ESTEEM BUIW INGVERSUSPUNISI IMENT:
TimEFFECfIVENESSOf SELF·ESTEEMGROUP COUNSELLING ON
TilEBEHAVIOR OF JUNIOR IIIGIiSCHOOL STUDENTS
by
Judith Furlong-Mallard
AReoortSubmittedtothe School of Graduate StudiesIn PariialFulfilmentof theRequirementsfor the Degree
of Master ofEducation
Facultyof Education MemorialUniversityof Newfoundland
October 1994
St.John's Newfoundland
11+1
NalionalUbrary 01ceoaca~isitionsand Directionceseccusscoset BibliographicSetvic8sBranch desservcesbibliographiques
39:5WdqlOl1$lreel 39S.l\IeWejlirlglcwl
~~atIo ~~~o.uno)
TIlEAUTHOR HAS GRANTED AN IRREVOCABLE NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENCE ALLOWING THE NATIONAL Lm RARY OFCANADA TQ REPRODUCE,LOAN,DISTRIBurE OR SELLCOPIESOF HISIHERTIiESISBY ANYMEANSANDIN ANYFORMOR FORMAT,MAKINGTHISTHESIS AVAILABLE TO INTERESTED PERSONS.
TIlEAU11IOR RETAINSOWNERSHIP OFTIiE COPYRIGHT IN HIS/HER TIiESIS.NElTIIERTIiE THESISNOR SUBSTANTIAL EXTRACTS FROMIT MAYBE PRINTEDOROTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUTmSIHER PERMISSION,
ISBN 0-612.01855-5
Canada
L'AUTEUR A ACCORDEUNELICENCE IRREVOCABLEETNONEXCLUSIVE PERMETf Ar..TA LA BmLlOTItEQUE NATIONALE DUCANADADE REPRODUIRE. PRETER, DISTIUBUER
au
VENDRE DESCOPIES DESA TIiESE DE QUELQUE MANIERE ET SOUSQUELQUE FORMEQUECE SOIT POURME1TREDESEXEMPLAIRESDE CElTE TIlESEA LADISPOSITlON DES PERSONNE lNTERESSEES.L'AUfEUR CONSERVE LA PROPRIETE DUDROITD'AUTEUR QUIPROTEGE SAnIESE. NI LA ntESE NI DES EXTRAITS SUBSTANTIELS DE CELLE- CINE DOIVENTETREIMPRIMESOU AUTREMENT REPROOUITS SANSSON AUTORISATION,
TA8LEOF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .
ACKNOWL EDG EMENTS•• •.... LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER PURPOSE... •.
. .. vi
.....ii
..1
INTRODUCTION.. PROBLEM . . . .. . . .. •4
RATIONALE ... ..II RESEARCHOUESTIONS. . . •. ...•.6
II REVIEWOF LITERATURE ...•.. . ... ...13
Punishment 13 Self-EsteemDefined .. . . . .. .... . ..17
Self-Esteem&Academic Achievement... . ..21
Self·Esteem&Depression... .... ... . ..21
Self·Esteem&DelinquentBeha...lor. . . .... •23
Self·Esteem&PeerPressure... . . .24
Self-Esteem/GroupCounsellingPrcgrams••• •. .24
III METHO DO LOGY.•.... ...•. ... • •.. ... .... . .... .32
III
SUBJECTS SAMPLING
.32 32
DESIGN&HYPOTHESES .. ... 33
ASSESSMENTINSTRUMENTS. ...35
Self-EsteemInventory(SEt) ...36 BehavioralAcademicSelf-Esteem .38 BRp·2 Student RatingScales .. 41 BRp·2 TeacherRatingScale. .41 .... 42
. 44
. 46
..46 .... .46 ..•47 ..•52 . ...54 60
. 65
..65 ...., ... .. 65 Detention
Teacher Ratingsof StudentBehavior.. StudentSelf-Esteem ....
Self-Esteem Detention StudentBehavior
TeacherRatingofSelf·Esteem DISCUSSION OF RESULTS....
PROCEDURE .
STATISTICALTREATMENT OF DATA. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..
PRE'5ENTATJONOF RESULTS IV
I'
ConcurrenceBetweenStudents&Teachers.... .67 GroupCounselling&Self-Estee m
GroupCounselling&Behavior TeacherIdentification of AI RiskStuden ts
... .67 ... ....69 ..71
BenefitsofSelf-Estee mGroupCounselling. .71 V SUMMAR YANDRECOMMENDAT IONS.
VI REFER ENCES
..73 .... ... •78
VII APPENDICES. . .89
A SchoolBoard Consent toConductResearch ..89
ABSTRACf
Thepurposeofthis studywasto examinetheefficacyof aneight week groupcounsellingself-esteem programin changing the behavior of juniorhigh schoo lstudents frequc nUydisciplined wilhdetent ion.Changes inbelulVior were measuresusing self-reports from studentsand behavioral observationsofteachersfrom theBrown and HammillStude ntand TeacherBehaviorRating Scales (BRP·2), theCoopers mithSelf-Esteem Invento ry (School Form),and theCoopersmithBehavioral Academ icSelf- EsteemTeacher rating scales,Threegroup sweremeasuredfor changes in behavior : (I) agro upof ten stude nts identifiedforshowing recidivismin detention;(2) a groupof tenstude ntsidentified byteachers ashavingthe poten tial toben efit from self-esteemintervention; and (3) a controlgroup of tenrandomly selectedstudents. Data were analyzedusingboththe pairedand indepe ndentt-test statistic,Results showeda sign ificant decreasein the incidence of detenti onfollowing groupcounse lling, Although the improvement sinself-esteem did notreachlevels ofstatistical significance,significant changesinstudent behaviorwerereportedbythe studentsand their teacher s.The results we re discussedinrelation to their implicationsfor schooldisciplinepractises and theapplicatio nsof self- esteem interventionprograms inschools,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am vel)'gratefultomany peoplewho madethecompletionof this thesispossible.
Aspecial thank you isextended to Ms.BettyLou Kennedyfor beingIIgreat supportand mentor for me throu ghoutthe courseof this study.
Thankyou to the Administrationand Teachers01theschoo l ill which thisproject was piloted.Also a sincere thank you tothe childre n who participatedin thisstudy.Without them,noneof this would have been possible.
A vel)'specialthankyou to my loving sister Kim,myfriends.my specialgra ndmother M[1;.LorettaFurlong,and myextended familyfor their interest,concern findsupport.
Thankyou Momand Dad formakingme the personla m today.
Your unconditionalsupport,encourage mentandlovehavegive n methe gifts of strengthand confidence.Iam forevergrateful.Ilove you both.
Finally,Jsha re thisaccomplishmentwith my dearhusbandChris, whoselove, strength.encouragement and appreciation of myaspirations.
have madethis possible.
.II
USTOF TABLES
Table! Page
Gend er lindGrade Distribution ofSubjects 34 inExperimentalGroups IandIIand
ControlGroup
AComparisonofMean s ofPre- and Postlest 47 Detent ion Scoresand t-T estsfo r
ExperimentalGrou ps Iand II and Control Group
Between GroupCompa risons of Means of Pre- 48 and PosUest DetentionScores andt-Tes ts
Among ExperimentalGroups I and II and Con trolGroup
AComparisonofMeans of Pre-and Pastiest 49 Scoresonthe Student BehaviorRating
Scalesof the BRP-2 and t-Tests for Expe rimentalGroups I and II andContro lGro up
Between GroupComparisons ofMeans of Pre- 50
and Posttest Scoreson theStudentBehavior RatingScales and t-TestsAmon g Experimental GroupsIand "andControlGroup
A Compa risonof Means of Pre- and Posttest 53 Scoreson theTeacherBehaviorRating Scale
of the BRP-2and t-TestsforExperimental Groups Iand IIand Contr ol Group
BetweenGroupCompariso nsof Means ofPre- 55 and Pc sttestScores on theTeacherBehavior
RatingSca leof theBRP-2 and t-TestsAmong Experimenta lGroups I and II and ControlGroup
A Comparisonof Means ofPre- andPosttest Scores onthe Coopersmith Self-Es teem Inventory for Studentsand t-Tests Among Experimen talGroups Ilind IIlindContro l Group
Between Group Compar isonsof Means ofPre- andPosnest Scores onthe Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory AmongExperimental GroupsIandIIand Contro lGroup 10 A ComparisonofMea ns of Pre- andPosucst
Scoreson the CoopersmithBehavioral AcademicSelf-Es teemScaleandt-Tests as RatedbyTeachers for Experime ntalGroups IandIIandControlGroup.
II Between Group Comparisons of Meansof Pre- and Postt est Scores onthe Coopers mith Self-Esteem Invento ry Among Experimenta l GroupsIand I{andContro lGroup
"'''
59
61
63
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE
The purpose of this studywas to examine the efficacyof a group counsellingself-esteemprogramin decreasing theincidenceofdeten tion and improvingthe behaviorof gradesix andsevenstudentswho freq uently receivedetentionas aform of punishmentforbrea kingschool rules.TIle study undertook to determine ifthere was empiricalsupport fortheliseof self-esteemgroupcounsellingas an inte rvention to decrease recidivismin detention and toimprovethe behavior of thesestudentsasrated by themselves lind their teachers.
INTRODUCTIO N
Accordingtothelite rature,a varietyofpracticeshavebeenusedin many schools to combatdiscipline problems.Whilemany approachesare used10eliminate disruptive behaviors,educatorscontinue torely ona limitednumberof techniques(Lundell,1982).AccordingtoLundell, amongthemostfrequentlyused behaviorcontrol meth ods are:(I)verbal reprimand;(2) revokeprivileges;(3)corporal punishment; (4)dete ntion;
(5)suspension;and(6)expulsion. The most commonlyheldperceptionof
discipli ne,according to theExecutive Committ ee ofIhe Couuci! for Childrenwith Behavior Disorders (1989)is oneofpunishme nt forrule- breaking behavior.Thisoften resultsinpunitiveschool discipline policies.
as wellliSa limitationof the range ofoptions pursuedby schoolpersonnel.
Schoolshavebeenknowntouse both dete ntion andsuspensionas specific interventio n strateg iestodeal withdiscipline problems.Like suspe nsion,"de tention is oftenineffective, but, lacking other alternatives,it contin ues to be a sta ndardwayof dealingwithclassroom problems"(Dodd, 1990. p.94) . In anobse rvationalstudyonschoolrulesin theprovince of Newfoundlandand Labrador , Martin&Baksh (1984)notethat det ention isprobablythe most widelyused formofpunishment inschools ill the provin ce. Marlin&Bakshsuggest thaiif stude ntobservationserevalid then det en tionsmaynotbe achievingthe goals teachersandadministr ato rs havefor this method ofpunishment,
Meth ods of discipline suchasdetentionandsuspe nsionsupport a beha vioralapproach to schoo ldiscipline, wher eby punishme ntisissued followingtheviolationof school rules.Whilethereis exte nsive literature onthe useof behaviormodif icationas amethod of inte rvent ion with behaviordisorde red childre n,the gene ralizabilityofitsimpactis questionable (Hyma n&Lally,1982).
Incontrast to behaviortheory,humanist ictheorypositsthat human beings ate cap abl eofself-aware ness(Corey, 199 1).Asaresuhof thisself- awareness,humans havethe capacity that allows them tothink and decide.
Themore awareness"personhas,themorealte rnativesh~shehas available. Thistheo ryassumesthathum an beings striveforself- actualization, i.e.the fulfilmentofhuman potential.Accordingto existential-humanistictheory,byexpandingself-awarenessend thus increasingcho icepotentia ls, people arc morelikely10 become respon sible for the direct ion oftheirlives (Corey.199 1).According toHyman&Lally (1982)."TIlehumanpotential move menthasasitsgoalstheincreased understand ingofself inter msof interpersonalrelationships.Because of itsemphasison group processandcommunica tion.proponentssee itasit majormethodforimprOV'ing teach er-stude ntrelations" (p.I8.J).Fromtheir interactionswith adults and~ers,aswellasfrom inc reasedself-insight, children beginto developa moredefiniteself-conceptandto become aware whotheyare(Morganeu,1990).Provid ingch ildre nwho oftenget intotroubleinschoolswitha structuredopportu nityto develop sell-insight andself-esteem may decreasethefrequency andseverityofbehavior problem s inschools.
Based on the literatureondiscipline,it appears thatthemajority of
interventionprogram s10combat disciplineproblemsinschoolsarc punitive measures.Tilepresentre sea rcherbelievesthatfurther investigat ionneedsto be donetoexaminethe effectivene ss of more positiveapproachestodisciplinewhichfostersell-esteem andself- awarenessinstude n ts.Althoughthe researche rbelievesthatthe implementation ofrules is key to the development of socialorder in a school.she believesthat conseque ncesfor breakingrulesarenecessarybul notsufficie ntforso lving allschool disciplineproblems.Theissue concerningtheuseof punishmentcannotberesolved unlessteachersarc providedwith alternativeand effectivemethodsof dealingwithchildren whomisbe h ave and refuse to learn(McDaniel,1980).
PROBl.EM
In theory ,if punitivemethods of interven tionwereeffective;c.g., detention, suspensio n, there would befewer disciplineproblemsinschools.
A major cr iticism ofapunitiveapproachto disciplineisthatthe applicationof behavior managementtechniquesgroundedin behavior theory may notnecessarilypromoteaction to change behavioronce contingenciesare removed. 'they canalso be threateni ngtotheself- esteem ofstude nts. According to Lundell(1982), "Personswhopunish fail
10reHlizethe psychologicalrcality thai punishmc nttypicallyICHds onlytoa tempora ry suppressionoftheunacceptablebehHvior"(p.9).Asaresult, educatorsneed toexamine in meredetail why studen tsbehaveasIheydo andthen findaltern ativemethods ofdisciplinewhichwill decrease undesirable behavio rwhilelimitingthethreat10the self-esteemof students.
Resultsof aschoolwkle needsassessmentforitlocal Btcrnentaryzlunior High School ind icated tha tteachersratedbuilding self- esteemand decre a singdisruptivebehavior asthetwoloppriorities respectively,forthe1992·1993 academicschoolyear.Currentmethods of discipline includingdetent ion, suspension,verbal rep rimand.etc.havenot succeede dindecreasingmisbehavior for acertain populatio nofstude nts, Thisisevidentfrom reports of teachersindicating th:;Ithey havebeen seeing thesame studentsquitefrequently in thedeten tionroom after school.
Itis a policyatthisElemenlary/Jun ior-HighSchooltouse deten tion(a Icrmofpunishme nt). as adisciplinestrategy withstudentswhobreak school rulesinthe classroomRnd/oronschoolgrounds.Twice per weeka teacher meetswiththesestudentstohold asixty minutedetentionperiod whereinthese stud entsarerequired to complete acad emic work aboveand
beyond their regular hom ework. as wellas complete a writ ingassignment inquir ing about thereasonforthedetentio nas wellas wha t they would do thenext time the same situatio narises.Based011teacherreportsand office recordsof studentswho attend detentions.itis evide nt thatthereis agroupofstude ntsfor whom intervention strategiesbasedon principles of behaviorismisineffect ive:i.c.,thereisa populatio nof studentsfar whom detent ionand/orsuspensionarc ineffectivedeterrentsfor theinfringemcnt of school rules.
RATIONALE
Sinceschoo ls arca par t ofsociety,they reflect theprobl ems and changesin societyat lar ge.They servelargenum bers of childre nwho come from a widevarietyof backgroundsanddive rse cult u res(McDa niel, 1986). Giventheheter o gcneity of stude ntsinclassroo mstoday. discipline issuesare inevitable.Becausethe presentstudentpopula tionismore diverse, itis also more challengi ngforeducatorsto dealwith. In a survey of1,388kindergartenthrough gradesixteachers in the Uni tedStates, Clapp (1989)found that 69pe rcent cited disciplin e asthemost crucialof toeducatio nalissuestodayand almosthal f saiddiscipline problem shave increased during the past 10years. GallupPolls heldin the UnitedStates
Cor sixteenconsecutiveyearsexamining tbepublic's allitudetowards public schools indicatedtha t disciplinewas perceivedasthenumber one problem (Mclrenlel, 1986). As a result, teachers andAdministratorsarespe nding a large proportio nof their time dealing wilh disciplineissues. According to WolCgang&Glickman(1986),
When a teacher encountersadisruptive studentin the classroom setti ng, whatever senseoCclass achievemen t previouslyatta inedbegins to erode, Notonly isthe particular child'sschool lifeunhappy, buthis or her actions screamfor the teacher's constantattention.Suchatte ntion pulls theteacher away fromwhathe or she desired10do with the otherchildren.Giventhat the teacherhasto atte nd tothe disruptivechild, he or she is often left witha sense of guiltthatinsufficientattentionwas given tothe other studentsl.e. the amountofattent ionhe or she hadintended to give them wasnot followed through (p. 4).
Nowmore thanevereducatorsmustinquire into newmeth ods of dealing withdiscipline problems in schoolsifthey aretomeetthe needsof their students, In hisinvestigation of the problems and causesofself- destructive youth, Hunter (1989)broughtattention 10howthesocial conditions inNorthAmericaaswellasIherest of the worldareproducing a generationof youthat riskwho areillpreparedto copewiththe realities of the worldinwhich thylive ,Hunter suggeststhatthis is reflected in:
the heightenednumber of academicfailuresandschool dropouts: inincreaseddrug,alcohol, and tobaccouse;in the tragic increaseofadolescentsinfectedwithAIDS and HIV;
inthe expandednumberof teenandpre-teenpregnancies:
and in therising rate ofgangviolence[p.52).
Sim ilarconcerns have been documented by Youngs(t989) whodiscussed how at onepoint intime, it seemedthatonlycertainstude ntswerealrisk in becominginvolvedin destructivebeha viors. Youngsstalesthai today, ma nymore students are at risk,not justtheones whoareoflen labelled as economicallydeprived,or emo tionallyorphysically neglectedand/or abused.Giventheseriousnessof theseissues,it isimperat ivethat schools be givenworkableprogramsthat treat discipline asaneducational problem instead ofsolelyas a managementproblem (McDanie l,1986).
Onetype ofprogramto dealwithstudents withchronicdiscipline problemswhichmayalsohelp toreducethe stressthesestudents place on teachersis a self-estee mgroupcounsellingprogramofferedbytheschool counsellingstaff.Insteadofprovidingonly punishment to child ren for misbehavior,thisaltern ativecould offerstudents the opportunity for creatingpositive relationships, and improving self-esteem .Lea ders in the field ofresearch onself-esteem haveindicatedthe importa nceof healthy self-esteem inorderfor human beings to rea lize theirfull potent ial.
According to The Councilfor Children with Behavior Disorders(J990),
"Asteachers andadministratorsserving childrenwithbehaviora land
emotionaldisabilities,wehaveamandate tofacilitat etheiracademicand social developmentand toamelioratebehaviorsthat may redu cetheir accessto free, successful,andhappylives"{p.243), For somechildre n,in particularthose childre n whoareunresponsivetopunishment as amethod of interventionfor misbehavior,thisprovidesthem withanalternative modelof discipline.Thisisnottoimplythatchildrenwhobreak schoo l rules should notreceive consequencesfor theirbehavior. Itsuggests, rather, that theremaybemoreeffectiveintervention stra teg ies for shap ing beh aviorthat whe n coupled withschooldelivereddiscipline.may cause morelastingbehavior al change.
Numerousstudies over the past fewdecadeshave providedevidence forthebenefitsof promotinghigh self-esteeminchildren, The relationshipbetween self-esteemand performancehasbee n suppor tedby research (Hansford&Hattie.1982;Samuels,1977) and fromanecd otal reportsfromteache rsandparents.Asstated by Can field(1990),
"Teache rsintuitively knowthat whe n kidsfeel bette r Abo utthemselves, theydobetterinschoo l"(pAS), Youngs(1989) wroteon thevalueof crea tingAschoolwideenvironmentthat promotespositive self-estee m.She notesthefollowing:
Thehigherastudent'sself-esteem, the betterable heisto
10
take onthechallengesandfrustrations associatedwiththe le arni ng experience.
2. TIle higher a student'sself-es teem.thebetter "quippedsheis to copewithadversity and diversity in theschoo l place. as we ll asin otherareas of he rlife.
3. Thehighera stude nt'sself-es teem. tilemore able he Is to develop andsustainnourish ing rel ationships.
4. Thehigher a student'sself-esteem.the more secureshewill be in confron tingobstacles and conflicts. thebett er ab le 10 solve problem srathe r thanworryingaboutthem.
5. 111ehigher a student'sself-esteem.the moredecisive lind purposefulheis.
6. The highera stude nt'self-esteem,the better ableshe is10 recognizeherstreng thsandcapabilities.
7. Thehigher a stude nt'sselfesteem,the morelikely itisthat hewilltreat otherswithrespect and fairness.
8. Thehighe ra stude nt'sself-esteem, themore resilien tshe is toproblems and defeats (p. 61).
Insummary,itis evident thatthe re arelimitationstothe effective ness ofpunishmen tas adiscipline strategyfOT solvingallproblems inschool. Giventhe emp iricalsupport fOTthebenefits ofhealth y self- estee mcoupledwith the literature suppo rtingtheefficacyofgrou p counse lling,itseemslogicalthatofferingstudentswho aTC frequ en tly punish edinschoo l the opportunity toparti cipat ein agTO Up experi ence whichwillprom ote sel f-estee m maydecrease thefrequency andseverityof
II
behavior problems inschools. Moreover, school-basedgroupcounselling programsfocused011developing self-esteemwouldalsocontribute to raising schoolwidelevels ofself-esteem and in doing soprovide schools witha moremeaningfulinterventionstrategy10help childrenwho repeatedly breakschoolrules.
RESEARCHQUESTIONS Thisstudysought 10 answerthefollowingresearch questions:
Do childrenwho frequent detentionperceivethemselvesashaving lower self-esteem and/orpoorerbehavior than their peers?
2. Doteachersperceive childrenwho frequentlyreceivedetentionas havinglower self-esteemand poor er behaviorcompared totheir peers?
3. Do studentsand teachers concurin howtheyratethe self-esteem and behavior ofstudents?
4. Canteachers identify at risk childrenwhocan benefitfrom work in the area ofself-esteem?
5. Do students and teachers ratethe self-esteem and/or behaviorof students ashavingimproved afterstudents pnrticlpatedin aneight week self-esteemgroup counsellingprogram?
12
6. Can teachers ide ntifyat risk studen tswhocouldpotentially benefit from self-esteemgroupcounselling?
7. Isthere evidenceto suggest thai self-esteemgroupcounselling may be aneffectiveinterven tionstrategyfurschools 10 investinforthe purposesof decreasingdisciplin eprobl ems inschool?
TIle foll owing Chapterprovidesamoreindepthreviewof the
litera turewith afocus onthefollowi ngissues:theuse ofpunishmen tas a methodofbehavioral change;areview oftheconceptof sell-esteemand
howit relat esto acade mic,socialandemotionalwell-being; andtile implication sofself-estee m andgroupcounse lling interventi onprogram s for edu cation.
CHAPTERII
REVI EWOFLITERATURE
Theuse ofpun ishment hasbee n criticizedasan intervention strategy for dealingwithschooldiscipli neproblems becauseof thethreats itposes to self-esteem.This studyexamined(Illalterna teapproac hto discipline which allowedforthe developmentof self-esteemin children who are frequentlydisciplinedinschool through participationin a self- estee m group counsellingexperience. Group counselling programshave be en establishedbecauseof their effectiven esswithyouth, including efforts atimproving self-esteem. This literature reviewisdividedinto sectio ns whichexamine theissues ofpunish ment, self-esteem, the consequencesof highllow self-esteem,lind theimplications of sejf-eeteem/groupcounse lling interventio n programsfor schools.
Punishmen t
For many yearsteachershavekept studen tslifterschool for viola tio n ofschool rules. With thissystem,studentswhobreak rulesmust spe n d timein silenceand/oratwork with otherdisruptive studentsat theend of theschoo l day.Accordi ng toRstudyonschool rules inNewfoundla n dand Labrador .MRrtin and Baksh (1984)sugges ted thaidetentionmay bethe
14
mostwidely used form ofpunishment in schoolsin the province.Like suspens io nandexpulsion.these met hods ofpunishmenthave been criticizedaspreventionstra tegiesbecausetheydolilllt10promote behavioralchan g e.
Punishmentisthemostcommonmethod for behavior controlinOIlT culture (Lundell.1982).Defined.punishmentrefers10"a spectrum of contingentlyadministered techniquesdesigned to reducetheprobabilityof an individual'sbehavior"(Councilfor Childrenwith BehaviorDisorders, 1988.p.2).Acc ording10Lundell(1982),inherent in thephilosophyof punishme ntisthatchildren misbeha vebecau se"they arebad"and that misbehavioris a"faultofthechild"(p.9).Lundellstatesthat oneofthe mainreasons ed ucatorscontinue 10punishisthe(aclthatpunishment oflenappearsto been effective and immediate way ofeliminati ngthe undesired behavior.Moreover, educators oflen feel theydo nothavethe resourcestoprovide anyotherfo rmofin te rvention.Skinner(1962),a leader inthefield of behaviorconditioning,broughtattentiontothe limitat ionsof punishment.He stated:
Punishm entisdesigned toremoveawkwar d.dangerous,or otherwiseunwant edbehaviorfromtherepertoire onthe assump tionthatRpersonwhuhas beenpunishedislesslikely to behaveinthesameway again. Unfortunately, punished behaviorislikelytoreappearafter thepunitive contingencies
IS
are wit hdrawn(p.62).
Some researchersfeelpunishmentdoesnothing otherthanmake children submissive10thoseinauthority. For example.Jones(1981),states,"The bestway 10make childrenbecomeheter o nomo us obedientadults is to use adult authority10rewardandpunishthe m.If we wantthemtobe come autonom ousadults,wemust developwaysto encourage themto construct their ownvalues"(p.14).
Althoughpunishmenthas been provento effectivelysuppress aberra n tand unacceptable behavior (MacM illan.Forness,&Trumbull, 1973;Polsgrove&Rieth,1983),anotherimpor tantissue pertaining toits use revolvesaroundvalues,ethics,andmorals.Commentingonhisown perspec tiveonpunish ment,Hewett (1978) arguesthat thetruemessage of mostpunishmentprocedu resis, "We are bigger andstronger thanyou, an d we willpunish you whe nwe th inkyouare bad"(p,103).Teache rsand theor istshave argued thatpunishmentdoesno t elimina teunaccept able responsesbu t merelysuppresses thebehaviorfor as long asthethreat of punishmentexists(Wood,1978b). Crit icismofpunishment has also come fromthosewho highlight theinherentmessageinpunishmentas one that conveysthe message thatthosewho havethe mostpowerand resour ces contro lsituationsand behavior.
16
Canter(1989),inhis workallschool disciplin e .raises ccnccmover theemphas isteache rsplace011provid ing on ly negat ive consequences when stude ntsmisbeh ave. He positsthat thekeyto dealingeffectivelywith stu de nt beha viorisnot negativebutpositiveconseq uences. ByfocusingOil nega tivebehavior teachers cangivestudents themessagethatnegative beh avior gets atten tion,that the teach er isanegative person , and the classroomis anega tiveplace.OmizoandOmizo(1988)recognizethe point that beingreprimandedfor socially ina ppropriat e behaviorand being rejec tedcantakeatoll onself-conceptendthat loweredself-concept may exace rbatethe difficulties. Canter (1989)believes,"Thekey10assertive disc iplineis catchingstude ntsbeinggood: re cognizin g Andsupporting them whe n theybeh ave appropr iatelyAnd letting the m know yotl likeit,dayin anddayout" (p.58). Mandlebaumetal.(1983) no tethat when teac he rs usepositiveappro achestodisciplinein thei r classroo ms, the re isagreat red uct ioninthe nu mberofstudents theyref er10 ad ministra tors, and significantincreases in thestudents' time on task,Schoolswithassertive disciplineprograms that take this positiveapproachillschoo l districtsin Ca lifornia, Oregon,Ohio,andArizona have indica te d animproveme ntin the climateofthe schooland thebehavior of the students(MoHettetill.•
1987).
17
A~educato rswe mustkeep inmindthat childre nwho frequ ently recei ve pun ishmentfor misbehavior in schoolscuemorelikelyto suffer fro mlower selfestee m[Ewashen, Harris, Porte r,&Samuels,198B).
Lowerself-concepthas beenrelatedtolower academicachieveme nt [Binder, Jon es,&Strowig, 1970; Cam pbell, 1967),less persiste nceand motivation (Coope rsmith,1967) and being emotiona llyas wellas socially maladjusted(Rogers&Saklofske, 1985).
As statedbyNathaniel Brandenin aspeechatthe First International Conference onSelfEsteem."Allover the world todaythere isanawake ning tothe impo rta nceofself-este em to individualandsocial well being"(Branden ,1992.p.ix).Theliterature suppo rting the importa nceof health y self-esteemisquite exte nsive. Bef.cexaminingit, a review of the concept of self-esteem iswarra nted.
Self-Esteem Define d
Asachildgrowsand 11f1smoreexperien ces.his/herinner picture of selfexpands. Thisinner pictureismadeup of all thedescriptionsan individual attac hes tohimself/he rself lindisref erredto astheself-concept (Borba, 1989) . This personaljudgemen t of wort hinessthat is expressedin tl-e attitudes lin individualholdstowardstheselfisreferredtoas self- estee m(Coo persmith.1986).Usingthe terminology ofRosenb erg (1965).
I'
self-esteem isthe"Evaluationwhich theindividualmakesandcustomarily mainta inswithregard10himseWherself, expressedas an alti tudeof Approvalor disapproval" (p.~). AccordingtoReas on er(1982).self-est eem is a reflectionof aperson's respect, confide nce,ident ity,and purpose.
Coopersmith,a child psychologist whodevot edhislife10the studyofself- image,wrote that in order tohavehighself-estee m peopleneed tofeel capable; thatthey possess skillswhichwill allowthemtoachieve.They need tofeelsignificant; thatwhat theythink.say.anddo mattersto those
aroundthem.Theyneedto seethemselves aspowerful:thattheyhave controlover whethappenstothem;thattheyareableto makechoices and decisions, Finally,they need 10 feelworthwhile;toIeel theyhave value.
thattheyareuniqueandworthwhile humanbeingsapartfrom whatever theymay ormaynotaccomplish(Coope rsmith. 1967).
Youngs(1989).in her discussions of the vitalingredientsofself- esteem,positsthat through outchildhood.self-esteem islargelyaffectedby parents and educators. She describestheschoolplace asbeing"all about believing, achieving.andsucceeding"(p. 65)and notes that positive self- esteemis essentialfor thehealthydevelopmentof childrenso that they can takeon the challengeof learning. Branden(1992).suggests theneedfor programsto introduce self-esteemprinciples and practisesinschools. His
.9
reasoningforthis is thatpoorself-esteemcanseverely limitaperso n's aspirationsandaccomp lishments.
Coopersm ith's research onchildrenwith high self-esteemand their families allowedfor some insight intothe typesofenvironments thatarc most effectiveinenhancingself-esteem. Borrowing from Coopersmith, Borba(1989) describes these environmentsas ones in wh ichchildre nor students:
perceive a sense ofwarmthandlove;
2. areoffereda degreeof securitythatallowsthemto grow and totrynewthings withou tan overridingconcern about failure;
3. arerespectedilSindividuals;
4. areencouraged tohave ideasandopi nions;
5. recognize that thereare clear and definitelimits with in the environmen t:
6. aregivenrules andstandards that are reasonablyand consistentlyenforced;
7. have a chance to succeedat theirownlevels;and 8. are accepted withno stringsattached (p. 7).
Thesetypes ofenvironmentscouldbe effectivelycreatedwithinthe classroom settingas wellas throughgroupcounse llingsessions.
Sincechildrenspendsomuch oftheir youth in school,schoo l
20
appe ars tobethemostlogical areas ofchoice to ensure healthy self- estee m. Intheir workonself-esteem inschools, You ngs(1989)and Hunter(1989)spea koftheincrease in destructivebeha viorsamong all stude ntsas opposed tojust the ones labelledemotionallyor physicillly neglect ed or abused. Reportin g simila rsympto msasHunter(e.g.•steady increaseof young people inflicting harm onotherstudents. drugand alcoh olinvolvement, youthpregnancy. dropping out of school.disrespec t for educators, parentsandfellowstudents), Youngs(1989)arguesthat
efforts at schoolrefonnwill not be fully successfuluntil'practtceethat infuse apositive self-rega rd, namely character-buildingprincip les that promote self-respect asabasisfor lea rnin g,are put in place"(p.60).
Accord ing toReasoner, (1992)schoo ls must elect tostrengthe n academi c skills.and helpstud ents believein themselves sothatthey cancopewith thechallengesof lifein productive ways. Unless educ atorsado pt and enforceIIphilosophy ofed ucation thatallows for the developm ent ofall face tsofhuman devel opment , includingtheaffective domain, childrenwill beillequipped10deal with today's world.
Over the yearsself-estee m has beeninvestigate d for itsrelationship toavariety ofoutco mes.Ithasbeen observed for its relationsh ipto academi c achieveme n t, depression, juvenile delinquen cy, asocial behavior.
and drug abuse to name a few.
Self EsteemamIAca de mic Achievement
Quite all extensiveamountof interesthas cente red around the relation shipbetweenseffe steemfind academicperforman ce.Amongthe morefrequently cited reasonsfor stude nts beingat riskinschools todayis low self-esteem (Walz&Bleur,1992).Childre n with highself-esteem tend to do better in school (Holly,1987).Lowerself-concepthasbeen related tolower academicachievement(Binder,Jones,&Strowig,1970), less persistenceand motivation(Coopersmith,1967). Conve rsely,highself- esteemhas beenshown to relatepositivelyto academic achievement (Demo&Savin-williams,19l:B).Wah:&Bleurargue that thebehavior exhibitedbyat riskstudents (e.g.,high absenteeism,poor grades,classroom inattentativeness,disruptive behavior)are directly related tolowself- esteem.Ifthis isindeed theCase,thendevelopingself-esteemshould help eliminate undesirablebehavior.Accordingto Purkey(1970), students with high self-esteem are morereceptiveto the educationalprocessandshow greater motivationin their work and social interactionswith teachers and peer s.National studiesin theUnited States haveclearly indicated that effortswhich promoteheightenedself-esteemalso miseacademic grades and testscores (Helge,1987).Covington (1984) noted the following,
"Areviewoftile correlationa lstudies report a positive associationbetween achieve ment andindicesof self-esteem.
As thelevel of self-esteemincreases.so do achieveme nt scores;andas self-esteem decreases, so doesachieve ment.
Furthermore,lindperhaps most impor tant.sell-estee mcan be mollifiedthroughdirect instruction and thatsuch instruction can lea dto achievementgains"(p. 5).
There is considerabledebate overthe exact mechanism of howStU- esteem affects academic performa nceor how academic achieveme ntaffects self-esteem . Holly (1987)suggeststhatself-esteem doesnot cause academic success,but it does contr ibutein threeways: "Firs t, feeling worthlesscan bedepressing and in turn, inhibit performance;second, fear of failure cancausestude ntstohold back; and third, repeat edfailure and recurringfeelings of incompetencecan be discouragingand demo ralizing.
Given thepositiverelation shipbetween self-esteemand academ ic achievement,it seems logicalthateffortswhich wouldcontr ibute to both areof considerablevalue .
Self-Estee mandDepression
Studieswhichexamine therelationship betweendepr ession andself- esteem have shown that people who arclowin self-esteem tendtoreport moredepressive symptoms(Feather , 1985) andthatIInega tive viewof self is often taken asa prima rydefining characteristicof depre ssion (Deck, 1967). Severalotherstudies compari ngdepression andself-esteem have
indicated aninverserelationshipbetweendepression andself-esteem, notingin most casesthat when aperson is depressed, he/shealso haslow self-esteem(Storr,1983; Feathe r.1985:Battle,1987).Rogers and Saklofske(1985)demon st ratedarelatio nshipbetween low self-conceptand beingemotionallyaswellas sociallymaladjusted.
Self-Esteemand Delinq ue ntbehavio~
Thelitera turehas alsoestab lisheda strongrelation ship between sell-esteem,delinquency,andasocialbe havior.Offer,Sabshin,&Marcus (1965)suggested that"ifpoorself-esteemdiffere n tiallycausesdelinquent behavior, thenit would have10 betruethat delin quentsgenera lly have poor self-esteem" (p.112).Studieswhic h have comparedtheself-es teem ofdelinquents andnorma ladults mostly show lower self-este emfor delinqu ents thanfor norm al adults(Berma n,1976; Beyer,1974; Ferguson.
Freeman ,&Ferguson,1977). Adler(1930),Dreiku rs (1962).and Kaplan, (1980)all posit that avoiding low self-esteemis the major motivatio nof human behavior;hence.individuals seekto avoid future devaluing exper iences whichthreat en selfworth.Reckless, Dinitz,&Murray(1956) have asserted thatpoor self-este em make s a childwlnerab le to environm ent alfo rces wh ich then leadto delinquency.
14
Self-Estee mand PeerPressur e
Positive self-esteem hasbeen wellestablishedas amea ns for comba tting thenegative effectsofsocietalandpeer pressure upon children (Jesse r&Jesser,198B;Glenn&Warner, 1983). Ina study examining positiveself-esteemand itsrelationshiptothenon-use of alcoholand drugs, Miller(1988)offeredeightone-hourclass sessions focused on building self-esteem ina gro upofGrade5 students.Theresul tsshowed significantchanges in attitudesupportingthenon-useofalcoholand drugs.
In their study of tobaccousebyyouth, Bonagurc&Boneguro (1987) found that incomparison to non-smokers,smokers were significantly lower
on measures ofself,home, and peerlevels ofself-esteem.
Self-Esteem/GroupCounsellingInterventionPrograms
Sinceself-esteemisa primary factor in how wellor howpoorlyan individual functions insociety,itisimperativethat schoolsfocuson developingthe self-esteemof students.Reasoner(1992), a school administrator, reported little success using threats,coercion,andpunitive measures whendealing with students with discipline problems. antisocial behavior,and lack ofmotivation.Havingno successwith this,heturned to self-esteem programs. Reasoner foundthat by focusingonself-esteem. the schoolstaff couldincreasethetuucuonalle vel ofstudents.reduce
zs
disciplinaryproblems,promote academic motivation, and impr ovethelevel ofcooperat ionamongstuden tsandbetweenstudents andstaff.A great deal of researc hhasprovidedsupport for the ability toimprovestudent behavior throu gh self-esteeminterve ntionprograms.Covington(citedin Reasoner,1992).inhis reviewofcorrelationalstudiesexamin ing the positiveassociationbetweenAchievement and indicesof self-esteem
concludedthat self-esteem can bemodified through instruction and that instructioncancauseachievementgains,
One interventionstrategythathasbeen reinforced forits successin
improving self-esteemin adolescents hasbeengroupcounselling.Gro up counselling has often been empirica llyproven in its effectiveness for adolescents (Hagborg, 1991). Argumentsfortheuse ofgroupcounselling for youthstemfrom the facttha tadolesce ntstendto be grouporiented andere more willing to discussconcerns in thepresence ofpeers.Asa result, Ihey gainsupport from shar ingconcer nstogether and maybemore opento changeunder peerratherthan adultinfluence(Patterso n,1971).
Morganen (1990)suggeststhat,
Groupcounsellingcan provide studentswith the opport unity tofocus onfeelingsand theresolution ofaffectiveissues.It can beusedto helpthose students whoarealready having beha v ioralor personality problems. Although group counsellingis primarilyremedial, it can helpthesedifficulties
26
from developi nginto more seriousproblemsas wellas servingapreventat ivepurpose (p.1),
Imp rovements inself-estee m through groupcounselling have beendocume nted inthefollowing:
(l) childre nwhoexhibitlearn ing disabilitiesandactingout behavio r (Ozlmo&Ozimo,1986,1987,1988);
(2) Unde rmo tivatedchildre n(Campbell. 1991):
(3) Emotionally handicapped children(Hagberg. 1991):
(4) Black highschoolstudents(Steward&Lewis,1986);
(5) Childrenofdivorcedparents(Ozimo&Ozimo, 1988;Yaum an, 1991).
Intheir1986 study,Ozimo&Ozimooffered7 consecutiveweekly gro upcounsellingsessionstotenlearnin g disabledchildrenranging inage from9 to10years. Thepurpose of the studywas to eliminateself- defeatin g behavior.Thisincluded problemssuchRSfearoffa ilure, infe riorityfeelings,badstudy hab its,lack ofmotivat ion, and underachieveme nt. Although theydidnotreport anystatisticalana lysis, Ozimo&Ozimoreporl ed anincreaseinchildren'sverbalinteractio nskills.
Pare ntsand teache rs observed positive changes in the childre nandthe children alsoreportedfeelingbetter about themselves.
Intheir1987 study,Ozimo&Ozimo examined theeffectsofgroup
27
counsellingonclassroom behavior andself-concep t amongelementary schoo llearning disabledchildren.Ten weeklysessions lastin g 50 minutes induratio nwere offered toflO elemen ta rystuden ts ranginginagefrom 5 1010years.111eresults from thePrimary Self-Concept Inventory showed a significant improvement inclassroombehavior suchas lessacti ngout behavior, and lessdistractibility.Of the measures ofself,childre nwho participated in the groupsessio ns sho ved significant improvement s intheir social selfscores but notintheir personalor intellectual self.
In their1988 study,Ozimo&Ozimo usedthe Piers-Harris Child ren'sSelf-ConceptScaleand the SocialBehaviorAssessm en t10 measure for improvement inself-conceptandsocial behaviorin4th-6th grade children following groupcounselling. 11,e same tenweekly sessions were offered in this studyas in their1987 study.TIle resultsindicatedthat the childrenwhoparticipatedinthegroupcounsellingsessions had significantly higher self-conceptscores comparedto a controlgroup and the childreninthetreatment group hadmorepositiveratings ontwo social skillsscales(i.e.,interpersonalbehaviorand task-relatedbehavior).The authorsbrought attention tothe fact that their resultssupport the applicationofgroupcounselling in theteaching of sociallyappropriate behaviorto children.
Z8
Hadley(1988)developed" 12·week affectiveeducationprogram for secondgrade stude nts.Althoug h the mean scores onthePiers-Harris Ch ildren 'sSelf-ConceptScaledid 1101demon strateasigniftcam increase.
ther e was a significant impactallacademic performance asmea suredby SATread ing scores.Theresearchersuggestedthat elementarySd1001 counsellorscanpromotethe developm ent of thewho lechild as wellas promoteacademic gainsthrough theinclusio nofhumanisticeducat ionin schools.
Campbell(1991),initdiscussion onthe application s of group co unsellingwithundermotivat ed children,suggested that smallgroups of unde rmot ivatcdchildrencan bemoti vated to change theirbeh aviorby usinga var ietyof techniques.These techniques include: guided fant asy anddiscussionsof attitudes,behavior, and fe elings;focusing on behaviors;
positive affirmations toeliminate self-defeatingtho ughtsandbehaviors;
andvisualizationstohelp students movetowards actualizing their goa ls.
Theneedforgroupcounsellingservicesforchildrenof divorce has also bee n highlight ed inthe literat ure. In her review oftheliterature, Yeum an (1991)stated that childrenofdivorce cancontinue to experi ence problemsup to10yearsafterthedivorce. Yaumanwrote thatthesupport fo r school-basedgroupcounselling intervention ste ms from wei!
z.
documentedliterature showing the relationship be tween parentalco nflict and theemotionaleffectsitI18Sonchildre n.Someof theseeffects she discussedincludedincreasedimpulsivity,distractibility,aggressiveness, acting-out behavior,andlowered academicachievement. Yauman conclud ed herreviewof theliterature arguing the need forgroup counselling10help childrenofdivorce dealwith the rootof their problems
such that schoolperformanc ewould improveaswell astheirmental health.
Ozimo&Ozimo(19~8) di~a studywhichtested the efficacyof group counsellingin helpingchildren uf divorce. Using a pre- and pOSI
experimentalprocedure,theyissuedthe Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventoryand theLocus of ControlforThreeAchievementDomainsto childre n agedL1·14years beforeandafteraseries of 10weeklygro up counsellingsessions.Examining the effectsofgro up coun selling on the self-este emand locusofcontrol ofadolescents. Ozimo&Ozimofou nd a significantimprovementin levels ofself-esteem and moralinternal locus of control.
Lavoritanc&Segal(1992) examinedthe efficacyofgroup counselling programs with a populationof highschoolstudent s in grades II and 12byexamining pre-and posttestscores on aself-report and self-
3D
esteem measur e.TIle students inthe treatm ent groupwereide ntifiedby either theirteache r or pa re nt/guardian asgene rally having adjus tment problem s which may bereflected indimc ultywithacade m icaud/or inappropr iatebehavior.Theassessment deviceused tomeasuresclf- esteemwas theSelf-Perceptio nProfile for Adolescents. Resultsindicat ed a significa ntimprovement in the consiste ncy betwe entheir adeq uacy ra tings about whatcompetenciestheyvalued.
In asimilarstudywithelementaryschoolchildren, Lavor ilano&
Segal (1992) found a significantand positiveimprovementin chtldrcus' percepti ons of their scholasticcompetence.A limitation of theirstudy, however ,wasthe absenceofacontrolgrou p.Lavoritano&Segal make severa lconclusionsabout counselling ingeneral. They suggestthe following:
Althoughthereisno consensusin theliteratur e about how the psychotherapy/coun selling processben efits individuals, the followingconclusionswouldseem10be reasonable commo ngroundacrosstheoutcome research:(I) More clie nts (bothchildanadult)gain from theexperiencethando not;(2) nosingularorie ntationto psychothe rapyhasbeen deter minedtobemoreeffective tha n anyother;(3)most participa ntsinpsychotherapyshow an increase inself-esteem.
improvedadjustmen tatschoolor work,andsomedegre e of anxietyreductio n;and (4)researchsuppo rts the conte ntion that scho ol-base d interventionprograms canbring about positive outcomesinchildren(p.535).
31
Insum mary,punishmenthasbeen criticized forits inability10 cause laslin g cha nges in beh avior once contingenciesare rem oved andalso for thethreatitposes 10 self-estee m. Given the existingsupportfor the benefitsof healthy self-esteemandthe successofgroupcounselling in improvingthebehavior and self-esteem of chi ldrenthepresent researcher willattemp t to lestthesefindingsby exam iningtheeffec tsof a school- based group counsellingprogramonbehaviorandself-esteem. Chapte r III. the Metho dology,examinesthespecificdetailsofhowthis studywas executed.
CIIAPTER3 METIIODOLOGY
Thisstudyexamined the efficacyofa group counsellingprogrilill as aninterventionstra tegyto deal withchildrenwho arefrequently disciplined with detent ioninschools.ChapterIIIpresentsan indcptlt description ofthe subjects.sampling.design and hypoth eses.
instrumenta tion, procedure.andanalysisofresultsforthis study.
SUBJEcrS
TIle subjects forthis studyconsistedofthirtystudents fromalocal ElementarylJ unior High School.TIle studen tswere ages twelveand thirteenandingrades sixandseven Twen ty of the subjectsweretwelve yearsofageandten werethirteen.Eightee nsubjects wereingradesix andtwelvewere ingrade seven,
SAMPLING
TIle subjectswereselectedforparticipation inoneof three groups:
(1) ExperimentalGroupI;(2) ExperimentalGroup II;or (3) Control Gro up.Experime ntalGroup Iconsistedofagroupof tenstudents who were randomlyselected fromthe school'sdetention records.They were
33
chosenfrom those studentswhohad five or more detentio ns withinthe
previousthreemonth s.A secondExper ime ntalGro up(Experime nta l II) wasinclud edin the studyandconsistedof ten studen tswhowere randomly selected fromItlist of studentswhomteache rs ide ntified tothe counselling sta rras studen ts who couldbenefit from work intheareaofself-estee myet didnothavedetention asfIproblem .This group wasincluded inthe study fortworeasons:(I)itprovideditvaluabletestof tile efficacy ofthe sell- esteem interventionprogramfor students identifiedas needin g help in the areaofself-esteem:and(2) tlte resea rcher feltitwas unethi calnottooffer the intervention program(0childre n whowere identifiedbyteachersas havingthe potentialto ben efitfrom the program .Because of tilenatureof howthesetwo grou ps wereidentified,i.e.incidence of detentionand teacher recommendation, itwasnet possib leto selec tsamplescongrue nt for gend e r orexactagetotheyear.Table Ishowsa breakd own ofeachof thethree groupsin thestudy. The ControlGroupfor thestudyconsisted of a rand om samp leof 10students from the gradessixandseven classlists, excludingthose stude ntsincluded ill theExpe rime nta lI and IIgroups.
DESIGN AND HYPOTHESES
The design of this study (alloweda pre/postdesignfo rmatwhich
J4
Table 1
GenderandGrade Dist ribu tion ofSllbjcC1Sin ExperimentalGroupsIand II andControlGrollp
Boys Gills
GradG6 Grade7 Gracie6 Grade 1 Tolals Group
Exparime ntal Grou p l 10
Experimenlal GroupII 10
Control to
Totals 12 N=30
investigatedthe efficacyof anSweekgroupcounsellingself-esteem programinimproving the behavior of junior-high schoolstude ntsas perceivedbythestudentsthemselves and theirhomeroomteachers.Itwas predictedthat theControlGrou pwouldbe ratedthe1II0stfavorab leby teachers andstude ntsonall measures ofbehaviorandself-es teem, followedby theExperimentalGroup II. The Experimental GroupIwere predictedtobe rated leastfavorably on all measu res ofbehaviorandself- esteem. Itwasalso predictedthat ExperimentalGroup Iwouldshowthe most improvemen t in deten tion avoidanceanti behaviorbecause
35
Experime ntalGroupIIwerenot referredforgroup counsellingbased on behavior or detention.
TIlefollowing hypo theses were postulated.OrtWP counselling in the area of self-esteemwould:(I) imp rovethebehaviorandself-esteem of studentsas ratedbythemselvesand theirteachers;and(2)resultinit reduction in the numberof detenti onsinchildren whofreque ntlyattend alter-schooldetention as aform of punishme ntfor breakingschoolrules.
ASSESSMENTINSTRUMENTS Theinstrume ntsusedin thisstudyincluded :theBrownand Hammill Student Rating Scates(Home, School,and Peer) andtheBrown andHammillTeacher RatingScaleof theBrownand HammillBehavior RatingProfile2 (BRP·2)(Brown&Hammill.1990);theCoopersmithSett- EsteemInventory.Schoo lForm(SEI)(Cooper smith,1967)and the Coopersmith Behavioral AcademicSelf-Esteem Rating Scale(BASE) (Coopersmith&Gilberts, 1982).The BRp·2was used to measure students' perceptionsof theirownbehaviorand teachers'observations of studentbehavior. TIleSEIwas usedto measurestudents'attitudes towards themselvesand the BASE was used as ameans ofinferr ingself- esteemfromobservationsof stude ntbehavior made byteachers.
"
CoopersmithSelr-Esl~e mInven tory <SEll
TheSEISchool Formwasdesignedto measure"evaluativeallitudes towardthe self insocial academic.family,and personalareas of experience-in studentsagedeightthrou ghfifteen(Coo persmith.1986.p.
I).111('inventory canbeusedwith males andfem ales andfor allethn ic groupsand many specialpopulations(e.g.,learning disabled persons). II can beadministeredbothind ividuallyoringroups.So me of thesugges ted applicationsfor (heSEIinclude ;individualassessmentandclaesroom screening;instructionalplanni ng;self-esteemprogramevaluatio n;and clinicalandresearchstudies (Coopers mith.1985).TheSchoolForm consistsoffifty-eightitems:fi£ty self-esteem itemsand eightitems Ihat constituteaLieScale.whichisIImeasureof astudent'sdefensivenessor test wiseness.The sell-esteemitems yiekl a totalscore lind separate scores forfour subsceles:GeneralSelf.Social SeI£lPeers.Home-Parents,and School-Academic.ThesubscalesAllow forvaraneesinperception sofselr- esteemindifferent Areasof experience(Coopersmith, 1986).EachAnswer representingafavorablerespo nserece ivesfourpoints. foramaximum totalof onehundred points.Normsfor theSEI raw scoresareavailable forthetotal score s but nottheindividualsubscalcs.Conseq uently, only raw datawereused intheanalysis.
37
Highscores all the SEI indicat ehigherlevels ofself-estee m.
Coop ersmith (1986) indicatedthatmean TotalSEI scoresrangefrom70 to 80,witha standard deviation of fromIIto13;however.herecommend ed developinglocal normsasthebestpossiblewaytoanalyze data.A score in the upper quartileisgenerallyindicative of high sel f-estee m, the lower quartileaslow self-es teem. and theinterquartile range asIndicattveof mediumself-esteem. Lie scoresarealso veryimporlant on thisinstrument.
Accordingto Coopers mith (1986),
A highscoreonthe LieScale mayindicate thai the examinee respondeddefensi velyor thoughtheorshe understood the 'intention" of the inventoryandwas attemptingtorespond positivelyto all items.Insuchinstance,theinvento rymaybe invalidifIIsupp lementalobservationalratingorteacher reportindicates lowor mediumself-esteem for the examinee (p. 8).
The SEI wasbelieved8Shaving sufficient reliabilityandvalid ity bas ed onexte nsivestudiescitedin the SEI manual. Asplit-halfrelia bility co e fflciem of.85and test-ret est coefficientsabove.80 have been reported byCoopersmith(Coopersmith,1967 cited inCoopersmith, 1986,p.12).
Inthe usermanual,construc t,concu rrent and predictive valid itystudies have provided suppo rt for theSEI (Kohenes,1974,1978;Simon&Simon, 1975;Donald son,1974 cited inCoope rsmith, 1986). Coope rsmith,as well asother researchers.haveprovided sufficientevidence forshowing
J8
acceptabl ereliability andvalidityforthe SE I(Coo pers mith.1986).
CoopersmitllBehavioralAcademicSelf·Esteem<BASEl The BASEmeasureschild re n'saca demicse lf-esteem byIIsing teacher s'direct observationsof their class room beha viors.Itsapplications aresimilar10those ofthe SEI includingassessinghow programs affect student motivation .identifying stud ents' levelsof acad emic self-estee mand evaluati ng factor sthataffectit(Coopersmith&Gilber ts, 1982).TIle BASEratingscaleconsistsof16 itemswhichallowtileexaminer to infer self-este em from observa tionsof behavio r.TIleinstrumentyieldsittotal score fromthe combinationof five factor scores.Thefactor scores represent Student Initiat ive, Socia lAtten tio n,Success/Failu re.Socia l Attract io n,and Self-Confiden ce. TheStuden ts Initiat ivefact ormeasures how ofte nstude nts particip atein classroom arliviriessuch as making decision s,offer ingnewideas,participating, volunt eer ing,andasking question s.TheSocial Attentionfactormeasureshowwell the stud e nt"fits into"the classroom enviro nmentandexhibits beh aviors1IIat facilitat e classro omlearning{e.g.,tire quiet when necessary,avoidundueattention, andcoo perate ingroupswith pe er s).The Success/Failure factor assesses howwell students copewith failure,criticism,correction.advice.andothe r respon sesthat couldbe perceivedasneg ative.TheSocial Attractionfactor
3 .
mea sureshowcompat ible child renarewiththeirpeers. includingthe attractivenessofachildto peers, the child'srotewith peerswhenplaying andworkingtogether.and thechild'sself-descriptions.TheSelf- Confidencefactor measuresa child'slevelofverbal expression ofschool accomplishments. Allfivefactorscoresdiscriminatebetween childre n functioni ngat high andlowlevels of self-estee m.Classifications(e.g., high,mode rate, or low) areava ilablefor the raw scoresofeachsubscale of theBASE and fortherawTotal BASEscore;however.classifications are
onlyavailable for malesIUU.sfemalessepa rately. Only Total BASE scores canbeconvertedtostandardscores and hence percentiles.Inorderto obtain percentilerankings for Total scoreson the BASE.theresearcher averagedthe normsformales and femalesbecausegroupnorms were not available. Forthe purposes of this study.SCOlesontheBASEwere analyzedusingraw data.
To measure self-esteemmost thoroughly,Coopersmithsuggested usingtheSEIwith theBASE becausethebestestimate: ofself-esteem comesfro m using bothself· repor t andobse rvationalmethods.Thiswas don ein the presentstudyas stude nts'self-reportsonboth behaviorand self-esteemwere combined with teacherobservations of stude nts'behavior andself-esteem.
40
Estima tesof inte rnalco nsiste ncybasedoncorre lationsofindividu al item swith the totalBASE indicated allcorre la tions as significantalth e .001 level and rangedfrom.3 110.76 withamean1;tra nsformat ionof (he corr e la tionco efficientsof .61. lntcrcorrclation s of fact or scores withthe totalBASE scores providedBASE re liability ratings of .83forboys and.84 for girls.Cons tructvalidityWIlSestab lished for the BASE using factor analysiswiththree independent sampleswhich resulted in the BASEitems factoring consistentlyintofive coupo nenrscorresponding tothefive factors oftheinstrument.Intercorrela tlcnsof BASE scoreswithother testsofacade micachievement(e.g.TheComprehensiveTest of Basic Skills) have show BASErating s asmoderately strong predictors of acade micachievement (Cooper smith&Gilbe rts, 1982) . HeBehavior RatingProfile II fBRP-2)
TheBehavior Rating Profile 2 (BRP-2) isa nor m-referen cedbattery of six instrumen tsdesigned toevaluate perce ived beha viors ofchildren aged sixyea rs-six months througheig hteenye a rs-six months at home,in schoo l,andin interp ersonal relationsh ips. Five ofthesix instr umentsare rating scales and one isasociogram. Theserating sca les include:thre e Stude ntRa tingsScales(Home,Schoo l,and Peers);a Teacher Rating Scale;and a ParentRatingScale.Forthe purposes of this study.onlythe
41
thr eeStude nt Rating Scalesand theTeacher RatingScalewereused.
DR p·2Stude nt Rating Scales
Asingle instrumentcomprise s the threestudent ratingscalesof Home,Schoo l,andPeers.Containe din thisinstrumentare 20 itemsfo r ea ch scaletoform a6O·jteminstrum ent. Students are asked to describe theirown behaviorbyselecting'True"(IT"False" foreach item.Theitems on the Hom e Scaledescribe behaviorsthatarcusually observe dat home.
The items onthe Peer Scale describe socialskillsorinterperso nal rela tionsh ips and theSchool Scaleitemsdescribebehaviorswhich occur in schoo l. Raw scoresonthe BRP can beconverted intostandar dscoresand percentileranks.Themeanof the sta ndardscore distributio nis10and (he standarddeviationis3(Brown&Hammill,1990,p.39), BRp·2 Tea cJler Rating Scale
TheTeacherRating Sealecontains thirtyitems/sentences which describe behavior that may beobse rve d inschool. Therespondent classifies eachitem as"Very MuchLikethe Student", "Likethe Student",
"No tMuchLikethe Student ",oras "Not at All Likethe Student".As
similartothe Coopersmith, someofthesuggestedapplicationsfor the BRp·2includeidenti fyingstudentswith need s,and evaluatingintervention programs.
42
The BRP·2 has been ...ellestablished for its reliAbility and validity.
Testsofintern alconsistencyperfo rmedonthe BRp·2using 270 samp lesof theParentRati ngScales, 530 TeacherRatingScales,and700 ofthe Stude ntRatingScalesacrossfive grade leve ls yieldedcoef ficientsalphaat .80orabove.Test-retest checksoftheBRP-2 re ported coefficientsflinging
from.78to.91. Astudy ofcon struct valid itywhic heakulalcditem total
corre lationstotest for homogen ei tyofitemsrevea ledstlltistically significantcoefficientsrangingform.43to.83. Concurrent validit y was measuredagainstseveralinstruments.CorrelationwilhtheVineland
SocialMaturityScalewasdeter minedtobe significantand quite substan tial inmagnitudewitha coefficient range of.70 to .92 (Brown&
Hammill.1990).
PROCEDURE
Prior toand uponterminationoftheintervention program givento the Experimenta lGroupsIand II,allthirtysubjectscompleted abehavior ratingscaleandIlself-esteeminventory.Theteachersof thesestude nts alsocompletedcorresponding behaviorratin gs andself-esteem invento ries forthesestudents atthesametime intervals.Although the controlgroup did not receiveany intervention,the subjectsand\:Ieirteachers completed the sam einven toriesasdidthe two experimenta lgroups.Detentiondal.l
43
for1111subjectswere compared forIIthree monthinterval prior 10 and UPOIltermina tionofthe groupcounselli ngprogram.These records were obtained from officialrecords kept in the school office.This interva lWIlS determinedbytheamou ntoftim e remain ingin the schoolycarat the end of the gro up intervention.
Thegroupcounsellingprogram tha twas used in thisstudywith Experime ntal GroupsIand IIwasdevelop edbyRosemarie Morgane ttan d is titled'Feeling Good About Me:Developing Self-Esteem"(Morga neu, 1990,p.85). Thisgroup experien ce consistedofeightsessionsof approxim ately40·50minutes each. AsdevelopedbyMorganell, eac h sessionwasorganized withalessonplanformatwhich included for each session its goals, requiredmaterials, and the process forthe session, Includedinthe processsectionarespecificguidelinesfor icebreakers, working time and closing time. The sessionswere offered to the Experimentalgroups fo rBconsecutivewe eksduringclass time,This class timewa s Agreeduponbytheho meroomteacher s so that littledisruption in academ ic programming occurred.The school'sGuidanceCounsellorran allthesessions.Thetitles of thesessionswereas follows:
(1) Getting Started
(2) What I Likeand Dislike About Me
44
(3) Everyone HasRoles (4) My GoalsAs a Learner (5) ExploringFriendshipGoals (6) Reachin gPersonal Goals (7) Perfect inEveryWay
(8) Saying Goodbye (Morganen, 1990.p.v).
Consen tforthis studyWASobtainedfro m theEthics Commit teeof MemorialUniversityof Newfoundland. the Scheel Board towhich the targetedschoolbelongs(see AppendixA).theAdministratorsof the schoo l,the parents andteachers
or
the students involved.and the students who participated in the study.No stude nt was required\0parti cipateif he/shedidnotwishto and all whoparticipated weregiven theoption to discon tinueatany timeiftheywished todo so. Noneof the subjects drop ped outofthestudy.STATISTICALTREATMENTOF DATA Theresults ofthe studywereanalyzedfor changesin behavior as perce ivedbysell-reports of studentsandobservationsofteachers prior10 andfollowingthedelivery ofaneight week self-esteemgroup counselling intervention program. Standardscores on Studentand Teacher Scalesof
4S
the BRP·2,raw scores onthe Coopersmith SEIand BASE. and detention scores priorto anduponcommenceme ntof theinterve ntionofferedtothe two experimenta lgroupswerecompared usingthe z-tafled paired I-test statisticandbetweengroup differences inbehavior,self-estee m,find detentionusingindepe ndentt-tests both before andaftertheintervent ion wasoffered 10the experimentalgroups.Thedegreesoffreedomforall pairedandindependent t-testsinthe studywere9(N-I)and18 (N·2) respectively. Thecutoff level used to determ inesta tisticalsignificancewas a chaliceprobabilityof five percent orle« (p<.05).The statistical software used for thisanalysiswas theStatistical Packageforthe Social Sciences.
In su mmary, thirty studen tsparticipatedina studywh ich investigatedtheuse ofself-esteemgroupcou nsellinginimprovingthe behaviorand self-esteemofstudentsas perceivedby themselvesand observationsofteachers.Pre-and posttestscores wereanalyzedusing the t-test statistic.Diffe rences among andbetween groupswere investigated.
TIlefollowing chapterprovidesa presentatio nand analysisofthe findings.
46
CIIAPTER4 RESULTS ANDDISCUSSiON Chapter IV providesapresentationandana lysisof theresults.
Using thet-test statistic. pre-andpostle st scores011all measures ofself- esteem andbeha vior obta ined through schooldete ntionrecords.self- reports ofstude ntsand teacher observationsaTCpresente d. ResultsMe present ed inthe followin g categor ies:dete ntio n;stude ntself-estee m;
stude ntbehavior;teach ers'reports ofstude ntself-es teem;and tea chers' reportsofstude nt beh avior.
PRESENTATIONOFRESULTS Detention
Table2showspre-and post comparisonsof theincide nceof detenti on across thethree groups. If scoreswere rounded. Experimental Group Iwas theonly groupthat receiveddetentions. Baselinedata indicatedthattheaveragenumber ofdetenti ons Exper ime ntalGroup I received beforeand after counsellingwas 5andIrespectively. Theresults alsoindicated a significa nt decreasein thenumber of detentionsreceived by Experimenta lGrou p I(t:: 14.09, p< .OOI)in the threemonthsfollowing counsellingcompared tothe threemonthsprior tostart of the experiment.
No differenceswerefound forExperimentalGroup IIand theControl
47
Table2
A Compa risonof Mean s ofPre- andPosHestDetenti on Sco res andI-Tesls forExperimental Groups !andIIandCan Ira! Group
f'r1ll9!lll DllIllOIkmScores PoIltfIJlll DoIlllllion scceee
Gfoupa l:lqJortmonlRI I ElqJorlmonl ol ll
N_108.0. S.D.
N_10
NIA SlgnK.
betweenpte-andposttes tscoresondetent io n.Between group comparisonson theinciden ce of detentionbeforeandafterinterven tion areshownin Table 3.Resultsindicated thatExpe rimenta lGroup I and theControlGroupsignificantly differedfrom eachother prior 10receiving groupcounselling(1=20.80.p<.OOl),This differen ce was notevide nt after the terminationofcounselling.The posttestdetentionscoresofthetwo groups failedtoreachstatisticalsignificance.No othergroupdiffe re nces were found prio r 10orafte rthe intervent ion.
Stude nt Behavio r
Table4shows comp arison sof the meansonthe Studen t Behavior Rat ing Scales Hom e.Schoo landPeersafte r interv entio n.Allscoreson
.8
Table3
Betwee nGroup Comparisons of Mean s ofPre- anti Postle sl Detention Scoresandt·TestsAmon gExper imenta lGroups IandIIand Control
£J:p.1&(EIp . 1I1
D.C!(!I·DOI HI"
Elp. . . .'C ) c.so (0.001
Erp.1..81porlrmnt.I Ooupl;Exp.U .ElrperlmonlllIGfoup.,c_cOfltalarOllp
"·SlgrllfIClWICe p <.OOr
N/AI- YlII"" CDUld nlll ba "' lcUl etad-o"" to' m<q""'/pI'''/l'''tnOVll' '.''''a
the threeBehavior Ra tingScalesfellwithinonestandar d deviation of the meanwith theexception ofthescores reflecting how students in Expe rimentalGroup I perceivedtheir own beha viorinschool before and afterintervention.Students'observationsofthemselvesasind icatedbythe scoreson the Stude nt BRp· 2 Scales did not cha ngeove rthecou rse ofthe studywhether or nottheyreceived counsellingintervention.Although it didnotreach statisticalsignificance, there was adownwardtrendreflected in theposttestmeanor how themembers ofExperimentalGroup IIrated theirbehaviorinschooland with peersafter intervention.
S.D. ...neI_V&lUeSlgn ~.
4.
Table 4
AComparisonofMean s of Pre- MdPOSHest Scorn onthe Student DchaviorRating Scales
o r
theBRP·2andI·Tests (orgoerirnenlalGrou ps Iand IIandControlGroupSCplel
~---
E.per lmentel l EJporlmenllll ll
Eac>wl...
....n-10;8.0. "3.
N"10Iew...,hll·gL>P·
Table 5 showsbetweengroup comparisonsofthemeansof pre-and posttestscoresontheBRp·Z among the groupspriortoandafter
,.
Table S
Detween GroupCOlllParisons of Means of Pre-and Pastlest Scores on the Student BehaviorRalingScalesAmong Experimen talGroupsI and II and
~., GI.. ..".
Ellp,I1&(C I
tiJlp.UI C I
Ellp.lI&ICI lll.1111
8l11" I.CII_ · p <. lr.i;· · p c .Cl; · · ·p...ool.
intervention .Resultsindicatedthat the self-report s stude nts madeof their behavior at homeprior to the onsetofinterventio nshowed that the most significant differencesbetweenExperimental GroupsI and II,with
51
ExperimentalGroup I member sTillingtheirbehavior atho me significantlypoorcr than thaiof ExperimentalGroupII (1""3.39,p<.OI) lind10 IIlesserdegree,poorerthan home behavior of (he Controlgroup (1=2.91.p<.05).These discrepanciesbetweenperceptio nsof behavior at home decreasedafter ExperimentalGroupsIandII received counselling.
AlthoughExperimental Group Imembers ratedtheir behaviorsignificantly lower011the pretestthan did theExperimental GroupIImembers, the gap betweenthem was notas great on theposUest (1=2.31.p<.OI) anditno longer existedfor the Control Group.Studentsrecomme ndedbyteachers for group counselling inExperimentalGroup IIdid notrate theirbehavior
any differently fromtha t of theControl Group at eitherthe pretest or posuest intervals.
Following asimilartrend on the SchoolScale, ExperimentalGroup I rated theirbehaviorinschool significantlylower than thatof Experimental GroupII(1=,,7.04,p<.OOI) andto alesser degree than thai ofthe Contro lGroup (1=,,4.39,p<.OI).Al posttesting,thesesignificant differe nceswere slillevidentbuttheywere not ofthe samemagnitude (t=,,2.74,p<.05;and t=2.44,p<. 05 respectively).Asinthe Home Scale, Group11didnottate theirbehavioranydifferentlyfromthat of the ControlGroupeitherbefore oraftertheyreceived counse lling.
