st ll

ASTUDY OF THE~DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS BE'nlEEN'POTENTI AL AND·NOJ{-POTENTIALSCHOOL DROPOUTS ON SELE'C'l' ASpEC1'SOF SCHOOL LIFE

by

Joan Mary O'Reilly. B.A .(Ed.) . B.A. •

''', ' Athesis subll'ilttedto the~.

~ -School"of Graduate Studies in

partial_forEhe:'f u l f i l lme n t_<d e g r e e of Master'o f

the 0:E: ,requl~s

,_Educa~lon .

Department;'fEducational,psy c h o l ogy Hemorial university of Newfoundla,nd f .

st.^John's

".'.~.

..

August,'1988

New~f6undlBnd.

:'''~isoion'

b.o !>een'granted to the ~ationi!llLibrary.of Canada to alcfofilJ!l"this .thesis and to'lend or sell

copie8\:?~the fUm.

The-aut.·h~r(copyrightOwner) .

jre e.-e e e e e ve a e e u e e:

~publicat.ion rights; and / n-ei t q e r. the thesis nor extenfllive extracts from it maybe printed or otherwise·

reproduced wi thout ~h is /hei"

writ!":."

ier~isdon.

, .

"

L'autothllt'ion II Itt''a ccor d' .

a.

111""Bibliothll:jaenatlon8.le du Canada de·~.lcrofil.er cette th~8e

et,

""depdtei'ou .de vendre.des exellplairell-du

film. .

L'.a~teqr' (tit~~air~.

^{du drolt}

d'autebrJ s. r6serve lee. autree.drol ts de publicationJ '"

nl',la thhe.'n i de 'l o n g s

~~~::~t8 'tdr~' .Cl~~~1;';\~~

autr .e:~

reproduitll •.anll's o n autori,i;~~lon'edte. '.

>

JA BSTRACT

.. , .

.

The vastamou n t of rese~rChtha,thas b!'!en:'conducted

.

,

-cnthepr obl e lT\of students'dr o ppi ng out of ~chool.~.~?~S~ tha t .t~ causes and so~utio~~ ar~...inult1faCE!~_ed.. This' situationdemands extensive researchin al ldimensions'of theproblem and in pe.rtlcularineeeesthat·would"s u gge s t a

pr~act1v~_ app~o~c~

^to'

th~probJ:8rg

^{•.While.,in the'p a s t} numerous.st~dle~:::'~ave'con;:entf8ted on causes_,external to

. '. . f, . " .•.

".th~.SC~OOl~··recent}y..the~ehav,e_been calls:-f or schp,?:~:to.'

.eX.~ine fnternal-,1~.~:uen_~~e.dro~.~~~gou"t.pr.~~ess-:'.-:;:_

,}t is"tqe'c on vi ctio no~ th~s.c.9 s ea:c h e,r.-.and'supp0.r~ed ,in'

~

'th e

lite~ab..i re ^that schools'

can

pceventst"udents'fr()m

'd~:p~ng ~ou.t

^{,o{ -schc c j.. . Such.}

pr~ve~~10n~h6~eVlt'r

^-;

,~. ,re~ires";a~ly.·~nsights·^into th~,^reality of'.'~chool fo~

stude n t s. especially ,for those wh<? are showing'slgns.9f' .

alienat~on - ^{fr om}

^{the-sch ool.}

^{·.:'The -} pu~se ~( t~lS S~UdY ~.1~

^{-- - -}

to eX~ln:-Eh e differen :es in'perceJ;t1ons.,on.selectrd·.:

especce,of school life" amon g sLxtrh and .seve nth grade s~udent~class'lf1edas potential

and'

~o.n-potentl~i sch.oo~

dropouts.

FpU: research'quesUons ~er;~ posed,iIt this study.., These @estions focused'

0 \

the det'ermlnatio,:

0 ;:

^Sign;f:-

11

.". ~'"

The-f ac t :that p6tent1~1'sch ool",dr opouts in this icant 'diff~'rences ^{bet ween} the two groups on perceptions' of four aspects o{ school'lif e. 'bro ad l y"d e f' Ln ed 'a s

•

tea~hers

^{• .sc hool,}

d;~ciPline.

^{school.wor k ,}

'~'SChOOl

The_se,f ou r aspects were more specifically broken'down into,

~leven

^school

~elated~ Va~ia~i~s. ~hese '

.~:a r i 8 blSS"'we r e identifiedas: teache r:attitu~es. tea'cl17r benavrcura , teacher expectations. effectiveness of's c hool

"d f.'s c!Pl t ne . fairness of sc hoo l'

disc~Plinel . ·

^{interest 'o f}

l

school'

~O~k

^{•.·relevance of:achoc .L}

w~r.k. -,~iff1CUltY

^Of.

.'schoolwork, satl~fact ionwit h'sc hoolwor k. expectations fo r school .succesas, •and oppo'rtunlt1es for sc:hool'

...success. Data ":;ere.ga t h e r ed'by means'of a Student Check-

o 0 ' . • •

r > _,

l:st.",:hi,ch required ~o~th'a.fr equency -and en.i~te~sity.

'.'

r'es~ons?

^from

.stud'e~ts

^on

pe.rc~p~i6n~,.

By statist.lcal analys is . it was determine~ that sign!f icant differences

,--,-~_ _ -:-_exis.te<Lin...the_£requency.,..oLper.ceptions..,..between-::.Fotent-1~l_---~~

and rrn~-PQtent1alschool ~ro~.o~ts -on.a~l variables.---r-It--.~_:_~

was_alsodeter mined that significant differ en ces-occurred.. ' . ',:.: in in-te:nsity of p~rceptions ^{but only} ~n-.^{severer verr-}

l:l~les. spe~l fically . fai rnes s of'",sc hool dis clp:l1n~ ,' dif~icult~ Of,~~Cho~l lIork ~,and-expe ctat i on s:fo'r SCe~Ol_

study ho~d

.b~fore ~ey ~~Cld~·to drop out h!ls·.lm~~lC~tiOns^"forthe I?rev.ention of'dr.opplngout ~qr.scho ols.. xnowl e'dget.hat student s who h!l'{.e been identified to be et--ris k of

drOp~;~g

out hold significantly.more

n~gat1Ye

^{.perc ept lon1.}

of school'

th~n

^other

st~dents,

^{coul d}

.st~mulate educo~o"rs

^.

. ! " (

to re-examine their responses to tho~e.st ud en t s in'an

"

,

^{, . "} "\,

effortto~trengthen t~~irhonds wi t h the SOhO\ :

r'

,~

;.-.

\':.."

,

'~

.\

':1

, "

iv

-.' \

.\

, ;. ;',.;"" · .. :; ,L~

-, . - .-

~

...

~

I .wish to take this opportunity t~ expreee my

.appreciation to..those people who hays aneouz-aqed and support~d"me in this wqrk by believing"in me, trusting me, and enabling.me to- grow.

s,peCil!ll:apprecia~io.n 1s extended to .Mrs. Mildred Cahill·,'!.l'IYadvls?r, who,sa d~dication,,,!l11ingnessto give

. .

^~

of,he r s e l f, a~'q c'o,n~tan~ affirrn~t10n.~~s in!:!~irat~onal...^>

'Si n c e r e"g,a.t U u de 1s also extended -t o Dr: David

watts and Dr~ ftTh~m~~pe for th~l;

^thorough'

~yal~at10n '

of.~~lS-stU.dY;~

.The' cocperet.rcn and,.as~ist'arice''prov i d e d by .the

i1dmlnistr~i~rs, te'aChe~: a~' stude~ts

^of

" th~

^schools

invoi;;d

~n'- -th_iS

^{l:!tUdY 1s}

d~~P·lY. appreCla~ed_

^•

.I. To my husband, L~s, son, L~slle, and daughter.· Kimbe'r1y, goes:

' ,~

^very spe d;. a l

thank~~

^{'Th e i r under-·}

~~nding .

oaring, and,b,elief in me'ha s beentLffe givipg.

"','',\ ,:.'s',:" ...~' .'. ::""~

Abstract•••••, '.•.. ... . ••.., 11

~cknowledgements ~

^..•.'.•

t , : ' .' ,; .

Lis t of'table s••,•.. . ...'.. :•. .;.. .•. ...•. '•• •.•.... .CHAPTER..

.

²_2,

11

"

is 17 19'"

19 2.

2.

2.

'0

I I

_ i

I' ,I

:INTRODUCTION ••! "... ... ," 1 stat,ement

" - o~ \. p,Jr~ose I i

^.

'

^{.:•. •• •:• .-•}

' . '

^{... .••••••"}

Rat i ona le"and'~.lg~~,f1cance~f·thest ud y•.:.

" \ 1 .

' Rese:::::::::i~~:: :: :: : ^{: ,: :: '::::::} :,: :~:::: :

Definition'o f Te l7"!!".'...•".~:•.•. . . ..'t'•••

Ll nfita1:1 ons

oflth'~ 's,tUdY~" " " , ~

^.......

~

^.....

~IEW.OF^'1'BE

I

_IT~~uRE\•••• •••••:•• •••••:

CUrrentFocus,rn

sC~,~~:'Relate~

Factors •••.

""~Research,'~a'~ed

,o n

~erceptl~n::,of Students••

Teach e!s:.Attftudes ,,E.xpe c tllitl ons , and

I

, _BeO~.V1OU,

_Teacher

_'. c s,

_{At itudes}

'I ' .. ..'. ..

_•

.

_.

..

_•••

"':..

_.•.••.

... '

_•

" ,

_.

..

_..

...

_{.•• • • •}

,

_•

, ~:,a~her^{Exectation,sand "}

Te acher ~aviours.;•.•• •••'"••••..'•..

Sc hool

Dl~c1Pl lne:

Effect'!ven es s'and

" I.

vl

,..., ""'..'~" ^{...;; -'.'}~:^I,·.'

III

Feirness ,.,••, •. .',..:•.. ,,.,,.•.r

School work.'~.~).. :•. . .• •,••- , ,.• ..

Sc~l s~ccess ,

^{•... .,..', , ,.... .•. .}

! =::~~~~;.;~ ': y : : ': ::::: ::: :: : : :: : ::::

GeneralStatemen t of Procedu re ....,•..,.•..' 36

as

42, 45 ,46 46

l '

\'

Sampling.•l•••• , • •;-;• ••••• •_•••;••••f••• ••••

Selection,of the'pr i ma r y Sample . . Identification of Potentialand

Non-PotentialSchoolDropout~..- .

.... ^{. .} , '

•Des~ription

or

^the.~ample^{•._•../••.• •,.•. .} Profile"o~theP'~oP.UlatiOn••• ••r•••• •••:.

Data'Ga t he r i n g Procedures

...

.

.

.•'^,,'•..•• ...•.. ....

,"I nst:rume n ta ti on:•.•.•

1 : ; : ".'.'..

Overv,~ewof StatisticalAnal y sis... .•..•.••

DescriptiveStati stic s.~•.... .,...,.•.•

Analysis of variance .•... . •. . . .,." ....

Summa r y :...•.•.. . -.'..••..'••.... •..'" .

IV ANALYSIS OF~DATA ....!;.,~ .

Introd uction•••,• ';'

~

^{•••...••...•. ...}

~

^..

~'

^.•

overvrew of,Measurement p"rocedures•• •....•. Deserlp~lonof, sampleby Drop out

cat~ory.A9~.pender .'andSc~ooL•• . ••• •

~opout: Cl\t~gory

^{••... ••..•.. .... • ....• .}

v11

47 47

I

48 .52 5' 61 65 69 70 70 71 72

72 72

74 74

::::~C::~:~f:~~~:::::: ::: : : ::::: . :: ~: : : :

Surrvnary of F,inding s..•. .• . •• ••• • •.•.• .• •.••

. -I

Differencesin Students' Perceptions

J . -

of,Teac hers•• ••..••. .:•. .. .•..•.. .•••

. 1

Di~~er~ncesin.~tudents"· percep~ions tot SchoolDiscipline••••••• ••.••...••

£1ff ere nce s instudents'.percept ions

~/ of SchoolWork .•. :•••••••••••••. . . .••

/ Diff ere n c e sin St u d e nt s ' Pe rce ptions-- / ' of SchoolSuccess.•... .. .. ..•. .. •• ...

J _ ! ^~.:.. ':,:: :::::':~:

/\...{'o ,

, ./

;

... . - -/'.

hof,~

. ,

:

.I

).

"

ceeeee••.. .• •. .• •.•• •

!!.: .

Ag8.•• •..•. •...•....•.... •••• ••• •.•.•~:.. School •••.•... ...•• ••• •. ...: . Diffe rences in StudentPe r ce p t i ons•.• . . .... R8s.earchQuestionn.~: .:

: ;-.'

ResearchQuestion

'2 ; .

ResearchQuesti on,j .

Re s ea r c houesff~;4.::.... .. . . ..• ....•. Sununa ry•• •• •.•.•• .; .•••••••.•• •.•,.:••..•.•. • 1I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS·••

7e

aa

e. .e

.0 r-.s s

102 11; - 1' ; 121 121 121 123

123

12.

' '''

12.

131 139

... , .

.

~

.Recommendations for Purtherst~

.

Recommendations'fo'r Practice .

~

Concluding statement ",..

Bibliography: ; .

Appendix A - Early Detect;l'on of At-Risk

students 6teckllst .

Appendix B- Characteristics Associated with -Dropouts/potentia!School Dropouts..

.

^{"'~ "}

.

^;':-

'\

139 142 143 145

15 8

159 Appendix C - Profileof School-Rell!ted

Characteristics

of

potentia~

Schoo l Dropoutsinthisstudy....•.•'1ft'61 Appendix D - LeHer to 5;-hool

~oard

OffiCial/ ..... '162 Appendix~- Letterto.Parents :~.':~'...• ',..... 163 Appendix F-studentChecklist.................. ... 164

( . _APpe~ G- Dl::::::~:~.~~.:~~~~ . _{~~. ~~~~~~~.} . .. .. 17Q

Lx

'.'-.<.

r ' ,

LISTOFTABLES

Page

35

~5 4

55

" 56

5B

59 I"

60

6t school

..

-nr c peut .s by Grade

.

and Age ^' . Profile of Potenti a l and"NOn-pot~ntia1

S~hool"Dropouts'by ac ncc t andGrade . Pro fileofpO~eAtialen d ~on-p~tentlal

.Sc ho ol DrOpqut'sbySchool and Gen"der .•~•. p~ofile·o f Potential a'nd"No~-potential Differential Stude n t - Teach e r Interaction

.Sc hol?l ur cpcue sbyGen der and Grade•• ..•.

Distribution of Poten t ialand No n-Potential School Dropou tsbyExpe cta tion s t"b

I

F!It~shSchool :.. .•..•:••.•...; Profile ofPotent ial School Dropou tswho

DidN~tExpect to Finish.High School.. ..; Means and Standardneva.eeac nefortheT~tll1

sa~pleand sUbg r oup s on,theEleven school-Related Va r ia bl e s on the

Fr e qu ency Scale..•..•••.... . ..".... . .. .... 75

···Patt er n s... ...••. ....•.- . ... /2 Prof il e of,Sc hoo lsSampl ed... .• ...

Pro fil e es.Potentia l and Non-poten t18l ,Ta b H~

'I' ^-,

,

\'

,

....

^."

'1 0 Mellns and standard Deviations for the Total samp l e and Subgroupson the Eleven Sc ho o l - Re l a t e d Variableson the Inten s} ty Scale.•• ••••••• •• .•••. ... . . Meansand Standard Deviat ionsfor theTo ta l

sampiearid subgroupsby Gen~ eron th e er e ve n School-RelatedVariab les

on th e Fre~encyS.cale....• •.•••.• • •.. .•. 79 12 Mean and Sta nd a r d Deviations for the To ta l

sampleand subgroupsbyGend e r on th e El'everi:school-Re18~edvariabl:~

on'theIntensity Scale•.••. .• •••.•••.•"'... 60 13 'Me a nsand'StandisrdDeviationsfor theTo t al

Semple and.Subg r ot1 p~Categorizedby Age (11-15 Ye ars).pn the Elev enVariable s'

o r

t~e.~ requ encySc ale•• • • • '••••••• • •• •••,- 62

Means'a n dSte n d ard Devi ationsfo r the Tot8l Sa mple and subgroups categorized by Age (11 - 1 5 Yea~s) on the Ele,:,en:variables on theIntensit~Scale ••• ••• •••• •,.... .... 84.

15 Means and'St;a n d a r d DeviatlonsforStudents categori.zedbyschoo,l /scho.ol'Attended on Al:1 Measured Variableson the

xi

/ /

Frequency Scale.•••.••••.•.••••. .•••••.• • 16 Me ans andsta~dardDe v i at ions :fo r Studen t s

I

x11 17

18

"

20

21

•

²²

23

"0

24

Catego ri z e dbySChoOl/sc~oolAtt e nd ed on All-"Me a s u r e d Var ia b les

on

^the

Inte n s ity Scale..••. ..•... .. . .. . . ....

. .

Analysisof Variances on Pe r c eptions of TeachersontheFreqUe~cyScal e : Mu l tl v a r l o t e Analysisof var18)ce --

're'bchers-- FrequencyScale•• ••••• •••.•.• Ana ly s l ~of Varianc.eson PerceptiQns of ,

Te a c h e rs on the Intensi tyScal~ . Mu l t iva r i a te.Ana l ysis of Variance --

'reeche ee -:"' I n t ens ity Scale . Analysisof variancesonPerceptions.,of

~ sch~olDisciplineo~the FreqUency scai,e, ,.,...•'•....•~•.. . .•_.'.,.... ..~.. MultivariateAnalysisand verience --

Schoo l"Dis cipl ine --FrequencySc al e •• •••

Ana lys i s,of Vari8Jlce~on ~ercept lonsof School Discipline on th e Int e ns i t y

Scale .

MUltiv~ rlelteAnalysisof Vari an ce--

. I' .

SchoolDi s,c i pl i ne --Intensi ty~cale .~•.•

;,'

87

"

91

"2

94

/ l

"

"

101

10 3

f.

<'

,

',-,\ ".

v-:

.

^{/ "~'.}

2S An~lysiS of variances on Perceptions of

'sc~ork

^{on the}

F~equency

^{Scale .. . . ... lOS}

ofVa r i anc e

--, •

2' Multiv.arlateAnaly~is

School,work

--

^{FrequencyScale.}. _ .... 106

\-

27 Analysisof Varianceson Perceptions

of Schoolwork onthe Intensityscale·r·. 10.

2. Mulerverre ce-^{Analys-!-sofVar ianc e}

--

-Schoolwork.--Intensi t yScale...w~,

.. ... .

110 2' 'Ana l y s i s ofVa r i anc e s on.s e r c eptro n e.of

SchoolSuccesson the Frequency Scale....

.

p~ 30 Multivariate Analysisof Variance

--

School Success _:. FrequencyScale.. .. :.. . 114 Jl Ap8!ysis ofve e1.am;::es onp~i~~pt1~n^of

schoolsucc~ss

on the

^{Intensity,Scale'....} ..116' 32 Mu l t ivar'la t e Analysis'of'Variance-"

School Success

--

Int e nsity.Sca l e.. . .... . 11'

.... . "-

'.l",.-.

. :

xiii

"', :,:..1,". :

CHAPTER I In..tr~uct1on

\.

Th~s chapter contains the purpOse: raUonde. and sign ific an c e

\ ot

the study, research questions. defin- / itions of teitns. and ( itaUons'ofth~^study.'

. ", stat eme n t of'Pur pose

. . . ...

The purposeof this.study\wa s toe~aminethe dif f er- ences-in percepti~ns"among sixth ond seventh grede studentsCl ll,ssi'f1 e d 1I~potenU.allind ~ori-potent1alschool .

d~opouts\

within,. six sChoois in the st.

J~hn"s

aro a'on'

"-~~~~~.ted aspec~~.

^{of SChoo l'l; f e . The·'aspectsof sC·hoOi}

life';·1n ve s tig lSt Bd· were teachers',.schO~i discipline,

sch09 l work,.and school suc c e es. Hore SpeCi~iC~llY, those fqur,asPects'of sch~l· 'life were subdiv ided into" · eleven v·llr i a b l es wh ich wore idenUfied as: (II),.te a c he r eatt1!.ude ~.'( b ) teacher: behaviours , (c) toa<;her,e xpe c:=t- attcne , (d) effec tivenessof school disc:ipl ine . (e) fa i r - ness of school,dis cipline, (f) inte res t of school work,

" (9) -reLev enc e ~f ^{sc hool'work , (9)} d1fficul~y ^of,~chool work . (h).sati sfaction with schoolwo rk , (1 )expectations

.

\ -

for echccfi eucceee , and (j) oppQrtuOit1es for school

.'

...

. r I,

. i'

t

Rationalel!md Significl!lnce'of the study Rationale.

This study was based on the belief that schoolscan have

a

positive.

Influ~~ce

^{on the}

Sih001~opout ·p:Oblem.

It was cond~cted in an effort to gain new insights into the

p.revent1~n

of studltits

dro~Plng

^{out by} investigating the~school's,influence- in t~lSprocess. These insight'S were provided by way of student'sperceptions ofselected' aspects of school I1fe; prior

t\

secondary sencet, where -.man~decide to drop out; ' ..~ ~ ^_ ~~

The I1te r ~ tu reon dropouts clea~ly shows'that no one reason can-account for leaving school ear;t.y';_.t h e 'phen-

• • ' '. I) ,

cmenon'i s attributed to a whole'host of'"i n t e r v en i n g

~ factors including social, school rel'ated, famllia~·and eccncnue (Cipywnyk, p~wlo~ich, &R~ndh.awa, 1983; creene;

1966; Komer, Pedro & wat~~on, 19 77; Pebbles,'.,1973: S~lf, 1985). Much of the researchthat has been conducted:in the pas~have focusedo~s.tudyingawi d e·range of these inf,lu~nces ana..,have provided a great dealofinf~.gnation on thecnereceerretacs of dr9pouts and the reasons for dr?pping out. Such.res e a r c h ,·however; has not provided sol utions to the dr.opping out problem . we hl a g e and Rutter' (1986)

~oRcll,1de9

^{tha t}

researc~

^{efforts ·,Will}

continue to be ineffectivei~ :rOVid1~gd ra.that could

f."

bac kg rounds••.

contribute to a d li~ein the dropout ratuif the focus remains on facto rs that are

be~6nd

the control of the

educationa~ "sy,s~em""

^{e focus on}

SChool-relate~

'f a c t or s is not ade n i al of the...:np or t an t rol,ewhich family back-. ground, econo mic sta t u s and other fixed8t t r l bu t es of.t he

\,studentplayin the,dropping oiJt process. Rather , it is a re cogn i t i on ~hatcertain school conditions,'when-eeee- ine.dwith cercatn s,tud~n.t ~har'acteris tics , are respons- ible for stud e nts"d r o pping o~,~ (Wehl!!ge ~-Rut ter-,198~ ) . The sc ho ol as one of.the~ain soclaliz.irig"a ge nt s in the lifeof,the child must be w11ling to continually as~ess

' ho~ 1~ respo~ds t~ _,'

^al

t

ch ild r e n,.'

~egardless '

^of

'th;i~

'\ -:',

, .)(

.'

,Research carried out from-the perspective of those

"who'are most

' invol~'ed '~n\ t~e educ~:tional ' ~~stem~ '

^the

st u d e n,t s, can

pii~~e

^{ins i gh ts into the nature,}

bf

the problemof droJ?pingout. l,t1:st"he',r ea l i t y of the scho ol. for

tb~

^{ejiudenb tha t wUf}

'larg~lY

^{influence,tits/he r}

d,Bc isionto drop out.

perceptions of the,s :F0ol ar~colored by social, emily, and personal,verrabfesSUCh,as family atti~t,1deS'~owa rd school and the va~ue ·p laced.up<?n-.,e~ucat ion bY'Ule fami~y.• Howe ve;r....it~::-al s o·r~COgnl zed.that:t~e_'~tudents.

e-

"active interp reters of.class ~oom ~eaiitYand that

they draw inferences about' the causes and effects of bebevtcra'' (Weinstein, ~983, p, 288). It is the infer- ences that they drawfrom theIr schoo1.expedences which

I

are filtered-by their personalunde~standirigof the world that are responsible for theirpercept~onsof school.~I:

students..perceive't ha t th4school is a place where they are unappreciated and ere not experiencing success" then it is not

diff1du~t

^to.

se~

^why'

t~,~se

^{students wou.i\}

disenga5Je them~elves from the school as soon ~s'poss- ible. If s~hool9are to.make'an attempt eo turn around 'negative perceptions of school held'by.students" i t: li s impo'rtant that.teachers be."aware of

~tiese

perceptions

"- - . ~ .

, --

^{, . ~,'....}

.early. ,.At.the sixth,a nd eeventn grade levels, stud,ants.·

h~~~ alr~adY ,

^been'expceee " 7-:-8 yea'rs 'Of,J.;h--,l and h'av_e built up perc:=..epUons about school~ Knowledge of student perceptions atthe~e.l:evels and evenee rf.Ier can pccvide the School with,time to respond•.'reacnecs, sensitive to the feeliD:gs of alienation of those studen~s could exa~lne ho~ they could alter negative perceptions and .tnereby: ;;:trengthan the s.tildentsResults from research have indicated t

.

^, I bonds wIth the school.^'" hat,studente '

Q. •

percept rene of teachers,' school discipline, school work, ,and school success have been',areas of difficulty for those who have already...droppea'out· of school. This study,

c,

inve stiga t ed'how the perce ptions of sixth and gra~e~potent ialsc h ool dropouts diffe r e dfr om the percep- tions of noh- pote n t i al dropouts onthese selected areas' ofs~hoolli fe.

_l A review of :the l it e rature (Self, 1985) on sc hool

,dr opoutsreve aled thatmany dr o pouts ci t ed diffi,cultyin

dealing wi t h tea c he r s as a pr oblema t ic are a of school li f e andas a rea s on for le a v.i ng sc h ool;

'''Rutt~"t'::'J1:986) st~t~d:

Th er e isce v dd ence that many s,!:udents do,not belie ve that't~ache:t:.s';lre inte're~ted in the m•

•

'T~ :

^{the ext ent,\hat thos e .whc come'f r om'}

~i9-'

advant aged ba c kgr ounds': perceive a less' than firrtl commitme nt by_,t he in,s tituti pn to educ a t e

• them, thei r s.1?hool ~ffor t s since.re. (p . 390)

like ly to..be

',"

Res ults tromresea r c h ha ve'al s oshown tha t.-teacherscan be a ~o~erfUl for~e,in~ pJ:"~ventingal iena tion , espeClally

.'below second ar y sc hool a.rldthat st u de nts can infer a

~ , ~~. .

gre at' deal. fro m'teacher at t i tu des, 'be h evt ou r a, and .expec t a tions.(Weins t ein'.. 1965 ). Numero!-1s studies con- ductedin the area of differentialteacher interactional

.\

. ,,'.

.

^"'~'.":.

patterns in the'"class r.oom... has docUme n t edeVid eri.ce~~~at' .stud~nt:s-' perceptions of pos i tive teacher.att 1.tudes~

beha~iou rs , li nd expectat~ons are relat ed ·to 9re~ter ' student adaptation to school (Brop hy & Good , 197 3;

nevf scn & Lang , 1960; Radwanski , 198 7 ; Ros enthal &

Ja cobson, 1968 ) . If students infe r that they ar e

-cc mpeee nt, cared"fo'r andgenerallythe;ubject

of

teacher

concern, tbe n-.it is'reeecnebj,e tha t the y would form

stro~g ~onu:rn

^tmentis

. t~

^the

schoo~ .

^{On the "ot h e r}.h a n 0tie' .school whi ch conve ys negatlye messages through'teacher..

.. ^"

'expet"tat l ons ,'~rl:tituc1~S , an~.,~e.?av~ours^{.. to the}st.ud~nt^.i.a-

adm:ttin~ a Loose commitme nt to,a su~cess fUl sc~ool experiencefor that child (Wehlage~1.988).

. .

stud1~s

^{on school}-dr o pouts have

ShO~ ~hat

^{'o ne}

0;-

the distinguishi ngcharacteris tics of a school'dr opoutis a:grea~erthannorma l.pr o b 1.em with scho ol dis cipline,and this ~lays'a maj o r 'r~'le in the dr o pou tsI decision to leave sc hool (Self, 1985). weiuage.andRut t er (1966 ), who conducted extensive,'~esearch ^{into the proDl,emof}

"d r o pout s, CO~f1med th~ ^belief tha~ ^{problems.wi th the}

d~scip1.inary sys tem"lead to stu de n t ,ali e n a tion -from school. .Their.find i n gs

,~J.earIY. ·indi:=a.te~th'at , ~tudent: .

perceptions of the diSC:Pliiuasys t emas being ineffe crtive a~d^{'un fai r formed a patte rn that caused students to}

"" > . /1,\,... ..

•

.:d~sengage ^themselvesfr~the school (p. 3a9) . one,of the m~st"""-1rnp:ortantdomains ofIthe student's life in school is theschool w;rk

th~t

^{he/sheis required}

. ' . I

to do each t:lay. The s~t~de~ts inte r~st in, and fe~lin~

that school Jerk is e-ejevene, in that i t wil.l provide

Th e se studi,:ssuggested ~hat when st.ude';lts.percefve th at much. of what the;do in schoo l d6es not 'make sense,gives them little satisfaction, and!

,

1s not int~rest1ng, the

.

resi.Il tlng boredom will certainly"no.t contributetothei r makingpos1tlvedecls·ions'.ab~utstaying in schoo l.

pro~"rams'wi th students dro,PPing out of school.

·t hem with necessary sk i lls, will be a motivating seeee

! ~ '"

that will encourage"pari~~lp8tlon'and success in eebeer.

In a.r e va e wof the11tierat u z -e conducted'by Sel f (.1985),

'I / ' .' . ,

i t·was shown that one fof the mos t frequently cited ['6;as o.ns.f9!'dropping

ou'~\

^{was .t he.lack 'of Inte:!rest.}

~n

,sc~oOL . ~~al. _ ?Vl~e:n\.e.: ron ta i n.:d in st~U~t~cs refees ed by th e'·De p a rtmen t .of Education , Education

, ' . , I '

stat i s tic s. (19a~), and·>t~e,L~av rng Early (198 4) study as so c i at e d droppingoutwi~h dlssatiS fact;on withs:=hool work orschoolpr:ograms. ,~he'Leav l~gEarlv study f?und a strongrelat-lonshipbetweendropping out an,d"no t l1kin~J

S~~OOI

subjects" while "the

bepa~'tment oi."

Edueation's

mo~t,

<

\ 'r.een;:^ii' .^•statistic, con"ated diffIculty of eenccf

't

· ~

Re~ults

^{of resear2hon} school:"related reasons which

~

students give for dr opp i n g out !ndi~atedthat failure to perform aoademically is the-mc s t; frequently01 ted reason (Pa n g &.Tabs!, 1.983;'R. lS '198 3; Self,

198,5 ;~ehlage

^&.

Rutter, -1 986 ). ·The id a

~at

"not h ing succe e d s,.lik e / su c c e ss and nothing fa s like failure'" holds.a great

deal of wisdom. Impliclt in thi s ideais that one canbe

j'

motivated'by-succ es s'an;

dlSCOUr~g~d

^by,f a u u r e. · This is an area where it is important for: sc ho o ls to l,oofe:~beyond tf:le cparacteristics.of~~h~dropoutand lil~o~h~ institu- tional char~cteristics'~hat.mlg~t af f e c t'those stuc;lents'

I ~nnegatlve'ways. W'ehl«98 and.Ru t t er (1986) stated that- , •

•·..

~res~mablY

^{the.school is}

~b~igated ~~ ·create ' ~~" enV iron-

^{, .,}

m~nt

^-in"whiCh those YOU;h'"can..

experienc~ .

^{some kind of".'"}

succe.ss . find institutional participAtion rewarding and develop aspirations~oradditiohalSCho;,l1ng that lead~o satisfying employment""_{(~' 37 7),.~}implications fo.r the kind of experience~at^{SChpOI; provide.to} studentswhich allow them to experiencesuccess.

-uuccessinschool has often meantbe~ngevaluated in' ccmperdecn to obhera as well.8S. irrterms ~f onrt's own abilities. Cqwpet~tionhas been a~.a c c e pte d and ~ utilized mlfans of motivating students withinthE!- school.

This pra~~icemay be very".motivating for high aChieving

.,.

r

':'J

.'. , ""'"

students but for the student who never "wins~ or- nev er expects to wi n through superior performance,

. . .

thisma y be a source of discouragement providing few oPP,?rtun i t ies-w _.'_,fors~~sp'ssand thus, few reasons for continued'e f f o r t in

the

ctita~roOlTl. e

^{A" greater emphasis on individual}

a~d

cooperative learning as put forth by McDahiel

...

(1 98^.4 )"

~ould be motivat ing'for the lower achieving student by allowing the student the opportun ityto sha re in gr oup success~nd experience.-\t he pleasure of workingproduct- ivelytogettie r wi thpeersto.ward"commongoals.

This study'wa s des igned to;determi n ehow pote,ntiel school dropouts, who were basically low ecmevers,viewed opportuni t ies for success within the school and how a perceived "l ack ofopp o r t uni t y to experience the joy s of success wa s'of concern ~o them. An awareness of Situde nts'.·perceptions of their chances (or. successful experiences could se.rve as a remi~to tea.chers that all children need to _e xp e r i ence the encouragement, acc~ptlmc~, and sense of worththat comes with success, if.pe r s i ste nce is to be expected. An ~nde rs tand ing of how students are".a;ffect~d by repeated' experiences 1n '....' which t'he y donotexpect to measure up will enable the·

\

teacher to be more sensitive to providing exper iences that will give stude nts a clearer sense of progress~

towa r d .t ated goals.

,

10

This will ensu rethat aco n t i nu e d sense of fai lu r e do not permea tetheirschoo l expe rience.

• Knowledg e ga i ned fro m thi s st udy w1l1 pro vid e in f ormat i ontoachcct

~fflCl~ on

how studen ts

~e~celve

school practices and pol icies. It maybe shown that stud~ntsperceptionsof thesepract1ces~and policieswill indicate th!lt thereis11t:t l eco n g r uenc ebetweenwhat th e school in t endedand wha t the studen t-perceives as being in tended. It maybe thatst~deritsperceive themse lves

.-.

as

~elngrejecte d

P y

th e school.

Ea rl y identifl~atl0n.of st ude n ts who ar e showing symptoms of alienat ion fr o m school and listening to thei r percept ions and,fee lin g s,about wha t goes o.p in school could le ad ~o ^{a be tter} ~nderstanding ~f ^{students by} teache rs ; Th ese teachers • in tu r n, could adapt their a.p p roa c h so thatthe'stud e n t's bondwith tpeschool cou ld be strengthe n ed . This woul d

.

not nece s s a r ily re qu i r e drastic changesin school organizationbut rather IImore di fferential approachbyte ac hersand school personne l to students whodemon strate'a lac k of co mmitme n t to.school .' Sev. e ral recent-loca l stud ies have,ad dresse d thenee dfor

.

\ " .

earlyid e ntific ation of problems expe rienc edinschools.

"T he Lea v int' Earl y (1984 ) study made several. recommen d -

tha t will give.st ud en ts II,cle arer .sense of progress

'.J '

9

-.

11

investigation into the ir lfoblems. The Report of the Roya l Commis s i on on Employment'and Unemoloyment (1986) saw":tude nt re t ention as a maj~rthru st ..for thenex t stage in Newfoundl .an d ' s developm~nt in edu ca t i o n" and issued a challenge for schools toex a mi ne how th eS' wer e

I

meeting thene e ds ~fstudents[p• 312).

This study then, was designe d to !!lid in the early identification of at_~Sk students and th e ir perc eived difficul ties wi t hscho 1 b.:

r~l ated

^{to t}ea chers, dis.dp- I1ne,schoolwork,and5hb91\s uc c es s . Thro u gh a compar-

\ - , , .

1530 of re s p on s es by pot ~~~\~ and nO,n-p~tentl al drop - ou ts, in fo rma t ion wa s gat he r~~ on diffe renc e s 1n th e freque ncy of their percePtion~~and al s o the degre~ to whic h th e y per ceiv.8

themselves~o

^be bot here d.

by

negatively viewed school si tua t ions . This inf o r mation

"will be impo~tant to school Of f..i~iJ!.ls ~n devel o:in g B\

~

^eater understanding and sene..i tl vity to the st u den ts ' • , perien cein school. such understa nding'Cou ld resu ltin

e ~e-examinat10n ^{of present w;ys} ~f respo nding to

r--;-

ali e n ated stud ents whi ch coul d beco nt ribu t in g to the i r

\ .

.

senseof alie n a tionand ri sk ofdropping ou.t.

Significance.

The seri ousness andthe extent of thedropout prob-

12

lem continue's to warrant extensive research into factors thll't,.fl a y be contributing to thisphenomena. A number of major stu~lescompleted 1n this province'.ind i c a t e d that

the"d r o po ut r.,llte rs still very high, with figures ranging

around thirty-three percent. In-1984 the report,Leaving

-/ - '

Eariy... A StudY of student·Retent1~n 1n NewfoundlaCl.d.and Labrador. r~veale~ that one-tptrd of the children who

:::~::er::ws fO:elkelafis:er:::t::e 1:e::06:~d::::pe:e::j:~en:n 0:

Educationi tW~5re v e ale d tha t:...in 19 8 6- 87. ''1 700stude~fs :dropped'o ut 'o f.Newfoundland schools. The Re 0t-of the'"

Ro al Commission on Em 10 ent and unem (1986)

of student retent'ion.

','

f

exp ressed conc::ern for.the high d~opout rate'wihin the province and suggest,edthatpriority be given to the area.

..

Tradi~~OnallY,_ma~y st~dies ~CiPYWnYk'^et.!aI., 1983;·

Greene, 1966; pe~ples, 1973;We.tson, 1977) h~e.veeX~m'ined a wide range ofcontributin~factors;ma n y of whichwe r e external and outside·,the control of the school.

Recently, attention;has turned toward e ar Ly l~entl fica­

Hon and prev~nt1on ^of ~ch~o! ^{dropouts at the,l e v e ! of} the schoo!' (peck at.aI., '1987). This'study was in ke ep ing with'this,trend end-ewes designed to aid the

ide~tif1cation

^and prevention,effo rt;s by

pr~vIding " per-

,:",.'-r

-;

^;

/

I

,

ceptual da ta from students long bef~_re they decide to dropou.t.

This study sought to investigate how stu de nt s identified as potential school dr opou ts viewed sel ected aspects .o f school life as·compa r e d.to.non-potenti~l sch~el d~~pouts. Th!"aspJ c t s of school 11f~selec t ed fo r study -- eeeeheee, discipline, school suc ce s s, school work -- ha ve been she wn by re search to be areea of difficUlty for studen:ts who h8v e d ropp ed out . The ,Perceptionsof potent bl sc hoo l dr6pouts re18t1ve te:'.non - po~ent181 's c hool dropou~~ 8t.the.Grade Six.and Sev e n le ve l s ";111·provide.i~fo~aticn.on how'these st ude nts

"

. ' . ..

^{\ .-}

.

^{. '}

view these sel:~cted aspects of~scho:ol.life prior -e e. m~k1ngthe decision·to dropout.

It-is hOP~thatth~sknowledge wiil contribute toeo

.g r ea t er,unde rstand i~gof sources,of alienationfor pobm-

t i d school dr0P'l':'-ts. This underst anding, 'ma y sensitize

,

educators to perceived sources of difficulty-t o r poten- tial

scho~l ~r;,!outs

^ande:ncourage.them.to.see k hew way s to make !!lcheol 8 more sati s f y i ng expe rtence for these stud e nts . For exempl,e, if pot en ti al schoo l d~opouts,

\ ind~c8l ted

^more·

si9nific~ntlY '

^{tha n} non -pOt r ntial sChoo i

dropout~

^{th8lt te e.c her s d,id nC?t see}

th~m

^{as being}

·lm~­

ant, the n knowledge of tli.ls could stimulate'teeche rsto

.. . ... ,

- - -- :

l~

reflect on way s bywhi ch they'could rever-se this percep- tion.'. Such efforts maypreven~ studen ts who'are now at ris k of not compi ? t1 ng.high school fromdeciding that

"schoof 1sno~fo r,me:"

Re s e arc h Questions

.w

..

to answer the....following

,

This study wa s designed research~estlons:

1. .Ar e the r e,s i gn ifi c ant differences in fr-equ~ncy

ana Ine~nsltY^.of percept.tens bE;~ween ^{potentia1. and 000-.}

'pot ential' school dropouts'on (8) te ac he r attitude~, ^(b)

l • • .. .. ... •

teacher behaviours,and- (e) te a c h,ar expectatlon~? / ' 2. Are·th~ re dgoificant d1fferenc~s 1n frequency - - - - andinten sit y of pe r ceptions bet ween potential and 000- potential schooldropoutson (a) efi.activenessof echcct , disc ipline, and(h) f~lrness.ofschool disc.ip~ine? .J

3. Are t~ere si,gnifican t·diffe rences in frequency.

and intensi ty of pe;.rceptions.between pot'¢.1Al an:dnon- potentialschool dropou tson (a) interest of schoo l work . (b) relevance'of's chooi wcrk,"(C)''di fficul ty of school .wc r k , and (~) sati,~ faCtionwit hscho~lwork?

4. Ar e,ther~ signi f icant.differences in frequenc~

and int<,ehslty of perceptions betw een potential and non- potentialschool dr opou ts on (8l expe ctation s for school

,

• .

. '

"

• 15

success and (h)opportunities for.sc nc cj su c c e s s a

Definitionof Terms

To c;.larify·~hemeaning of terms used 1n this study, thefollowln~defini tionswere presented:

Dropout Any student-who le ft school, for any

-

\

otherreason, exc e pt dS8th. before gr8d- l:rhtion or ,c ompletion of"hi g h sCQool, without transfe r r i ng to aoothe.r· regUla r

school.

.y

Frequency OJ A measure of how frequently stude~t~

perception perceived the school"situationpresented.

\ ' . '

on a five point scale,~_8 t ranged fro~

All of the time (1) to~(S). Intensityof A measureofthedegree to which students percept ion indicated that they were bothered .by negative perceptions ;'f school situ- ations. Intensitywa smeasuredon ~five pOi'nt scale that ranged fromA whole lot

.,..

O~e rage student

(5·)to Not at all (1 ).-

This was a jltudent who was older tha~r average for the school.grade. For the purposes of thisstudy, 13 yeece or old er conside red overage,f or G,:ade Six and

" L

r

Potential School Dropo\t

16

14 or ct de r'was cons i d e r ed cve rese for Grade Seven.

For the purpose of this stw.y.,a pcten- tlal school dropout was defined as a st\idfnt who in the judgement of ~he

b .

~la~sroom.teacher wa~ in da ng e r ofnot comp l e ting high.scboc i.

Non-Potential In this'abudy,"this term referred to any School

Dr~pout

^{_s tude n t, who in} the opinion ·of his/her teacher, was likely to ccmpteee high:

school•

.SchoolSuccess Fat the-purpose s of thisstUdy, ref e r r ed

co- "

pOsitive ou tcomes

.

associated

. ..

with academic eehtevemeats as indicated

School Discipline

School wo r k

by results n assi ents , te a c he r tests, report cards,an d in I cc;>mpetitions . For the purposes of this study , school discipline referred to .r'ew&rds and pun i s hinent s employed by teachers and/oF

.pz::incipals for maintaining control and

dealing withstudentb~havior·.

,Thi s term referred to thesUbje~tmatter,

and assigne d work (includ ing homework),

I ' .,

under t ake nbythest~dfnts.in school.

17

TeaCh~

Attit Ud\S

'reacher Behaviour

Teacher

This'referred tokeach~~ likes and d!l'l- li k e s,·which were the teacher e:ff1nities

~or ^and a~,rSl0ns ^{to s}ltua ti'ons and studentlio

.

"'-,

F'or the purposesof thi.sstudy, thi s term referred to overtl!lc tlons of tJ;1eteec ner .wi t hi n the cj.assrcom,

;'hi5 term was defined as beliefs th 8t -.Exp«:!-~at10ns teachers held abou t-the p~ formance of'

l ;. .)

the student ..

Lim!tatio~softhestudy

't

The 'e mpl ric a l framework of this st udy.wa s limi ted.

Thus. it is ~f.t he greatest importance,~~atthe conclu-

sions

. .

be v Lewed cautiously. Mbre .specifically^. 1n that regard,the follOWing limitations should'b enoted:'

. I . ' .

1.•Tho.results arestrictly speaking,..val id within

.

, ,.-

t~espeCl:!C:.con.d it,i ons of the research.:'ear example, th~' parti~lar sampr~^I the measuring instruments,''and pro- cedures used in obtainingthe data.

2. ,Th is was a cross-sectional ;s:t':ldY and ·~ta

el1cited was not as compl!'!te as dab gtithe r e d from a long1tudln~lstu dy.

i. The res u'lts of the atudy was limited by the

18

statistics employed (desc r i ptive st atis tics . MANOVA and On e WayANOVAl.

' r-

, '-

·(

¹⁹

CHAPTER II Review of the Literature

The purpose of thischapter wasto "1:'e v l e w the l1ter-

a~ure

on the school-relate"dva ria bl e s und;r

Investi~~tion

.in this study. More.?Ver, sin~ethis study ~ocused.also

on student perceptions of these varia bles, the ~h!!l~ter incl~des a review

.er

the ~lterature in that area, 'a s well",

In order t~,pr~Vlde'for,8 system~t1c revle~of the literpture. "t hls chapter se s diVided into six.·sectlon~. as follow:;;: :

1. CUrrent-F0

7US

^'onScbool-RelatedFactors..,.

2. ,Rese arc hB~sedon pe rcept ~~m~of the !tudents 3. Teacher Attitudes,Beha~lours. andExpectations 4. School Discipline J

5 .'

Sc hool Work 6. Sc hool Success

20

Recently. however;there has beena

tocus

of attentionon .the fee tors within tlw control of the school. Some research.!-u

ha-ve;

1n fact . gone'sofar as tostate.that focusingon factors external to the sc hool -- personal , family. social -- havebe e n -detrimentalto findihg sol~"':\

ft i Qns to the problem. wehlage and Rutte r (1~86). 1n the.i.r a~ t l c l e Dropping out· . How Much Do School s QQnl:r1buteto the Problem,-st ate dtha t:

The Inten,t 1s noble; but theres u l t s,have been negligible because-'t h<i! focus onsocial. family . ,and pers~malcharacteri sticsdoes not. carry.e n y obvious implicatio ns fo r.sh a p i ng school policy and practice. Moreover. if the research.on dropouts continues 'b.,o focus on the'relatively fixedettrlbut~~~.o f~th~stude.nts, the effect of .such research may well be to gl?e.schools an excusefor their lack of success with the drop- outs. After all, it is not't heechcoj.fa fault that some of its stu.dentsare from poor homes and not very talented academically, and since we'c annot do

anyt~ing

^{abou;·theiie things' that}

intejtere with sChflol suceese, t~e school ·is, . absolved at;. responsibility for

.ene

fact that a

c.

siz able portion

<,

its clients f1nd good reasons to leave before 9t;aduat1on. {p, 376)

'--..-....

Research conducted by Rutter et a1. (1919)'1n England and by 'Edmonds (1" 79 ) end his colle!lgues 1n the United states dared to question the conclusions re a c hed by the coleman....(1966) Report wh1ch concludedthat dUfer-'

"

^.

...gg.ces in school ach i e veme n t'were due to family back- ground. Rutter at a1. condu cted a study of schools 1n._

London in wh!ch family background and personal cher-.. ...;' acteristics were S~1~to bevccnt.rcLfed, One of .ehe ma1n

researchquestions of the study was~es1gnedto dete'rm1ne if some schoois were more .~ffecttve th a n others after

' - .

certain'f act or s suc h as intelligence'a nd ~a~VY-b eck- ground were taken1n~oaccount" Results from the Ruttec

~tudyshowed tha Y... ch ild r e n~eremore likely to show gOod behevfor and qocd acho.L estLc attainment i f,_t he y at t e nd ed some S:=h~ol'"the n if the y i!lt t e nded others." (p.

77':'78 )•

Edmonds (1 979) did a simllar study in the United statesandalso found thi!lt someschools were more effect- ive than others i~ providing successful echccjtexper- iences for till children reqerdfeee of soc i a - e con omi c status. Implicit in both of these s.t ud i es was the idea

(

\ •

²²

Se~.ell,"'Palmo&:Marne, 1981) . •

that -s c nc c t .e domake a difference." Findingsby.wetilage (1982, as cited 1n Peck, Law.&,Mi l ls , 1987) , showed that in fact "i t 1s nO,t t~~ student~s backgro~nd'but the school's response to it that determines success in school_schoo1"[p•_7re9) ._l

.

_{llited reasons headed the.list of}

^.

_{rea sons}

given for dropping out 'by a major'loc al st ud y Leaving·

~

^{(1g.a4 ) . Th";}r}e s u l t s·,o f this

~t~dY

^were

supporte~

by a number of other studi~S 1n which as h~gh as sf"

percent'of the dropouts ga~e SChool-:-re~~ted.re a s o ns for droPP1~g o!Jt' (Ande r s on.-19.82; Cipywnyk at a1.. 1983;

...

.Ra d wanski (~987)• in a .mo r~ r~t st u d y, th e Ontario study of the Relevance of Educationand The Issue of Dropouts , provided fu rther evidencefthat s~hool- .relatedfactor~are emergingas the.mos t importantfactor in causing st udent s to drop out. The De c i ma and the~ Goldfarb re a e e r c n

c~rried

^{out for thi s}

st~dY fo~nd

^that

43 -' 45 percent of Ontario dropouts attributed'schoyl,..

related re a s on s for their dec:isionto drop out (p. '8~). Studies

condu~ted"

^{in the}

u~ited

^{sta tes , as 'Ci t'e d by}

RadwanskJ,. also reveal,ed that 44 percent of the 5.8 milliono~the.s t uden t s who dropped out~etwe~n 1979 and 1982 cited school - re lated re a s o ns fordropping out.

'.~

- : .

. (

I

23.

R,ecently, researchers have identifi~dschool-rel ated .charact eristics tha t ef f e ct'ivel y predict whether a youbh'

will beco~e a drop'"OUt . wehlage and Rutter (19 86, as ci ted in Duria n~986) , ^{analyzed data from} the, "Hi gh ( Scho ol and Beyond" st udy and found eVid~nce that low expectations about the amount of school a studertt will at t a i n, low gra d es combined with disciplinary pr c bj ema and trua ncy, were'th'e most .powerfu~ determinants of dropping ou t.'(p . 6·) . These findings wer e .suppo r ted by ... Rock (1985).and~is col1ea·9u~s (Ameri~en'ASSOCiation. of.

School Administrators), who.analyzed the sa~e data and concl~dedthat scho ol,e f fec t s~have equal impact on all pupils regardless of econeeuc conditions. Anothe~study co ndu c t edin the Boston sc hool s demonstratedthat certain types.of discipline , truancy , and suspension policies, alongwith,·the types or'responses of school pe r s o nnel to.

stude~ts ' learning and be hav.iou r problems , were related with student aUenatletn-- and droPP;1ng out (Massa?husetts AdyocacyCenter, 198 6).

Evidence from research't he n , have ind icated that a focus on~chool-related,factor s 1s'no t onl y,j Us t i fi ed bu t

also.necessary 1f solutions ~re to'be four-d. Research

has suggested that.the menner in which schoolsrespondto

;:t~dents regard~essof backg r ound,will lar gelyde h cmi ne_

\

"

\

"

..

24

l) .

whether or not student,::;__bewe alienated from school and drop out. It Ls,,therefore.'nec~s ~~ry toco n c e nt r a t e on factc:rs that are within the controlof the school so.that schools can more effectively'respond to those at risk of dropp fnq,ou t. ( . ' \

Res~arch

^Basad'

onpe~Ptlons

^of

'st~ents

Historically . one of the most neglected areas of research on-theschooling process'has been in the area of obtaining student:,' perceptlo~s... In'the pas.t two .. ' d~cades, a.g r owi ngin t e r e s t in.cognitive soc!-alpsychoi- ,/ ogy as it "r e l a t e s

"t4h8

schooling pfocess and an increased awar eness'of the rallab!1!ty' and potential value of students' perceptions have led to a greater interest in this area.

Educatlopal stu d i e s commencing withthe research of Thomas (1929) have been interested in the interactions .that go on in the cl a s s r oom. 'Until recently however, most studies have -tecused on measuring student an~

teacher overt behaviours. In the late 1940'S. it'was recognized t:hat emotional factors influenced the lnter- p.ersonal~interactions ih the classroom: WUhall (1949) termed this rrrterectacn "social·emotional climate" but he

did not recogn,lz9 the atuderrt^ta interactions,to be as . . - '

..

· .', ^{' /}

^~

^{.. .}

25

import;.~nt as the teachers. Thus, the focus remained

•the teacher. This focus began to change in the1970's when it became recognized that students' perceptions·of the learning environment wer~ ~seful in' predicting achievement and in contributing to·understanding the educational processes ("Moos, 1979; stern , 19 7 0;Walberg,

" . "10

1976). since-then, instrumentswhichus e the perceptions of st u de n t s tQ·eval':l~te their schools, teach~rs, and themselves have.bee~ developed and are us ed Wid~lY 10 ident i f yin g.e r e e s.f o r,.improvement I<!'ithln schqols.. -acme of'these instruments including, the OUelity of·School Life Scale developed by Epstein..and McPartland in 1976, and the Wisconsin Youth Survey developed by Wehlage;

the s~hoo l process. Th is interest 'e vol ved from the integ~ation.of the work of Brockover (1 97 6 ) , Rutter,

,

,

Mischel , ge ndu r e (1 9 7 9) and others, who viewed behaviour as resuit:1~g ^{fr cm-personal varLab.Les} interacting with situa ti on a l variables. The cognitTve socia:l psychology' model assume,s that~ student's interactions with others

,, '

I

26

rs the primary determinant

~

^{behaviour. The model}

pl~ces emphasis

on

the pezceptLc n of the student who gives meaning to the stimuli by hla/her unique wayof processing incoming messages.

Developments in the field of social cognition ha s prompted interestin studyinghow studentspe r c e ave their school experlence s. A review of student perception literature, conductep by Weinstein (19 8 3 ), tel:!t1fied to th", large .numb e r

dr,

^{studies that have been conducted}

using studentI5 Interpr~atlo~S of the classroom_

a s

a social environment. weinstein cited numerous studies

"

~hlCh haveInve~_t1gatedstudentIs perceptions of teacher att! tudes; behaviours. expectatipns,'causesof behaviour, sellf', classroom climate, and clo!ls#room processes. wei~stein ^{st ated that results from such research have} pcmeed Qutth a t students.are8war.e of the int e r a c t i on s. that oc~r'within the.cla~sroom,'a nd are enormou sly

~enSit1ve to differential treatments by teachers. she al s o stated thatstudents'infer teac herexpectations for the·ir academic'performance.from differential treatment whichin turn Leads ~o self-expectations that.match-the teacher expectations (p. 302). She viewed the,research that'had be en done up to that,time.us i ngst u dent·percep- tio n s , as

b~lng

^{valuable to educators by prOViding}

27

Inf o rma tiofl that coul d lead to improved tea ch e r effec t - tveneea.

othe r re s e arc he rs haveals oprovld~d evidenceon the value of re s e a r ch based on st udent perceptions. Whi t - field (197 6 ) sta tedthat the re was "amp le evidence th at studen ts .f o rm clear perceptions of their t.B8c her s.~nd

that -t hey can report be

.

hav i ou r s re s pon si bl e

.

for the se

pe:c e p t l ons." (p. 350 ). Amatora (1 9 5 2)andSymonds(1 9 5 5) showeq that s~udents In mid d l e gr a des an d In highschool wereabi e

to

^dl;;c rlmlriate betweentell.cher s w~th'r,egl!rdto the quality of teacher-pupil Irrt e r ect.Ions. ~Haak at at.

J' . . . '_ .

.(197~) bad enough ~on f1d ence in student percept10~9 to

deve lo pa'~roupinstrumentt~eeesuee8tud~ntp·er~eptlonS U. of~eachers even at the primaryIeve'l,:Baks h and.Ma rti n. (19 8 6 )ca rr i ed out extensive researchon stu de n t perc ep- tions of school'a ndid~nt1f1edseveeej ~m·portantedvene- ages of thisl'Ieth od ofdetacolle c t ion. Student ·pe rce p- tions prOVi ded th~ with'in s ight s into specifi c behav..

iour s ~hiCh the y could not

- r:

^{go·t ten othe rwise. They}

els~toundthat studentsdid no t offe r sim plis ti c upllln'- atio n s,of class,roominteractions. T.hey cpn,clu d ed that et ud e n ts'', perceptionsheveimportantimplic a ti on s in:t h at 0.

\

^{. . .}

.

-knOWl e dge\o f the student s~ "view mig ht well stimulate teech era and sc h oo l admini s t rato rs to inqUire into why

.

^.-::':

2'

students adhere to their particular perceptions .. , Also, awareness of the student perspective"will ej.e r t school personnel to fruitful directions for educational chanqee (P , 27).

Teachers: Attitudes Expecta.tions and Behaviours Teacher attitudes.

A review of tl:.1elite~ature as related to teacher- stu~en!-relationships suggested that much of the research cond~ctedon this area failed toma k e clEtar~cUstinctions between teacher'attitudes, behavi~urs, and"expectations.

Many.r e s ea r c he r s , however, p!'inted out the fmportance of

""~

tmde;standing underlying beliefs atti tudes of teachers, as these beliefs impacted on t?e way they behaved toward students (Brophy, 1979;.coppersmith &

~eldman, "1 9 7 4 ; palardy, 1969; seever , 1973). Some

"r e s ee r e ners produced ev Ldence

tha~

teacher attitude was t....

-r~lated^{to teacher}behaViour ,'which inturn had"an'i mp a c t on s t.udent; perception and resultant student achievement.

D,,:vidson and.Lang (1960) Inve~t19atedthe relationship between $tudents' p,er~ept1on:ir.,of"teacherattit~destoward them and their feelings,"8~6ut the~selves, th~~r a~ve- ments , and their classroom behaviours; They found a positive relationshipbe'tjeeen perceived positive teacher

2'.

attitude and pos iti v e sel f -imo!llge,h~9her·achievement . and

,

"-

mor e acce pta ble clas sroom beh a viour as rated by te ach ers. Mar tin -(1985). 1n Voi c e s F,r om the' Classroom ill.ustr ated in his st ud y.of stude nt pe r c e ption s towa r d school, the impor tance 0; teache r ' s 8t t l~udes towa r d studen ts. In the Hut tnstud y. it was 1.ndl cate!d ~1?-at stude"nts perc eived that a goo d re l a tionship with the teac her wa ses sent;..ial-if·-on~,wasto do well . ~Relatedly, 1t'hasbe en implied tha t thete~chers onecan usuallYltget alongwithar e usu <;ll ly • good teac hers' end such teachers ar en.ece s saryi fone is todo well in sc hool "[p , ~91.

Ot herstu dies have produ cedle s s conc l us ive resu l t s on

~he ~ela~lori.shlP . betwe~n

^teacher

ahl,tud~s

^end

achi e v e ment s of students. Resul t s , fr o l. a .a msnede r· s, (1970

~

^{stud y indicated that eeecber's}

~t~es

^{.mede e :}

differenceon student achieveme nt

,

in !poor black' scho o l s butnqt in 'poo rwhite' or middlecl a ss schools. A st u d y' con~ucte d by Edmon ds (197 9) found contradictor y results . This st ud y reported that teacher att itudes' were not

, ,

related,totheve~balac hievement of poor blsclt Chlldre,n, but:werE!\ re~ated to.high ac h i ev eme n t for wh~te c~lldren

a~dt.oa,l es se r exten t formiddle class~lackch i '+d r en . 6

Two recent stu dies conducted for the tario tud of'the Relevanceof Education'and The Is ue of Dropouts,

'.

30

f. ^{' f}}

^{produced eV!denC~th at'dropouts}perce~ved teacher~

s ess caring" that did school graduates. In the Gol arb (198 7 ) study, dropouts ranked thei r degree of satisfaction wi th "t he de g r dto which teac hers were intere s t e d 1n

er

student" 8S44 out of a possible'

lpO .

while graduateslgave te ach e r sIIIrating of 58. The De c ima (1987 ),stu dy

f~nd similar l~Vldenc~

^{for the perceived'}

indifference of teachers by dro p out s. In the Decima -studyon l y 26 pe r cent at'dropou:t s per:celved ee eehe e e as,

car i ng as compa redto 45percent ofgrac;luates . The study. Leaving Ea rlv .-\ A study' of's t u de nt Retenttp'at,on e'

.

^. ionofInth eNe wf ound b ridmos t "i mpo rt·a nt el eme.rit.sand

^.

La br ad orin(19 8 4 )..

the

stu~entsstatedI

sch ool1.i-fe.was thete acher . In th~tstuo y, onehu noreo, dropouts were ask~o·whot i t·was they would change in school if they hed.the powe r to do so• .The response was unmistakablyteachers' negativeattitudes.

Teache r expectat i ons an dteacher behev t c u e s. Over the years research ha.s pr c d ucee considerable evLde nc e ona positive link between te a c h e r expectat ions

- ..

an dstudentaclH.evement. Themost contro versialresearch in this area was Rosen thal ano'Jacobso n's '( 19 68) Pgymolion intheclassroom. rhat atudyr~port:'eofindings

"