Univariate F 17846.5029J 6.4186 5.5158 1.1550 .0006 1.6708 Difference ‘ .0001 .0127* .0654 .28551 .9809 .1987 * J *p < .05 Therefore, Hypothesis VIII is rejected for there was no significant difference in the change in mean self-conceptéof- academic ability scores between resident and non—resident compensatory education students. Questions {In addition to the hypotheses discussed previously there' are many questions to be answered that would shed light on the. 'general topic of self-concept-of-academic ability and its rele- vance to compensatory education students. Question I: "Is the level of mean self-concept-of- - academic ability different fro black and white compensatory educatiOn students," can be answered by referring to Table 5.1. Table 5.1 points out that the black compensatory education stu- dent had a significantly higher mean self-concept-of—academic ability score than the white compensatory education student at Test I. 86 Question 2: "Is the c ange in level of mean self-concept- of-academic ability score greater among black or white compensa- tory education students," can be answered by referring to Table 5.9. There was no significant difference in the level of change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between black and white compensatory education students. Question 5: "Does the level of mean self—concept-of— academic ability scores, and change in level of mean self-con— cept-of—academic ability scores, differ for black and white compensatory education students and black and white regular college students," can be answered by referring to Table 5.9 and 5.10. Table 5.9 indicates that both black and/or white regular college students had a significantly higher mean self— concept—of—academic ability score than black and/or white compensatory education students. Table 5.10 points out that there was no significant difference in the change in mean self— concept—of—academic ability scores between black and white' .compensatory education students, and black and white regular cellege students. Question 4: "Are there any changes in the academic significant others that are associated with compensatory educa- tion program placement," may be answered by referring to Table 5.16. There was a significant increase when identifying them- selves as an academic significant other during their enrollment as compensatory education students. A summary of the findings follow. For this group of regular college students and compensatory education students: (1) The change in mean self-concept-of-academic ability score for the various groups of compensatory education students varied from -.15 to .92. The white compensatory education students had a significant negative change in mean self-concept- ~ofeacademic ability scores, while the black compensatory educa- tion students had a significant positive increase in mean self- ‘concept-of-academic ability scores. There were also signifi- cant positive increases in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores for male and female compensatory education students. 87 (2) There was a significant increase from Test I to Test 2 for all groups combined in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores. However, there was no significant difference in the changes in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between compensatory education students and regular college students, and between males and females. ‘ ‘ (5) There was a significant difference between the jproportion of compensatory education students and regular col— lege students who identified parents and teachers as signifi- cant others. A large pr0portion of compensatory education stu- dents identified themselves as significant others; whereas, _ a larger proportion of regular college students identified rela- tives and friends. - (4) There was no significant difference between the «proportion of compensatory education students and regular col- .lege students who identified parents, relatives, friends, and .teachers as academic significant others. A larger proportion of compensatory education students identified themselves as academic significant others. (5) There was a significant increase in mean self-con- cept-of—academic ability scores for the total group of compen- satory education students. However, there was no significant difference in the change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between "high" and "low" achievement compensatory educa- tion students, nor between white and black compensatory education. students. I (6) When white compensatory education students use other black or white compensatory education students as a referent, the white compensatory education students perceive themselves to have a significantly higher self-concept-of—academic ability score than other black or white compensatory education students. But, the black compensatory education students perceive them- -selves as not having a different self-concept-of—academic ability score when they referred themselves to other black or white compensatory education students. However, when the black and white compensatory education students use other black mr 88 white regular college students as a referent, the black and white compensatory education students perceive tiemselves as not having a different self—concept-of—academic ability score than other black and/or white regular college students. (7) There was no significant difference in the change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability between students who lived on campus and those that lived in their home. Discussion of Findings Although the positive changes in mean self— -concept-of- academic ability scores were sivnificant for the total compen- satory education student group, there was no significant dif- ference in the changes in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between, the compensatory education students and regular college students. However, the changes in mean self-concept-of—A academic ability scores were almost twice as great for the .compensatory education student (.69), than for the regular col- lege student (.56). It is interesting to note that both the black and white regular college students had a significantly higher mean self— —concept— of—academic ability score than black and white compensatory education students. - Because of the wide age range, and their tendency to be married, the compensatory education students identified spouse and offspring more often as significant others and academic . _significant others. Traditionally, the regular college student, especially upon entrance into college, is not married: Thus, there would be no reason for the regular college student to ichoose either Spouse or offspring as significant others or as \academic significant others. i The compensatory education students more frequently identified themselves as being a significant other and academic significant other. One can only assume that this is a reaCtion ' by the compensatory education student to the pervasive philosophy of the general public that compensatoryeducation students are 89 not "good enough" to make it in colle e. Thus, this creates within the compensatory education SLUuuflt an intense desire to "show the world" that he has the ability to achieve in college. Therefore, an intense pride in hi self is created. When the compensatory education students were categorized into "high" or "low" achievement students, it was hypothesized that because the "low aciiever" had a greater number of one-to- one contacts that he would have a more significant change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores. The hypothesis held true since the "low achiever" had a significantly lower mean self-concept-of-academic ability score than the "high ac- hiever" on the pre-test, but there was no significant difference in mean self-concept-of—acaeemic ability scores between the I'high" and tlow" achievement convensatory education student on the post-test. .' After one year in corrensatory education the compensatory education students perceived themselves as being equal to a regular college student in academic ability, and superior to compensatory education students in academic ability. There hasbeen much research done on the deleterious effect of a poor environment upon educational achievement and ‘motivation. Thus, it was hypothesized that removal from a "poor" environment would result in a significant change in mean self- concept-of—academic ability scores. however, contrary to Hypothe- sis VIII, there was no significant difference in the change in 'mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores between those come‘ pensatory education students who lived in their homes and those that lived in college dormitories. _However, it musthe noted that there was a positive numerical change, although not signi- ficant, in mean.self—concept-of—academic ability scores of black resident and non-resident compensatory education students, but not for white resident and non-resident compensatory education students. This may be explained by stating that white compensa- tory education students perceive this compensatory education program as being a black program and they state that "we don't belong." To understand the data within the broader theoretical orientation of this stufy one must look at the instrument used to assess self-concept-of—academic ability. Since the scores on the General Self—Concept-of—Academic Ability Scales depend upon the individual comparing himself to a particular reference, changes in reference groups could conceivably change the indi- vidual's self-concept-of—academic ability. Thus, when a student is labelled as a compensatory education student and placed in a program, his evaluation of himself may be based upon a com- parison with other compensatory education students rather than students in the larger school society. And, since his chances of succeeding are greater in the compensatory education program, rather than in the regular college, he may have a higher self- concept-of—academic ability score. After one year, and exposure to both regular college students and compensatory education students, the compensatory education student now perceives that he can achieve at the same level academically as a regular’ college student, and at a higher level academicaaly than other compensatory education studentS. Limitations of Study Before concluding it would be beneficial to point out some_of the limitations of this study. The limitations imposed by the absence of a random selection of regular college students make it necessary to state that the finding reported herewith are not meant as general statements, but for this group only. A word should be inserted about the size of the N. Sbme researchers may be concerned that the compensatory education , student papulation contains a disproportionate number of blacks ’(108) and whites (15). However, it should be pointed out that .if one understands the need for compensatory education it would be assumed that proportionate to need the ratio that exists is "true to the total population. Namely, that blacks are more . 'often in need of compensatory education than whites. In addi- tion, and.unfortunately as occurs with many studies which 91 ventend over a period of time, a portion of the students were last (Pre-149, Post-121). In some instances, particularly with these students who withdrew from the compensatory education jprogram prior to Test 2, a biasing effect may have been intro— duced. In the case of the regular college student sample, for icomparison purposes, the whites were randomly chosen but this was not the case with the blacks. Because of the lack of sophis- ticated methods of identification, and legal entanglements involved, the blacks were identified by the college admissions office through various methods-recommendations, picture of candidate, and by interview. , A final word concerning the absence of an appropriate regular college student control group: while this design is not without controls, it would have been much more comfortable to . talk about the findings if such a group had been possible.. For this study it was felt that a control group was not necessary) and that a comparative group would suffice. In addition, it would have been helpful if the regular college student sample were given Appendices A and B, so the researchers could perceive as to whether the same phenomenn of referent disparity exists for the regular college students as did for the compensatory education students. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CFLCLUSIONS, AND IHPLICATICNS CU; LmaI‘ /AS pilot effort, the purpcse of this study was to inves- tigate the effect of compensatory education on selected soci- ally determined intervening variables which may affect the academic growth and performance of compensatory education stu- dents. Specifically, this study focuses upon three related problems: 1) Is admission of a student into a compensatory education program accompanied by social influences (intervening variables) which are generally nega- tive and strong enough to counteract the benefits of the supposedly more ideal educational setting? 2) Will success in a compensatory education program predict a likelihood of that student achieving a college degree? 3) Does peer group companionship of the individual, involved in compensatory education have any bearing upon the individual's success? Subsumed under this general problem are the more specific research problems. These are: 1) What happens to the self—concept—of—academic ability of students engaged in a compensatory ed- ucation program? 2), Who are the significant and academic significant others of compensatory education students? 5) Is the change in self-concept-of—academic ability similar for regularly enrolled students, as it is for compensatory education students? 4) Do compensatory education students perceive the same significant others and academic significant others and regular college students? “Answers to these problems were sought by testing the following theoretically derived hypotheses: 92 93 Hypothesis I. The self-conccjt-of-academic ability of compensatory education stu-cnts will be characterized by an ascending trend from Test 1 to Test 2. Hypothesis II. The change in mean self—concept-of—academic ab1 1 y scores of compensatory education students will be greater than the changes in the mean self-concept- of-academic ability scores of regular college students. Hypothesis III. Those named as significant others by the compensatory education students do not differ from those named by regular college students. Hypothesis IV. Those named as academic significant others by the compensatory education students do not differ from those named by the regular college students. Hypothesis V. The change in mean self-concept-of-aca- demic ability scores is greater among "low” achievement compensatory education students than0 among "high" achievement compensatory education students d.uring com- pensatory education. Hypothesis VI. When a compensatory education student compares himself with a fellow compensatory education student there will be no difference in mean self-con- cept—of-academic ability scores between the two. Hypothesis VII. When a compensatory education student cpmpares himself with a regular college student the compensatory education student will have a lower mean self-concept- of-academic ability score than the regular college student. Hypothesis VIII. The change in mean self-concept-of— academic ab1lity scores will be greater for compensatory education Students living on campus than for those com- pensatory education students still living in their ghetto homes. In addition to the aforementioned hypotheses'a number of questions are also investigated- These are: Question 1). 'Is the level of self—concept-of—academic ability . different for black and white compensatory education students? Question 2). Is the change in level of self-concept-of— academic ability greater among black and white compensatory education students? Question 3). Does the level of self-concept-of-academic ability and change in level of self-concept-of—academic ability differ among the black and white compensatory education students and black and white regular college students? \O 4: Question 4). Are there any changes in the identified academic significant others associate7 vith compensatory educa- tion program placement? ' The subjects of this study were male and female students from a specific geographic area (by Cffice of Equal Cpportunity standards classified as disadvantaged), who wire selected to participate in a compensatory education prOgr m during the 1968- 1969 school year. In addition, a compa‘ative group of students both females and males throughout the state of New York, and entering college for the first time. were randomly selected from the freshman class of 1968-1969 in an Tastern State Univer- sity College. By racial composition, the compensatory education students consisted of blacks and whites. In the case of the compensatory eduCation students, the admissions office of the compensatory education program designated eligibility according to past academic performance, geographical reSidence, motivation for extended education and potential success in college work. The admissions office of the regular college chose students upon part academic performance (high school average, and intensity of high school course preparation), scores on standardized-tests and by personal interview. In a time series design, two observations were made on the same subjects prior to their enrollment as a compensatory education student or a regular college student through their first year. The instruments used were developed by Wilbur Brook- over and his associates, and adapted for use with regular college students and compensatory education students by the author, in this study to test the Brookover social-psychological theory of learning. They are: general self-concept-of-academic ability scale, significant others test, and academic significant others test. In addition, the author also developed a specific self- concept-ofeacademic ability sclae so that compensatory education students could compare themselves with other compensatory educa- tion students and regular college students. The resulting data were analyzed by using (1) a test for change in self-concept- 95 od-academic ability involving repeated meansuros on the same subjects; (2) an analysis of variance with planned orthogonal comparisons with unequal subclass frequencies by lease squares; and (3) graphic comparisons. Specific findings were: 1) There was an ascending trend in mean self-concept- of—academic ability scores for the compensatory educa- tion students of .69 over a one year period. however, when the variable of race was considered hypothesis I held true bor blacks, but not for whites. then the variable of sex is taken into consideration both sexes had an ascending mean self-concept-of-academic ability score. A more careful analysis of the data indicates that the white female is responsible for the descend- iggtmean self-concept-of-academic ability score of the w es. 2) All groups, compensatory education students and regular college students, changed in mean self-ccncept- of-academic ability scores. 3) With the exceptions of offspring, spouse, and self, the compensatory education stu ants and the regular cbllege students did not differ in their identifications of significant others. - ‘4) Compensatory education students and regular college students did not differ on the identification of parents, friends, relatives, and teachers as academic significant others. However, there was a significant difference in the identification of spouse, offspring, and self-all identified by the compensatory education students, but not the regular college students. 5) There was a significant change in mean self-concept- of-academic ability scores for both the "high" achieve-_ ment compensatory education students and the "low" achievement compensatory education students. 6) The compensatory education student perceived himself to be higher in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores when he compared himself with another compensa- tory education student. 7) When the compensatory education student compared himself with a regular college student the mean self- concept-of-academic ability scores were about equal. Thus, the compensatory education student, at the post- test situation perceived himself to be equal in mean self-concept—of-academic ability scores to his regular college student counterpart. 96 8) There was no significant change in mean self-concept— of—academ c ability scores between those compensatory education stuflents donsiéered ”resident" and those con- sidered ”non—resident". Therefore, change in environ- ment did not have an effect on mean self-concept-of— academic ability scores of the compensatory education student. 9) In both tests the mean self—concept-of—academic ability scores were higher for blackc than for whiteS. 10) There was a significant change in mean self-concept- of-academic ability scores for both black and white compensatory education students. ll) There was no change in academic significant others of compensatory ducation students in the categories of parents, offspring, relatives, friends, teachers, and spouse. There was a significant change in the compensatory education students identifying the self as being more academic significant others. Conclusions On the basis of the above summarized findings which resulted from testing the seven research hypotheses and four questions found in Chapter V the following conclusions are made. Generalizations beyond this specific pepulation under study is not intended. If the compensatory education student's self-concept—of~ academic ability does rise as a result of a compensatory educa- tion program, does academic achievement rise likewise as would be expected from Brookover's work with regular grade students?‘ 1) The mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores of compensatory education students exhibit an ascending trend over their year in the compensatory education pro- gram. ‘ 2) At theo(=.05 level all groups, regular college stu- dents and compensatory education students, demonstrated a positive change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores. 5) At theex=.05 level, teachers, offspring, and self for compensatory education students made significant changes as significant others. The categories of parents, relatives, friends, and spouse remained the same. 97 4) At 'the xa.05 level only self was more frequently identified as an academic significant other by the com- pensatory education students. The remaining groups of parents, offspring, relatives, friends, teachers, and spouse remained the same. 5) At thefl(=.05 level all groups ("high" achievement compensatory education students and "low" achievement compensatory education stu3ents) had a significant change in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores. 6) At theo(=.05 level the compensatory education student perceives himself to have a higher self-concept-of—aca- demic ability score when he compares himself with another compensatory education student at the post— test situa- tion. . 7) At the¢(=.05 level the compensatory education student perceives himself to be equal in mean self-concept-of- academic ability score when he compares himself with a regular college student at the post-test situation. 8) At thec(-.05 level all groups (rcsident-non-resident) changes in mean self-concept-of—academic ability scores. However, there is no significant difference when residents and non-residents are considered independently. 9) The level of mean self-concept-of-academic ability scores differ for black and white compensatory education students-black students being higher than their white counterparts on both the pre and post- -test. 10) At the!‘=.05 level the c1“.ange in mean self-concept- of-academic abil.ity scores are greater from the pre to the post-test for both black and white compensatory education students. 11) There is no change at the 0‘: .05 level when the com-1 pensatory education student identifies academic signifi- cant others in the areas of parents, offspring, relatives,« friends, teachers, and spouse. At theg¢=.OS-level there is a significant change in "self" as an academic signifi- ~cant other as a result of compensatory education. Implications for Research . The expected rise in mean self-concept-of-academic ability scores resulting from being labelled a compensatory education student and placed in a compo: atory education program demands explanation. Furthermore, extended research is needed to test whether the ascending trend in self—concept-of-academic ability is merely a brief cycle, perpetuated as a result of an intensive compensatory education program, or does it have a lasting effect throughout the rcxaining years as a compensatory education student. ' If the self-concert—of~acadenic ability of the compensa- tory education student does rise as a result of this compensa- ,cademic achievement of the (D "d tory education program, does th compensatory education student rise likewise as would be expected from Brookover's work with regular class students. If the self- concept-of—acafemic ability does exhibit an association with the compensatory education student's academic achievement, steps can be taken to examine various ways of manipulating it to im- prove academic accomplishment. This is especially true in light of the similarity between compensatory education student signi- ficant others and academic significant others, and regular col- lege student significant others and academic significant others.' It would be worthwhile to replicate Brookover's experiment wherein self—concept—of—academic ability and, thereby academic achievement_were manipulated with significant others. The com4 pensatory education student has particularly identified members of their immediate family, such as spouse and offspring, as well as self, as the significant others to be utilized in experimenta- tion. Assuming that significant others are antecedents of self— concept-of—academic ability, changes in their actions and atti- tudes toward the compensatory education student as a student should be studied as sources for changes in self-concept-of—aca- demic ability trends and academic achievement. And, the percep- tion of significant others should be studied to specify more exactly their relative importance as sources of the compensatory education studsnts's self-definition as a student. Prior to conducting further studies on the compensatory education student, of the nature described previously it would be most helpful to revise the existing scale for use with small 'groups with compensatory education students. Extensive validity and reliability studies should be conducted similar to those performed when adapting the self-concept-of—academic ability scale for use with blind and deaf students.1 Finn suggests that in analyzing the data the 3 item on the self-concept-of- academic ability scale be eliminated. However, particular pains should be taken to insure comparability with the existing Brook- over scales} .' , Furthermore, additional research should be undertaken to see if the compensatory education student, now former com- ipsnsatory student, compares himself favorably with regular col- lege students and as to whether the compensatory education stu- dent continues to compare himself as being "better" than the currently enrolled compensatory education students. Implications for Theory :iThis research, by studying the consequences of compensa- tory education placement on certain socially mediated social psychological constructs, like self-ooncept-of-academic ability, and referent self-concept-of-academic ability, emphasizes the social consequences of being labelled a compensatory education ‘ lLee Joiner, "The Reliability and Construct Validity of Self-Concept-of Academic Achievement-Form D for Hearing Impaired Students," unpublished Ph.d dissertation, Michigan State Univ., '1966. And Edsel Erickson, "Scales and Procedures for Assessing Social Psychological Characteristics of Visually Impaired and ‘ Hearing Impaired Students," 1967. ' 100 student. In particular, findings rewarding the self- cor cept- of-acaaeric ability patt.pp.26 - 1. SeligmanégéB., Permanent Poverty, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, Shuoy,A.M., The Testing of Negro Intelligence, 2nd.ed., New York: Social Science Press, 1966. Simon,K.S., and W.V.Grant, Di est of Educational Statistics, , Washington D.C.: U.S. Eepartment of Health, Lducation, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1967. Simpson Richard L., "Negro-Jewish Prejudice: Authoritarian and ‘ Some Social Variables as Correlates," Social Problems, VII (1959).pp.158+146. Skeols,H.M., ans H.B.Dye, "A Study of the Effect of Differential Stimulations on Mentally Retarded Children,"Proceed- ind Address, American Association of Mental Deficiencies, 44, 1939.pp.114-156. Smith,D.H., "A Speaker Model Project to Enhance Pu 118 Self- ‘ Eggcigé" Journal of Negro Education, XXXVI (1967),pp. Spearman,C., "Abilities as Sums of Factors, or as Their Pro- duogg "6Journal of Educational Psychology, XXVIII (1937), PP0 - . . , "General Intelligence, Objectives Determined and assured " American Journal of Psychology, XV (1904), pp.201-2§3. , "The Proof and Measurement of Association Between Two Things," American Journal of Psychology, XV (1904), pp 0 72-101 0 Stevenson,H.W. and 3.0. Stewart, "A Developmental Study of Racial wareness In Young Children," Child Development, XXIX (1958). PP.399-409. Stillwell,L.J.R., "An Investigation of the Interrelationships Among Global Self-Concept, Role Self-Concept and Achigvement," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII 1966), p.68 . . Strauss A., Mead on Social Ps cholo , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I963. Sutherland,R.L., Color Class and Personalit , Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, I9E§. 114 Talley, Page, "The Relation of Group Counseling to Changes in the Self—Concept of negro Eighth Grade Students," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1967), p.2524. Task Force on Economic Growth and Cpportunity, The Concept of Poverty, hashington D.C.: Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 1965. cation and Employment, mmerce of the United , The Disadvantaged Poor: E W Y . . JV casnington D. .: Chamber of h. States, 1966. :3 \,‘- U. 7'? \J 0 Thomson, G.H., The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability, Boston: nougnton Niflin, 1959. Thurston,L.L., Fultiple Factor Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Towne,Richard C., and Lee N.Joiner, "The Effect of Special Class Placement on the Self-Concept-of-Ability of the Lducable Mentally Retarded Child," Final Report of Grant No.52—52—O4lO—6001, East Lansing: College of Edu- cation, Nichigan State University, 1966. Trager,H.G., and N.R.Yarrow, They Learn that They Live, New York: Harper and Row, 1952. United States Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, V01.I, Washington,D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1967. Narden,Sandra A., ”The Leftouts: Disadvantaged Children in Heterogeneous Schools," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1967), p.296. Warner,N.L., R.J. Havinghurst,znd M.B. Loek, Who Shall Be Educated?, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. Neisbrod,B.A., The Economics of Poverty, Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Whisenton,Joffre T., “A Comparison of Values, Needs,and Aspira- tions of School Leavers with Those Non-School Leavers," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1968), p.196. Will,R.E., and H.G. Vatter (eds.), Poverty in Affluence, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965. Wrenn,G.G., "The Self-Concept In Counseling," Journal of Counseling Psychology, V (1958), pp.lO4—109. 115 tylie,R.C., "Children's Estimates of Their Schoolwork Ability as a bunction of Sex, Race, and Socio-Economic Level," Journal of Personality, (l965),p.205-224. , The Self-Concep , Lincoln: University of Nebraskas 116 Appendix A How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with your close friends? - W-PWWH 00000 How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with those in your class at school? Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best How do you think you ranked in your high school graduating class? Do you think 1. 2. 5. 4. 5. Where do you lege? #«Nnna 5. Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best you have the ability to complete college?’ N o Probably not Not sure either way Yes,probably Yes.definitely think you would rank in your class in col- Poorest Below average Average Above aVerage The Best In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university pro- fessor, work beyond four years of college is necessary. How likely do you think it is that you could complete such advanced work? 1. \n-P'KNN Most likely ; Unlikely 1 Not sure either way ‘ Somewhat likely Very likely 117 Forge et for tl‘.e mom ment how others grade your work. your opinion how good do you think your work really is? l. Tuch below average 2. Below average 5. Average 4. Good 5. Excellent What kind of grades do you think you are capable of getting? 0 O T”? ()0 com dc+ PM4 as: OU’Ii \D#\Nf\)l—‘ O I v—‘gw 00 mm crct- HI—J %t< m 0 E) m Cf H (4 U) In DIRECTICNS: 118 Appendix B (Read carefully) You are now taking some courses in the SEEK Program which are not college level courses. (Use only one answer per ques- tion . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with your close friends? \J‘I-PKNRJH 00000 Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with those in your class at school? \fl-PKNI’UI—J Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best How do you think you rated in your high school graduating class? \fl-‘rme 0000. Do you think 10 2. 5. 4. 50 Where do you lege? \J'l-PKNNH o a... Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best you have the ability to complete college? No Probably not Not sure either way Yes,probably Yes,definitely think you would rank in your class in col- ' Poorest Below average Average Above average The Best In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or university pro- fessor, work beyond four years of college is necessary. you think it is that you could complete How likely do such advanced Forget for a moment how others grade your work. own opinion how good do you think your work is? What kinds of getting? \n 4:\N {UH \D-P’WFOH \fi-PWNH work? Most unlikely Unlikely Not sure either way Somewhat likely Very likely Much below average Below average Average Good Excellent In your grades do you think you are capable of Mostly F's lostly D's Mostly C's Fostly B's Mostly A's m 120 Appendix C DIRECTIONS: (read carefully) You are now taking some courses that are college credit courses. Answer the following questions’as if you were only takigg college level courses. (Use only one answer per ques- tion . 17. How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with your close friends? 1. Poorest 2. Below average 5. Average 4. Above average 5. The Best 18. How do you rate yourself in school ability compared with those in your class at school? IT 1. Poorest 2. Below average 3. Average 4. Above average 5. The Best 19. How do you think you ranked in your high school graduating class? ‘ l. Poorest 2. Below average 5. Average 4. Above average 5. The Best 20. Do you think you have the ability to complete college? 1. No 2. Probably not 5. Not sure either way 4. Yes,probably 5. Yes, definitely 21. where do you think you would rank in your class in col- lege? l. Poorest 2. Below average 5. Average 4. Above average 5. The Best. ’3’) Cf:— Q 23 21+ 121 In order to become a doctor, lawyer, or a university pro- fessor, work beyond four years of college is necessary. how likely do you think it is that you could complete such advanced work? 1. Most unlikely 2. Unlikely 5. Not sure either way 4. Somewhat likely 5. Very likely Forget for a moment how others grade your work. In your . r—e opinion how good do you think your work is? j 1. Huch below averag, . Below average . Average . Good . Excellent \ngwm What kind 0g grades do you think you are capable of e—— getting? 1. Mostly F's 2. Mostly D's 5. Mostly C's 4. Mostly B's 5. Mostly A's 122 Appendix D There are many people who are important in our lives. who are the people who you feel are im- portant in YCUa life. Look at the list below. If you feel that your parents are important mark int (1) space of number 25, if your children are important mark the first (1) space of 26, and so on for num- bers 27-51. If the group is not important to you leave the number of the question blank. ' 25. parents (mother, or father, step-father or step—mother) 26. children 27. relatives (aunts,uncles, etc.) 28. friends 29. teachers 50. wife or husband 51. yourself 125 Appendix E There are many people who are concerned about how well young people do in school. Who are the peOple you feel are concerned about how well you do in school? Look at the list below. If you feel that your parents are important mark the first (1) space of number 52, if our children are important mark the first (1) space of 55, and so on for numbers 54-58. If the group is not important leave the number of the questicn blank. r F5; 52. parents (mother, or father, step-father or step-mother) 55. children 54. relatives (aunts, uncles, etc.) 55. friends 56. teachers 57. wife or husband 58. yourself "Illllflllll'llflll7llf