University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Selective Variables In The Achievement Or Nonachievement Of Junior College Students From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds

(USC Thesis Other)

Selective Variables In The Achievement Or Nonachievement Of Junior College Students From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received ® 8-17,026 HALL, Lincoln Herbert, 1927- SELECTIVE VARIABLES IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OR NONACHIEVEMENT OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM DIFFERENT SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968 Education, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan SELECTIVE VARIABLES IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OR NONACHIEVEMENT ' OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM DIFFERENT SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS by Lincoln Herbert Hall A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Higher Education) June 1968 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T H E GRADUATE SCH O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Lincoln Herbert Hall under the direction of h .3 r$ ... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y Dean Date £?5. ® . DISSERTATION COMMI' CJiairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page; LIST OF TABLES....................... vl LIST OF FIGURES..................... ix Chapter I. THE PROBLEM.................................... 1 Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem Definitions of Terms Used Organization of the Remainder of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............. 16 Achieving and Nonachieving Students Achievement Motivation Socioeconomic Status Mexican-American Students III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND PROCEDURES .... 66 Setting of the Study Description of the Sample Description of the Measuring Instruments The Inventory of Self Appraisal McClelland's n-Achievement Test Chapter Administration and Scoring of Measuring Instruments The Inventory of Self Appraisal McClelland's n-Achievement Test Statistical Procedures IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY -. . . . . . . 97 j Mexican-American Lower SES Students | Middle and Lower (All Other) SES Students j ! i V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 138 j Summary: Problem and Procedures The Problem The Groups Studied Criterion of Achievement Appraisal Instruments Page The Inventory of Self Appraisal (ISA) McClelland Thematic Apperception Test of n-Achievement (TAT) Statistical Procedures Summary of Findings and Conclusion Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 Related Conclusions Recommendations for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. iAPPENDIX B. j | !APPENDIX C. j . ' _ |APPENDIX D. | I APPENDIX E. ACE Student Information Form ........ ACE Survey of Entering College Freshmen, Fall 1967 Results ................... Inventory of Self Appraisal .......... ISA Categories and Sub-Areas with Related Research Findings .......... TAT Pictures ......................... Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES I Page! Social Class Equivalents for Index of Status Characteristics ....................... 71 Attrition Among Original Groups of Subjects Planning to Enroll in College ............... 74; Ethnic and Socioeconomic Distribution of Subjects in the Study....................... 76; Distribution of Index of Status Character- j istics Scores Among Sample Groups.......... 771 Scholastic Achievement of Subjects by Socioeconomic Groups......................... 92 j Frequency Distribution of 1967 Fall Semester Grade Point Averages for the College of the Sequoias Student B o d y .................. 96 College Qualification Test Total Score Percentile Rankings by Socioeconomic and Ethnic Groups....................... . 98 English- Placement Test Results by Socio economic Groups.........................10° Distribution of Subjects Between Transfer and Terminal Majors ..... ............... 102 Summary of Scores for Achieving Lower SES Mexican-American Students ................... 104 Summary of t-Values Between Means of Achieving and Nonachieving Mexican- American Lower SES Students on the McClelland n-Achievement TAT and In ventory of Self Appraisal (ISA) Scales .... 106 Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for n-Achievement .... 107 v Table Pagej 13. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for ISA-Authority Relationships............ 107: i 14. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for ISA-Peer | Relationships 108; j I 15. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for ISA-Moral and Social Values............................108 | 16. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations ........ 109: i 17. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for ISA-Self- Concept ................................109: I 18. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' Analysis of Variance for ISA-Interest Patterns...................................... 110. | 19. Summary of n-Achievement and ISA Means and ! Standard Deviations for Middle and Lower SES Achievers and Nonachievers ............... 112; : 20. Matrices of t-Values Between Means for Selected Groups • • • ........................115 ; 21. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for n-Achievement................................121 22. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for ISA-Authority Relationships ........ .... 121 23. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for ISA-Peer Relationships ....................... 122 24. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for ISA-Moral and Social Values.................122 I 25. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations ..............................123 j vi Table Page * . i | 26. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for ISA-Self-Concept................................1231 27. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for ISA-Interest Patterns 124 j 28. Summary of Two-Way Analysis of Variance for n-Achievement and ISA T e s t s............ 126: 29. Summary of Mean Scores for All Groups on n-Achievement and ISA Scales ...........128 30. Summary of t-Values Between Means of Mexican- American Lower SBS Students and Middle SES Students on the McClelland n-Achievement TAT and Inventory of Self Appraisal (ISA) Scales...................................... . 131: 31. Summary of t-Values Between Means of Mexican- American Lower SES and All Other Lower SES Students on the McClelland n-Achievement TAT and Inventory of Self Appraisal (ISA) Scales...........................................132 32. Mexican-American Lower SES Students' One- Way Analysis of Variance for n-Achievement and ISA Scales.................................. 134 I 33. Mexican-American and All Other Lower SES Students' One-Way Analysis of Variance for n-Achievement and ISA Scales............... 136 34. Students' Ages as of December 31, 1967 ........ 183 35. Average High School Grades Reported by Students............................... 185 36. High School Achievements Reported by Students............................... 187 37. Things Students Reported They Had Done...........190 : 38. Reported Parents' Educational Levels . . . . . • 193 ; 39. Estimated Parental Income ..................... 195 vii Table 40. 41. Pagej Fathers' Occupations Reported by j Students . 197 Students' Concern About Financing Their Educations ....................... ...... 199 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Statistical Model for Two-Way Analysis of Variance ....................... i CHAPTER I i THE PROBLEM I Background of the Problem Leaders of the junior college movement, since its |inception, have espoused extension of the opportunity for i . I college attendance to all persons who can benefit from 1 tpost-secondary school education. President William Rainey :Harper, in his first decennial report covering the period which ended July 1, 1902, discussed the advantages and problems experienced by the University of Chicago.in the jnew university's experimentation with the junior college. Among the advantages cited was the belief that "many stu dents who would not otherwise do so, will undertake at least two years of college work" (76:96). Alexis F. Lange, writing in 1915, argued that the "popularizing of educa tional opportunity constitutes one of the basic functions of the junior college" and that the extension of the junior college movement . . . means that all more or less artificial bar riers are to be removed, and that a sincere effort is to be made to provide an adequate variety of college courses up to two years in length for all | those whose ability and interest justify such i offerings. Such handicaps as frequently arise from location, economic strictures, home obli- I gations, and similar factors will be minimized. (103:121) In support of the argument that the junior college ;fosters the economic democratization of higher education, 'Professor Leonard V., Koos, writing midway through the 1920's, cited the following: (1) the fact that lowered cost is the reason most frequently given by parents for attendance of their children in local junior colleges rather than in higher institutions, (2) the large propor tion of parents who admitted frankly that they 'could not o afford to send their sons and daughters to institutions away from home, (3) the lowered costs for students living at home and, most important in Koos1 judgment, (4) the in creased proportion in public junior colleges of the children of fathers in the lower levels of occupational groups, levels less frequently represented in other types of collegiate level institutions (101:162). Koos con cluded that "Without doubt we have in the public junior college an important influence for the economic and social democratization of educational opportunity" (101:164). Professor Frank Waters Thomas wrote in 1927 that It was this desire to serve the students who dould not otherwise continue their education which led to the addition of post-graduate courses in Joliet, Saginaw, Detroit, and other Middle Western high schools which pioneered in the movement .... It could best be characterized as a vague con viction on the part of the citizens of these communities that their high school graduates ] who desired higher education were entitled to an opportunity to secure it, and that the com munity would somehow be repaid for the additional outlay by an enriched citizenship and more com petent service on the part of those so educated. (170:18) Writing four years later, Professor Walter Crosby,Eells contended that "the junior college should be the 'people's college' and available to all. It should provide collegiate opportunity for the masses of high school gradu ates who can't, won't, or shouldn't become university students" (51:192). In similar vein, Seashore, writing in 1940, ex pressed the belief that the junior college is a proving ground and that "... the junior college will serve as a selective agency which will bring into the senior college and higher professions talent which might otherwise have remained undiscovered or misdirected" (148:17). Bogue quoted the following from a statement of the purposes and objectives of junior colleges adopted by the California Junior College Association in 1950: "The junior college is committed to the policy of providing to all the children of all the people post-high school education which will meet their needs" (10:52). Bogue concluded with the observation that, "Definitely, the community-college movement is one that is growing out of the needs of the masses of the people; it is a people's educational movement" (10:90). Adopting a similar position, Hillway states that "without much question, the democratization of higher education | ranks as the single most significant purpose or function of the two-year college" (84:78). ; Students of the junior college writing in the i i 1960's continued to propound the principles which had ;found currency for more than half a century. To Medsker, ". . . the two-year college has been regarded as an agency ( • i I that provides opportunity and motivation for many students ! to begin some post-high school experience that would other-i iwise have been unobtainable" (123:18). Clark adduced ’figures which proved that a far greater proportion of I I college students from the city of San Jose, California, i ' with parents in "blue-collar" occupations were attending San Jose Junior College in the late 1950's than were attending either the University of California or Stanford University (27:54). Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson echoed the hopes of junior college adherents from Harper to Medsker that the community junior college would prove to be a leavening influence in American society (9:112). In more recent years, however, an (element of caution may be detected among the optimistic hopes express ed for the educational opportunities offered by the junior . colleges to lower socioeconomic groups. Noting the fact of a high positive correlation between social class and college attendance, Medsker opines that The fact that junior college students tend to represent a cross section of a given community | has at least two implications. First, it further confirms the role of the junior college as a democratizing agent in higher education .... A second implication is that a great burden is placed on the junior college to motivate capable students from lower social groups to continue in college and to perform at an acceptable academic level. (123:42-43) Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson observe that the community colleges attract many students who do not perceive educa tion as a high level value. Therefore, they contend, the two-year college inherits the additional problem and responsibility,of developing this value which is believed to be at the base of successful academic achievement. Large numbers of students are perceived as coming from socioeconomic groups . . . whose values are not congruent with those of middle- and upper-middle class faculty members, administrators, and board members .... their lack of conventional middle-class attitudes makes their adjustment to college more difficult. (9:131) Apprehension about the ability of students from lower socioeconomic levels to respond to twentieth century educational opportunities was expressed by writers outside the discipline of education. Warner, Havighurst, and Loeb believed that by the 1930's education had attained an im portance in economic mobility which was greater than native wit and perseverance due to an expansion in the technical and service professions. In light of such changes, it was argued that "the American people learned what the people of older cultrues have learned, that the schools are the social elevators in a hardening social structure" (178:49). But the close relationship between parental income and !college attendance was cited as evidence that educational I i opportunities were not equally available to all young i people. Even though talent and ability are democratically distributed across socioeconomic lines, attitudes and environments are not. These social inequalities quickly become part of the person. They get into his nervous system. They en gender habits and attitudes which mark him as a person and over which he has little conscious control. The marks of social status appear in a person almost as soon as the genes which he inherits from his parents' bodies display themselves in observable characteristics, and it becomes impossible to tell how much of the person is due to heredity and how much to environment. (178:149) The comprehensive high school and junior college were viewed as the means for overcoming some of the disadvan tages of family social and economic status. Commenting on the ideology of the average American, as received by the mass communication media, Hollingshead warns that "this ideology fails to consider the fact that the social system does not provide all competitors with equal opportunity" (86:452). He cites control of the educational system by members of the upper- and middle-class as being detrimental to opportunities open to students from the lower socio -economic levels (86:452). In discussing the conflicts which are generated by America's need to attain excellence while simultaneously espousing the doctrine of equal opportunities, Gardner expressed the conviction that . . . the family trapped in poverty and ignorance can rarely provide a stimulus so necessary to indi vidual growth. The neighborhood in which delinquency and social disintegration are universal conditions cannot create an atmosphere in which educational values hold a commanding place. In such surroundings, the process by which talents are blighted begins long before kindergarten, and survives long afterward. (64:137) Seeing the capable young person of low motivation as a potentially valuable national resource, Gardner advises that efforts be made to salvage those who can be salvaged. He goes so far as to submit that there are social reasons why a society might wish to provide higher education even for. those youngsters who care little about it, but cautions ithat "education of the aimless and half-hearted is very arduous, very expensive, and most important a totally different process from education of the highly motivated" (64:95). Examining the handicaps encountered by the youths who are from culturally deprived family backgrounds, Reissman argued that the child of over-average intelligence has much less chance of succeeding in college than has the middle-class student with the same intelligence. The suggestion was made that college educators increase their knowledge of the culture of the disadvantaged groups and learn to understand the various forms in which discrimi nation, both covert and overt; against such students occurs (144:23). Essential to efforts directed at assist ing the disadvantaged student is the development of ways I. I of counteracting the .effects of earlier discrimination. |Because these young people develop abstract, symbolic i thinking in a slower, more indirect manner as compared ! with their middle-class peers, Reissman recommends that i i five- and perhaps six-year college programs be organized |for slow learners who have basic abilities, but require imore time because of their unique work styles. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to acquire greater insight into the attitudes, motivation, and other factors !which distinguish between achieving and nonachieving first year junior college freshmen from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Specifically, answers were sought to the following questions: 1. Are there identifiable differences in the values, attitudes, goals, aspirations, self-concepts, and interests of achieving and nonachieving students? v 2. Do measures of achievement motivation distinguish between academically achieving and nonachieving students, Mexican-American and other students, and students from lower- and middle-class family backgrounds? 3. Are students' socioeconomic backgrounds related to their academic achievement in junior college? 9 4. Do nonachieving students from socioeconomically | poor family backgrounds have attitudes which j differ from those of nonachieving students with middle-class family backgrounds? 5. Do career aspirations differ between achieving and nonachieving students and students from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds? 6. What curricular and counseling implications for the junior college do the answers to the above questions have? The study was designed to test the following hypotheses: 1. Identifiable attitudes will distinguish between achieving and nonachieving students. 2. Identifiable attitudes will distinguish between the students from different socioeconomic back grounds . 3. Nonachieving students from different socioeconomic backgrounds will have significant attitudinal differences. 4. Measures of achievement motivation will distin guish between achieving and nonachieving students. 5. Measures of achievement motivation will distin guish between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. 6. Measures of achievement motivation and identifiable attitudes will distinguish between Mexican-American students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and both all other students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those from middle socioeconomic backgrounds. If the public junior colleges continue to operate under liberal admissions policies, their administrative and instructional staffs must face the singularly difficult itask of educating many students whose backgrounds militate against academic success as it is conventionally measured. Greater knowledge about the attitudes and motivations of |students whose socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds have I ibeen found to inhibit academic success may assist in the ;development of counseling and curricular programs to mini mize these difficulties. Similarly, if differences in the ;attitudes and motivations of achieving and nonachieving students from such backgrounds can be identified, greater ■ insight into the educational problems of nonachieving students may be acquired. Scope of the Study Subjects for the study were selected from the 1967 incoming freshman class at the College of the Sequoias in i Visalia, California. All subjects had graduated from the eleven high schools which lie within the boundaries of the College of the Sequoias Junior College District and one high school district which had not joined a junior college district at the time of the study. The combined 1966-67 senior class enrollments of the twelve high schools totalled 2,453. The high schools from which subjects were selected are: Alpaugh Unified School District, Corcoran Union High School, Exeter Union High School, Hanford Union High School, Lindsay Union High School, Mt. Whitney High School (Visalia, California), Orosi Union High School, Redwood High School (Visalia, California), Strathmore Union High School, Tulare Union High School, Tulare Western High School, and Woodlake Union High School. All but Strath- |more Union High School are members of the College of the Sequoias Junior College District. Definitions of Terms Used Student Attitudes: Associations? Cognitive domain. Students' per ceptions of their relationship with teachers, parents, other adults, and their peers with respect to their atti tudes toward studying, achievement, and relative ability. * Associations; Social domain. Students' per ceptions of their acceptance by their peers, the assumption of leadership, and the desirable choice of friends. Adult approval. Students' perceptions of parental approval of their schoolwork, friends, and what achieve ment level they expect them to attain. Moral and social values. The social values accepted by the students. Perceived utility of school experience. Views of students toward interest of college work, the importance of school, satisfying experiences in college, competition, and learning for learning's sake. Success patterns. The persistence, study habits, and feelings about students' current, past, and future academic success. 12 Authority relationships. The extent to which i I I students are independent, free from excessive conflicts and feelings of rejection. Goal direction. Students' career, educational, and future income aspirations. Also, the extent to wliich they have internalized goals and developed a pattern of deferred goal gratification. Adequate self-concept. How students perceive their skills and abilities and are free from feelings of inferi ority, excessive fears, and anxieties. Interests. The extent to which students have spontaneous interests and varied hobbies. Other Terms: Achievement. Attainment of a 2.0 or higher grade point average in the first semester of college. Nonachievement. Attainment of less than a 2.0 grade point average in the first semester of college. Grade point average. The figure obtained by divid ing the semester units attempted into the grade points earned. For each semester unit completed, students receive zero grade points for each unit of "F", one grade point for each unit of "D”, two grade points for each unit of "C", three grade points for each unit of "B", and four grade points for each unit of "A". I First-time freshman student. A student who en- \ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i I rolled in college in September 1967 for the first time in ja regular session. ■ Full-time student. A student enrolled for 12 or more units of credit. Lower-class family background. Designation assigned to students from homes with ratings of between 67 and 84 points on the W. Lloyd Warner, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells Index of Status Characteristics; occupation, source of income, house type and dwelling area of the head of the household are the primary factors used to classify individuals. Mexican-American students. Students who have been identified by information on questionnaires and application forms, and by their high school counselors and principals as coming from families in which both parents are of Mexican descent. Middle-class family background. Designation assigned to students from homes with ratings between 23 and 37 on the Warner, Meeker, and Eells Index of Status Characteristics. n-Achievement. A quantitative measure of the strength of an individual's need for achievement which is derived from responses to selected pictures in the Thematic Apperception Test. Part-time student. A student enrolled for fewer than 12 units of credit. i Terminal program. A curriculum which is designed ito prepare students for immediate employment in an occu pation or cluster of occupations, rather than for further advanced study leading to a Bachelor's degree or higher. Transfer program. An organized sequence of courses which, when completed by a student, will be accepted by a four-year independent or public collegiate institution in satisfaction of the lower division requirements of the college or university to which the student plans to transfer. Organization of the Remainder the Study Chapter II consists of a review of previous re search on socioeconomic classification, academic problems of students from socioeconomically different backgrounds, the relationship between socioeconomic class and academic success in college, and measures of achievement motivation. Chapter III describes the statistical design and procedure followed in the study, including a description of the measuring instruments employed. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the findings of * « the study. In Chapter V, conclusions and recommendations de- 15 |rived fronv the study and a summary of the study are |presented. CHAPTER II | t REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An examination of dissertations, books, and pro fessional journals in education, psychology, sociology, and related disciplines revealed a paucity of research on the academic performance of junior college students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The search for studies at ( the high school and senior college levels, however, indi cated that students' academic achievement as related to attitudes, family backgrounds, and achievement motivation . (variously measured) has provided a rich field of study for researchers in the behavioral sciences. Although the present study is concerned with students in a public junior college, studies of college students at both junior and senior institutions as well as senior high schools were reviewed in the hope that they would provide insight into the questions asked in Chapter I. The fact that junior college students have been found to possess characteristics which distinguish them from students of senior colleges and high schools was assumed not to contradict the pertinence, for purposes of 16 I both content and research methodology, of studies in all i three types of institutions. The studies are reported under the three general ! I headings of Achieving and Nonachieving Students, Achieve ment Motivation, and Socioeconomic Status. Achieving and Nonaohieving Students In the post-World War II years, the search for in- ;creasingly accurate predictors of academic success has engaged many investigators in the senior colleges. With educational aspirations rising more rapidly than the supply of instructional facilities and staffs, the estab lishment of admissions requirements has been transformed from a matter of tradition and precedent to a task which aspires to scientific precision. Scholastic aptitude test scores, high school grade point averages, achievements in nonacademic spheres of activity, and personal attitudes have been combined with each variously weighted in deter mining entrance standards. College registrars and test publishers discuss the search for student bodies which are compatible with the nature and objectives of the particular institution with which they are being matched. The admissions problem has been encountered by both public and private four-year institutions and by a variety of two-year institutions. Because of their generally liberal admissions policies, however, the determination of which students will derive the greatest benefits from education beyond high school has not been as compelling a ;problem for the public junior colleges. Speculating that [the public junior colleges may find the practicality of i their liberal admissions policies challenged by rapidly expanding enrollments, DeHart submitted various combina tions of high school grades, aptitude test scores, and |first-semester college grades to predictive tests and concluded that there were no pre-admission predictors that — would identify a significant number of failures without also rejecting large numbers of successful students (39:108). A grade point average of 1.5 on a four point scale was used as the success criterion. Because the i addition of first-semester college grades to high school Igrades and aptitude test scores added greatly to the accuracy of predicting success, a recommendation favoring continued admission of all students was made. Of greater pertinence to the present study was the finding that no significant relationship between socioeconomic status and academic success existed. Kearney sought to determine what relationship exists between scholastic achievement and selected non intellectual factors identified by standardized measuring instruments and to ascertain whether or not non intellectual factors contribute significantly to differ ential achievement among intellectually capable junior 19 college students. A total of 99 intellectually capable students from the 1963-64 class and 60 from the 1964-65 I i | class at Citrus College in Azusa, California, were I selected. All students were administered the Strong Voca- i jtional Interest Blank (SVIB), the Brown-Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA), and the California i ;Psychological Inventory (CPI). Academic performance was measured by grade point average in high school as compared ;with that in college. Kearney found that Students who persist in college at the same l^vel previously established in high school appear to have the following characteristics in common: seriousness of purpose, sense of responsibility to self and others, moderately effective study habits, and considerable self-direction. (97:131) However, high school grade point average was concluded to be the best predictor of students' academic performance in junior college, with the addition of non-intellectual factors not adding significantly to the multiple coeffi cient of correlation. Shore and Lemian asked the parents of 210 newly admitted 17 to 20 year old students at Leicester Junior College in Leicester, Massachusetts, to fill out question naires which included a variety of open-ended questions about their attitudes toward their children's academic and occupational goals (152:392). The parents' responses were evaluated for those students who were achievers and those who were nonachievers. Although there was no difference between achievers and nonachievers in intelligence and achievement test performance, the parental descriptions of | their children's vocational goals and interests as well as ;their assets and liabilities for academic work in college ! iwere significantly different between the two groups. The parents of achievers perceived their children as having specific goals which required academic training, while the iparents of underachievers saw their children as undecided |about their vocational plans or seeking goals that required little academic training. While the parents of achievers saw their children's assets and liabilities in terms of academic abilities, the parents of underachievers viewed them in terms of personality traits and social ability. Bradfield, utilizing applications for financial support under the college work-study programs at Bismark Junior College and the University of North Dakota, identified 36 male freshmen from low socioeconomic backgrounds and ad ministered the Michigan Work Beliefs Check List and voca tional aspirations as indicated by the Occupational Aspirations Scale (11:116). The students' responses were then compared with a control group of 36 students who were not under the work-study program and who had been matched for scholastic ability and composite standard scores on the American College Testing Program aptitude test. It was found that when grade point averages were compared there .was a tendency, though a non-significant one, for the work- I study student to have earned the higher grade point average; i of the pair. It was also noted that there were similari- I I I ties between the personal characteristics of the work-study: students and those shown by college drop-outs in other studies. When the guest for research on academic achievement :is extended beyond that of junior college students, the literature yields a more bountiful supply of studies. Because the present study was concerned with non intellectual factors and academic achievement of students selected on the basis of parent's socioeconomic status, the many studies seeking to establish a correlation between intelligence or aptitude and college achievement have not been reported. In an attempt to establish a practical limit on the number of studies reported, those conducted since 1957 have, with few exceptions, received precedence in reporting. Numerous studies of the relationship between aca demic achievement and personality were found in which personality factors were measured by objective instruments. Most frequently cited in the studies was the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) which provides scores that presumably assess the relative strengths of the following needs: achievement, deference, order, exhibi tion, autonomy, affiliation, intraception, succorance, ; .._ ............................................ 22 dominance, abasement, nurturance, change, endurance, heterosexuality, and aggression. Uhlinger and Stephens computed the n-Achievement i(need for achievement) and n-Nurturance (need for nurtur ance) scores from the EPPS for 72 special Merit Scholarship I freshmen engineering students who were relatively homo geneous as to aptitudes, past achievement, and socio- i economic status„(175:260). Only one of the measures supported the hypothesis that high achievers evidence greater need for achievement than do low achievers. High achievers showed greater need for social love and affection ! relative to recognition than did low achievers. Similar negative results were reported by Osborne, who found in a study of Columbia University students that neither the need for achievement, the need for order, nor the need for affiliation were significantly correlated with grade point average (136:171). No one of the other 12 needs measured by the EPPS was significantly correlated, with grade point average. Osborne concluded that "The results of the study do not support the idea that there is a relationship be tween need strength and grades" (136:172). Diener, in a study of 74 overachievers and 64 underachievers at the University of Arkansas, found that while the overachieving males had better study habits, there were no significant differences between overachieving males and underachieving males for all the personality variables on the EPPS except j order, which was in favor of overachieving males. These ! ■ i | results prompted Diener to ask "First, are there any major ; } j i differences between the two groups, and second, might the ' conditions of over-achievement and under-achievement be an artifact of random fluctuation?" (44:399) After citing several studies in which personality factors as revealed in objective measuring instruments were not found to be conclusively related to academic achievement, Tueland and Wursten commented that low achievement does not always imply negative attitudes even where intelligence and aptitude are held constant (174:59). They expressed the opinion that "The relationship between academic aspirations and academic achievement is not so clear" (174:62). Theorizing that the stress of competition affected individual students in different ways, Mogar sought to study the differences between subjects whose performance was improved and subjects whose performance was impaired under competitive conditions in a controlled laboratory situation (128:168). An independent classroom study was made to determine whether the personality correlates of performance in an artificially created situation would also be found under a real-life situation involving inter personal competition, namely, a college course examination,. In the first experiment, a group of 116 college students, divided equally according to sex, took as a group the EPPS | and an abbreviated form of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ; | Scale. Next, on an individual basis, the students were | f j administered a block design test under non-stress condi- ; tions. Finally, all 116 students were given another block ! j design test as a group under conditions designed to arouse : competition. The second experiment consisted of an administra tion of the EPPS to a group of students in a classroom who had taken the block design test under non-stress conditions and a final examination under what were con sidered to be real-life competitive stress conditions. It was found in both groups that the performance of some students was facilitated while that of others was impaired under the stress competitive conditions. Neither intelli gence nor previous practice effects could account for the differences in performance. Mogar therefore assumed that the stress of competition was the primary source of variability. Results of the EPPS administration, however, were not found to differentiate between those males whom com petitive stress facilitated and those whose efforts it impaired in either the artificial or the classroom com petitive stress conditions. Females whose work was facilitated were significantly higher than those whose work was impaired under competitive stress on only the Dominance and Succorance scales in the artificial stress situation and on the Dominance scale only in the classroom i study. The author concluded that, for females at least, "'a need for dominance' seems quite consistent with facilitation of competitive performance regardless of task conditions-' (128:172). For males, the EPPS was "not a useful instrument for determining the personality vari ables associated with differential reaction to competi tion" (128:172). In an experiment which was designed to refine the use of personality scales for purposes of analyzing college achievement, Goodstein and Heilbrun administered the EPPS to 357 undergraduate students in elementary psychology classes at the State University of Iowa (66:317). With few exceptions, the group consisted of college sophomores. The scores on the EPPS were correlated with the semester grade point average of a sample of these students with a variance attributable to a brief vocabulary test estimate of scholastic ability partialled out. While the results of the analysis of the total group were negative, further analysis which followed a subdivision of the male and female students into low, middle, and high ability sub groups yielded more promising results, especially for the middle ability male sub-groups. The authors advised the :use of levels of intellectual ability as a control vari able in studies of non-intellectual factors in achievement, concluding that "... the failure to investigate by levels; of ability may result in spuriously negative findings" (66:320). | • ; A similar research design was applied by Stuckey in an investigation of the relationship of academic achieve ment of freshman women and selected personality variables as identified on the EPPS (161:165). The subjects, chosen ! from the 1961-62 freshman class at Colorado State College, were divided into high, low, and average academic achieving in relationship to their expected academic achievement as ’ determined from aptitude tests and then compared with one another on the basis of their responses to the EPPS. From the results, it was concluded that certain personality variables do differentiate among groups of students who can: be classified as high, low, and average achievers. The dominance, affiliation, nurturance, and order scales were significantly related to academic achievement of freshman women. Relatively high needs for dominance and order were found to be associated with a group of students who had achieved at a higher academic level than predicted whereas relatively high needs for affiliation and nurturance were found to be associated with a group of students who achieved on a lower adademic level than predicted. Brown, in a study of a somewhat more narrowly select group, found that certain scales on the EPPS differ entiated between the achieving and nonachieving members of a group of 100 low ability college freshmen at the Florida j State University (14:138). The achieving students were characterized as more achievement oriented, more orderly, and more persevering than the nonachieving group. The above three studies suggest the value of categorizing sub jects according to their academic aptitude before seeking differentiating personality characteristics among achievers and nonachievers. The search for non-intellectual correlates of college academic achievement may be traced through a variety of standardized and local personality scales. Their results may charitably be described as mixed. Buchin administered the Taylor Anxiety Scale and the Secord-Jourard Self Concept Test, two personality measur ing instruments, to 175 newly admitted college freshmen and 167 seniors who were scheduled to graduate from New York University in the ensuing June, during the 1964 Spring term (16:31). No significant relationship was found between students' potentials and self concepts nor between achievement and self-concept. These results sug gested to the author that no direct relationship exists between academic potential, college achievement, anxiety, and self-concept. Two studies employing the California Personality Inventory (CPI) reported some positive results. Carney examined the relationships within and between the major classes of variables operative in a university course in psychology (22:112). Two personality clusters were found for both sexes: (a) an "achievement oriented" cluster describing persons who were dominant, aggressive, |and achievement motivated, and (b) a "socially oriented" !cluster describing persons who were cooperative, reliable, iand conforming. A prediction that CPI scales reflecting i I achievement motivation would have the greatest correlation with test performance was confirmed for both maj.es and |females. Demos and Weijola studied two groups of highly capable freshmen, 42 who were asked to participate in a freshman honors program and accepted and 44 who, though invited, voluntarily refused to participate in the program (42:186). The results showed the successful freshman honors students to possess a CPI profile which the authors 'categorized as that of a "perfectionist": high responsi bility, conscientious, intellectually efficient, desirous of autonomous or independent achievement, and socially conforming yet not overly concerned with creating a good impression. Two studies using the Brown-Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA) as indicators of academic achievement produced dissimilar findings. Malcolm admini stered the SSHA to 58 conditionally admitted University of Southern California freshmen and a control group of regu larly admitted freshmen to analyze the effects of study habits, motivation, and self-concepts on the success and I failure of the subjects in the two groups (120:5). In ! addition to discriminating between the subjects in the positive direction of the control group, the SSHA dis criminated significantly between achieving and nonachieving1 |students in both groups. As a predictor of college grades,i I ; i the SSHA proved to be superior to both aptitude test scores j :and high school grades used individually. However, the mean differences between the experimental and control i groups on achievement motivation were not found to be significant. Lum administered the SSHA to three groups of 20 students each at the University of Hawaii who were equated 'for scholastic aptitude, as measured by the American Council on Education Psychological Examination, but who !differed widely in achievement as expressed in their cumulative grade point averages (112:109). Statistically significant differences were obtained between over- and underachievers on four of the six sub-scales, the greatest between the two groups being the Achievement Drive sub scale. Showing somewhat less discrimination, though still significant, were Procrastination Orientation, Self- Confidence, and Educational Philosophy. However, under achievers were found to be indistinguishable from over achievers in their reported use of effective study pro cedures. Moreover, the data showed that even the better students did not use so-called "gpod" study habits as generally described in how-to-study manuals. Academic 30 I i drive was believed to differentiate the overachiever from the underachiever. Lum concluded that "The results of this study offer support to the hypothesis that the difference j i j between successful and less successful students of similar i , ! ! j ;aptitude is primarily one of attitude and motivation rather: than of reported study habits" (112:112). Curran had administered the Guilford-Martin Inven- i tory of Factors to representative samples of freshman underachievers at the University of Connecticut in the 1956-57 academic year for the purpose of analyzing the re lationship of certain non-intellectual factors to schplas- j tic success (35:62). Although it was found that study habits and attitudes toward study are significantly related| to college achievement, the personality factors measured appeared not to have a significant bearing on academic success in college. Using a more projective instrument, the Structured Objective Rorschach Test (SORT), Chansky tested 47 fresh men from a variety of curricula in several colleges, com paring the scores with SAT verbal and mathematical scores, high school grade point averages, and college grade point averages (25:1119). Most SORT scores were observed to be uncorrelated with grade point average. Where correlations were significantly different from zero, they were generally; modest and a SORT variable found to be related to grade jpoint average in one school was not observed to be related j to it in others. The authors concluded that "It is quite evident that Rorschach scores, in and of themselves, do not explain academic achievement in any consistent manner" j (25:1124). | Several studies utilized locally designed instru- jments as a means for exploring relationships between I academic achievement and selected non-intellectual factors. ! Clarke administered a ten-item questionnaire which dealt i 1 with the student's perception of the attitudes and feelings I of his parents, his high school friends, high school staff members, relatives, and neighbors about his going to :college and his success at college to 340 probationary students whose freshman grade point averages were below i 2.0, 369 non-probationary students whose grade point aver ages were above 2.0, and 127 "raisers" whose grade point averages for the fall semester were below 2.0 but whose cumulative grade point averages for the full year were 2.0 or higher at the University of Michigan for the 1957-58 school year (28:118). The data revealed that probationers and non-probationers were significantly different on each of the ten items of the questionnaire with probationers having lower expectancy scores than non-probationers. Deriving a total expectancy score for all ten items, pro bationers and raisers were found to be significantly dif ferentiated by the composite score. In the fall of I960, Dickema studied the relation- I ship between the level of occupational aspiration and college performance of 585 Michigan State University freshman students within the context of the following controlled variables: (1) perceived reference group support, (2) socioeconomic status, (3) mental ability, (4) perceived necessity of college, and (5) past academic performance (43:129). The results indicated a positive relationship between the academic achievement and all five of the factors studied. Utilizing students' high school transcripts, personal data sheets, personnel folders, and scores on placement tests, Campbell studied their relationships to the college grades of the 1963-64 freshman class at the Louisiana State University (20:87). An inverse relation ship was found between college achievement and the number of vocational courses taken in high school whereas students with four units of high school English achieved signifi cantly higher grades than did those with three or more academic credits in high school mathematics or science. Those students whose parents achieved college success tended to have higher achievement levels and a significant relationship was found between the student's expressed preference for a senior college, as opposed to a two-year college, and grade point average. Although many of the studies cited above suggest i that difficulties exist in the attempt to identify and study various non-intellectual factors as they relate to i academic achievementr a generalization does emerge from their results that a factor domain of academic motivation I exists which is largely unrelated to the domain of intelli-■ j jgence. Stone and Poster, after conducting a study of 1,568 jmembers of the Kansas State University 1961-62 freshman | j iclass in which significant correlations were found between ; grade point average and such personality factors as | , ; achievement, dominance, and ego achievement, ask why ieducators have experienced such difficulty in demonstrating: empirically that personality composition is an important factor in college success (160:56). The conclusion they made was that most personality measuring instruments fail to achieve this purpose fcnd they observe that: If our scholastic ability tests are confounded by personality variables, it would be more difficult to find a personality test that could add much as far as college prediction is concerned to what has already been measured by the so-called intellectual tests. (160:56) Reviewing the results of a large number of studies of non-intellectual factors and academic achievement, Finger and Schlesser commented that if it were true that academic motivation simply represented a self report of |school performance similar to the high school or college record, then the two factors of intelligence and academic motivation would be highly correlated, for performance is | correlated with intelligence. "However, this is not the case. The correlation of persistence with intelligence I i : | is estimated to have a population value of .10 in the i • ’ ! ' ; jcollege population" (58:24). Noting several studies which j showed that measures of persistence are equally efficient in predicting first as well as eighth semester academic ; performance, they asked "If persistence, and by inference the academic motivation factor, are relatively stable, : does this suggest that it is values and attitudes rather than behavior which are being measured?” (58:24) Achievement Motivation The failure of measures of intelligence, aptitude, ; ;and ability to provide sufficiently accurate predictive and diagnostic information relative to academic achieve ment has led educators and psychologists to seek measurable factors outside the intellectual realm. Several post-1957 efforts utilizing objective-type instruments were cited in the foregoing section. Employing a somewhat different approach in a research project which was financed by the Office of Naval Research at Wesleyan University during the period January 1, 1947, to January 1, 1952, McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell conducted intensive studies of the achievement motive (115). One of the basic ideas which , guided the research was the acceptance of the hypothesis 35 which was supported by Freud's work on dreams, by years of i psychoanalytic experience, and by clinical success of | Murray's Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) that an excel- ! i ! lent place to look for a measure of the effects of motiva- I |tion is in fantasy (115:83). To test the hypothesis that |fantasy will readily reflect the effects of a condition ! like hunger, Atkinson and McClelland conducted an experi- ; / ■ ; ment in 1948 which demonstrated that subjects deprived of ; i food for one, four, and sixteen hours will write brief imaginative stories that are increasingly concerned with i ! food deprivation, food-getting activities, hunger, etc. ; (115:84) By algebraically summing those characteristics in the subjects' stories which had been shown to increase i or decrease significantly in frequency with increasing !hours of food deprivation, a rough n-Food (need for food) |index was derived which predicted with a fair degree of accuracy how long the person had been without food. Inter preting these results as an indication that fantasy could reflect the presence and intensity of motivation sensiti vity, the researchers devoted their attention to the achievement motive. Numerous studies were conducted to show in detail the effects of various arousal conditions on imaginative behavior, to demonstrate how a measure of achievement motivation (referred to as n-Achievement) could be derived from these effects, and to show how n- ;Achievement was related to other types_ of behavior. From the research of McClelland et alM a theory of motivation was evolved which is here summarized briefly A basic theoretical assumption in the attempt to measure n-Achievement was the belief that states of biological need (hunger, thirst, sex, etc.) have no unique function i in producing motivation. Instead, they are merely one of the condition which give rise to motivational association. I Crucial to all motivation is the association of certain ‘ i icues with affective arousal of various sorts. The per sistence of a motive throughout the life of an individual ;is a function of a number of variables including the following: (a) the frequency of occurrence of the cue-- pleasure (pain) association: hunger, for example, is a reliable motive because the association between certain sensations and eating occur several times a day throughout one's life; (b) the generality of the association and the ease with which it may be extinguished; (c) the intensity of the pleasure (pain) involved in the association at the time it is formed; (d) the age at which the affective association is formed: the earlier it is formed, the greater the probability that conditions (b) and (c) will obtain. Thus, the most persistent motives would be those laid down in childhood. (114:228) McClelland states, in reference to learned motives as opposed to those which are biological, such as hunger, that socialization occurs in all cultures for all indi- 'viduals and it involves certain common problems in all i j cultures (114:233). There is a very high probability that j certain cues will become associated with reward and punish-! jment for all men. Such would be the case for achievement. ; i ; i In the course of mastering such problems as learning to i walk, talk, eat by themselves, read, etc., certain mastery ! cues (such as effort, difficulty, incompletion, etc.) be- A come associated with affective arousal and will produce in time centrally motivating anticipations of success or ! failure. It is pointed out that these associations may be j relatively weak or strong depending on the stress which the! 1 ! person's culture places upon early achievement. t They may be predominantly hopes of enormous achieve ment as in middle-class America, or fears of failure and inadequacy, as in Bali. But whatever the vari ations in the strength or kind of Achievement associations, the fact remains that some associ ations of this sort are laid down in all individuals in all cultures at all times simply because with few exceptions everybody is faced at one time or another with achievement problems. (114:234) Everybody is believed to have the rudiments of an achieve ment motive. But stronger achievement motives probably require the establishment of performance standards such as those created by the demands of parents and the surround ing culture. It is necessary for the child to begin per ceiving performance in terms of standards of excellence so that as he perceives discrepancies from this frame of re ference, positive or negative effects will be produced As previously noted, McClelland and his associates j j planned to construct a measure of n-Achievement as it is j !revealed in fantasy. Rather than depend solely upon the i 1 i i I fantasy material, however, the researchers borrowed from ;experimental studies of animals the notion that motives :could be experimentally aroused and their intensity con- I trolled by manipulation of arousal conditions. In their I research, efforts were made to arouse and control the ;intensity of a human motive and to measure its effect on ;imagination or fantasy. Although the scoring techniques will be presented in greater detail in Chapter III, Description of the Study and Procedures, brief mention will; j I be made in the present section. After projecting four pictures on a screen for 20 seconds, the subjects were allowed about one minute to answer each of four questions which were designed to elicit a creative story containing information about the characters, the situation in which they were involved, their thoughts, etc. By administering skill tests on which the individuals experienced varying degrees of suc cess and failure prior to employment of the TAT, a number !of experimental conditions, including a relaxed condition, a neutral condition, a success condition, a failure con dition, and a success-failure condition, were artificially aroused. A scoring system was devised in which each story I ] received a numerical score reflecting the number of refer- I ences to such things as achievement of a success-related task or goal, anticipation or striving, need to succeed, | obstacles to be overcome in the guest for excellence or ; success, family pressure to succeed, and either positive ! or negative feelings as a result of a character's success in the attempt to succeed. A person could learn to score ; rapidly in a week and the scoring was found to have reason able reliability (over .90) (114:412). After numerous re- ; finements had been made in the scoring system, McClelland et al. reached the conviction that . . . if one is primarily interested in explora tory research, it is fruitful to retain and score for the presence of all the sub-categories, be cause they yield a wide variety of facts about qualitatively different aspects of n-Achievement and they can be summed to provide a rough index of intensity level as we have done here. If, on the other hand, the main interest is in assess ing strength of n-Achievement and correlating it with some outside criterion like grades, it is probably better to avoid the problem of category dependence by using more stories (12-16), shorten ing the length of time per story, and scoring only for Achievement Imagery and perhaps Achievement Thema or Instrumental Activity. (115:151) Correlations of n-Achievement scores and the college grades of 30 Wesleyan male students, in addition to other correlations for the same students were: n-Achievement and grades --------------- .51 Combined SAT score and grades---------- .45 Combined SAT score and n-Achievement---------------------- .42 n-Achievement with grades adapted for SAT score---------------------- .39 (115:237) | Numerous research studies have been conducted sub- i !sequent to the original investigation into the measurement ; | ; ’of n-Achievement through administration of the TAT by iMcClelland et al. In a study of Wesleyan University istudents by de Charms, Morrison, Reitman, and McClelland, iit was found that measuring achievement motivation directly by asking a person his feelings about achievement or indi rectly by content analysis of his stories tend to produce two different scores which signify different things as far las the rest of the subject's behavior is concerned (114: 1417). A consciously high desire for achievement tends to be associated with conformity, a high valuation on expert authority, and a low valuation on unsuccessful people. A high need for achievement as measured indirectly through projective material tends to be associated with internal ized standards of excellence which lead to superior per formance on various sorts of task situations. Morgan administered the TAT in 1952 to five groups of students in their junior year at high school in a New England city (130:292). Interscorer reliability of .89 |was reported and low to moderate relationships were found between n-Achievement scores and school grades, although the relationship was somewhat less when intelligence was held constant by use of the partial correlation technique. Alternate forms of the picture test given five weeks apart yielded reliability coefficients of .56, .56, and .64, indicating a moderate stability over brief periods of time. Two instruments, the EPPS and the McClelland system of I using the TAT, were administered to 49 male students in an i ;introductory psychology class at the University of Colorado jby Weiss, Wertheimer, and Groesbeck in 1958 (180:664). IBoth measures correlated positively with grade point aver ages, being .42 for the EPPS and .34 for the picture story |score. Using both measures, the size of the coefficient of correlation was above .60. Lindzey and Heinemann studied the results of TAT's administered to 20 male and 20 female undergraduate Syracuse University volunteers, each of whom completed abbreviated forms of the group and individual TAT (107:53). A comparison of the means and variances of the scores de rived for each of the major variables of achievement, happiness, sex, and dominance revealed no consistent pattern favoring either method. Although the individual procedure was found to lead to stories with more words and ideas, the group method was found to have slight superi ority in relationship to independent measures of the major variables. A later study of 40 male and 40 female under graduate students at Syracuse University by Lindzey and Silverman utilized four different techniques for the administration of the TAT (108:311). In the first group, !the TAT cards were shown by means of a projector and screen j jfor 20 seconds prior to subjects' beginning to write and ! also during the entire 5 minutes while they wrote their istories. The second group was shown the pictures on a jscreen for 20 seconds but not while the stories were being I written. The third group was provided with individual sets ;of TAT cards which were kept during the entire period of 5 minutes and 20 seconds. The fourth group was permitted to i use individual cards but was only allowed to look at them !during the 20 seconds preceding the writing of stories. There was found to be no difference in the stories elicited i by the different procedures (108:322). Further, although a relationship between n-Achievement and verbal producti- ■ > vity, as revealed by counting the number of words in each story, was reported, the investigators concluded that verbal productivity is far less adequate as a measure of achievement motivation than the actual scoring of comments about achievement in the stories themselves (108:323). Sumerwell, Campbell, and Sarason studied the effect of differential motivating instructions on the outcome of TAT stories by giving one group of subjects Murray’s in structions , telling another that they were about to take a test of intelligence, informing a third group that they | • . 43 ! | were going to take a personality test, and giving neutral i instructions to the fourth group (162:385). Finding that j I ■ i I the Murray, intelligence and personality sets of instruc- | tions led to more depressive, sadder stories than did the i , ' : neutral instructions, the authors concluded that neutral instructions might be the most appropriate for TAT sub jects (162:388). Evans' use of both an explicit and in- : trinsic incentive for accomplishment of a learning task re vealed that discovery learning performance was influenced by n-Achievement and ability but not by an incentive con dition (53:196). Also, the fact that the difference in learning between high motivation-low ability students and low motivation-low ability students was so much greater than that between high motivation-high ability and low motivation-high ability students led the author to the conclusion that those who profit most from strong motiva tion in learning are persons with low aptitude (53:199). Results contradictory to those of Evans were reported by Smith, who found that slightly higher n-Achievement scores were produced under achievement and extrinsic incentive orientation than under neutral conditions in a study of 215 male infefcoductory psychology students at the University of Michigan (153:181). Shaw, finding only modest correlation between McClelland measurements of n-Achievement and college per- |formance of achievers and underachievers as measured by grade point averages, cautioned against the fallacies that:; (1) the need to achieve is constant for all areas of an I I •individual's life space, (2) the need to achieve results ; in observable production of a socially desirable sort, and ! j : (3) felt need to achieve and behavior are congruent (150: 284). The additional observation was made that: Motives have both force and direction. Present measures of need achievement consider only the former while neglecting the latter. If one is willing to define motivation as the amount of energy expended, the concept imbedded in the idea of need to achieve is legitimate. If one believes that motivation cannot be measured in terms of energy output or amount of production, then the concept of the 'need to achieve' will have limited usefulness. (150:285) Further limitations were reported by Hills after giving an 18-picture apperception type measure of n-Achievement to 56 entering law school students (83:161). Picture-story scores from one picture to another did not agree well and the authors advised that complex scoring systems originally developed by McClelland be abandoned in favor of a simple scoring for Achievement Imagery and Achievement Thema. The following conclusions were also made: (1) McClelland's technique cannot readily be modified so that it measures different needs to achieve. (2) The use of an n-Achievement test to distinguish between students who had already been admitted to law school made poor research method in view of the fact that admission to law school already presumes a high degree of both academic ability and motivation. (83:161). 45 Several other studies lend support to McClelland's ! thesis that achievement may be predicted more accurately i through the use of projective measures of n-Achievement. i iVeroff, Wilcox, and Atkinson found that the relationship i ; I of n-Achievement scores obtained from stories written by : college women at the University of Michigan and their per- j ! formances on an anagrams test was virtually identical to that obtained for men by McClelland (176:114). Feather also obtained a high correlation between McClelland's n- | Achievement measure and performance on an anagrams test with 168 University of New England students (54:216). Kantrowitz' study of 78 randomly selected Harvard freshmen I who had taken group administered Rorschach and TAT's showed that beyond a certain level of intellectual aptitude and demonstrated past high-level performance, the addition of projective measures of ego functioning to the intellectual i predictors significantly increased the ability to predict sophomore grades (95:117). Although the correlation between n-Achievement and grades of 112 women juniors at Temple University was low, Sundheim did find a statistically significant difference between the n-Achievement scores of the women in the three curricular groups, with those in science scoring highest, those in language next, and those in elementary education scoring lowest (164:82). Employing a slightly different |type of extrinsic incentive with students at Clark College, a $2 reward to those students writing the most creative stories, as compared with a group to whom no mention of anyj i reward was made, Easter and Murstein obtained a significant; difference between the two groups (49:154). Koenigsberg, administering McClelland's test of n-Achievement and a test; of family interaction to 135 upper-classmen at Syracuse University, found n-Achievement to be "slightly related" to (1) parent-child relationships and (2) anxiety (99:112). Efforts to employ McClelland's measurement of n- Achievement with other than college students were also re ported in the literature. LaVerd and Maxwell, both measur ing academic achievement by means of the California Achievement Test battery, found significant positive re lationships between n-Achievement scores and achievement (104:87; 121:137). In a study of 120 fifth and sixth- grade boys of two racially integrated schools in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, Titus noted that the students who attained high n-Achievement scores also revealed greater internal control and that Negro boys were slightly more achievement oriented than other boys, although the difference was not signifi cant (169:95). Haddad's investigation of McClelland's achievement motivation, parent academic evaluation of son, realism of parent evaluation of son's achievement, and son's actual academic achievement revealed no relationship ;between n-Achievement and the academic achievement of 11 and 12 year old boys (72:136). Dove reported a low posi- i ' ..... ■ ....' ..... ~..~ ~~.....47 i i ; tive correlation between n-Achievement scores and the grade point averages of 68 high school seniors, whereas | [ j Karolchuck and Worell found substantial evidence to support; the relationship between n-Achievement and learning that j i ; was incidental to the directed learning of 108 high school freshmen (46:108; 96:257). Although differences in n-Achievement scores of 20 superior achievers and 20 underachievers at two secondary ; schools in Boston, Massachusetts, were not significant, ’ Whiteley and Hummel found the stories of the superior achievers to include' heroes who were more adaptive, per- i ceptive of alternatives, mature, and goal-oriented in their responses to need than was true for the underachievers (184:310). Ward compared n-Achievement scores and achieve- i ment success as measured by the relative status of workers at the Dayton, Ohio, Veterans Administration Center and the grade point averages of a group of high achieving high school students, and found that achievement motivation is causally related to achievement level (177:89). Crockett's sample of 368 adult males from several social status cate gories showed that strength of achievement motivation is positively associated with upward occupational mobility for subjects who were reared in the two lower prestige cate gories but not for persons who were reared in the two higher prestige categories (34:168). Socioeconomic Status j i ; I ( I In Chapter I, note was taken of the concern ex- ! i j pressed by educators, sociologists, and students in other j disciplines of the behavioral sciences about the failure iof the American educational system to serve perfectly as a ‘vehicle for upward social mobility. Whereas the child from a middle-class home tends to perceive education and, with ■increasing frequency, college attendance, as a necessary means for economic self-sufficiency, the culturally disad- i ' vantaged child often fails to share this view. Gordon cites as inhibitive to the culturally disadvantaged child's; profiting from education the fact that "... symbolic re wards and postponement of gratification appear to be in operative as positive norms in motivation. . . . goals for these children tend to be more self-centered, immediate, and utilitarian" (67:282). Kahl, in his studies of "Common Man Boys," emphasized the vital role of parents' aspirations for their children with the observation that "if parents were pushing toward college, in eight out of nine cases the boys responded appropriately, but if the parents were indifferent about college, in eleven out of fifteen cases the boy was uninterested" (91:203). All of the boys in the "Common Man Boys" study were considered to have high enough intelligence for successful college work. Reviewing his own and other sociologists' studies of youth 49 I from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, Kahl observes that: | The lower classes are more concrete in their i aspirations: They want a job that provides money, | security, and a home, and they sense that these goals are problematic and must be strived for. _ . Risk-taking is dangerous and should be avoided. | Aspirations that call for very high levels of education and skill involve risk. (92:678) ! • Kolb's efforts to assist underachieving high school boys from upper-middle and lower-class family backgrounds re sulted in increased achievement motivation in all boys (100:791). When the training effect was measured several months later, the increase had been less for the lower- I class boys but maintained in the higher-class group. This change was attributed to the fact that the lower-class boys returned to an environment that did not support or reward the achievement motivation that had been induced (100:792). Reissman's observation that some 55 per cent of the child- ; Iren who had learned to read before coming to school were from lower socioeconomic homes would appear to contradict previous findings about education and family background (144:47). However, the apparent conflict in findings re volves around the meaning of the word "education" or what the students would like to learn in contrast to what the school teaches, the disadvantaged student seeking learning which is "utilitarian" while the schools and colleges appear to foster knowledge for its own sake (144:48). The influence of social class on plans to attend college is found in several studies. Examining the effect of sub-cultural learning on the- self-concepts of junior high school students, Wylie reports that her lower-class |subjects more frequently doubted that they had the ability to do college work and more often maintained that they did not wish to attend college, even though they were known to. have sufficient intelligence to do so (188:223). Similar ly, Ellis's study of 100 male high school graduates with |above average IQ scores on the Otis Quick-Scoring Test of 'Mental Ability suggested that social class status appears to be a factor in shaping the decision not to attend col lege (52:153). Sewell and Shah's longitudinal study of 10,321 randomly selected Wisconsin high school seniors over a seven year period (1957-1964) showed that both socioeconomic status (SES) and intelligence were related ito planning on college, college attendance, and college graduation both for males and females (156:22). When in telligence was controlled, SES was positively and signifi cantly related.to planning on college, college attendance, and college graduation for both sexes. For females, the relative effect of socioeconomic status was greater than was the effect of intelligence whereas the opposite was true for males. Further, the study revealed that when only those who did enter college were considered, intelligence was much more important than SES in determining who would eventually graduate, although SES continued to exert an influence that was independent of intelligence in deter- 51 mining college graduation for both sexes (156:22). The I probability that the effects of SES are similar across ! international boundaries was illustrated in Paralko and Bishop's study of Canadian high school seniors in which it ; i • : ! j iwas found that 52 per cent of the students from high SES ibackgrounds planned_to__attend college as compared with 34 per cent of those from low SES backgrounds (138:294). Two groups of 50 high school seniors with working- 'class backgrounds, one of which was definitely planning to ! t 1 igo to college whereas the other was definitely not planning: to go to college, matched on intelligence and school grades, were selected by Cohen for study (29:404). :Students planning to attend college were from families in which the parents emphasized the need for a college degree as a means for gaining entry to middle-class status and where more deliberate encouragement of college occurred (29:423). McDill and Coleman, from their study of 612 students in six Midwestern high schools concluded that: By the end of the senior year of high school, status in the social system of the school contributes more to variation in college plans than does parents' education. These findings challenge the results of several studies which show that the most important source of variation in educational aspirations is the child's socioeconomic background. (117:112) Rogoff cites information gathered by the Educational Test ing Service about the college plans of over 35,000 American high school seniors who constituted the entire 1955 senior class of over >500 public secondary schools to illustrate j the probable impact of social status on attendance at college (146:243). For the students who were in the top quintile of scholastic ability, the percentages planning ! t |college attendance, by family status quintiles, were 83 peri | ' I |cent from the top quintile, 66 per cent from the next j i quintile, 53 per cent from the third quintile, 44 per cent i i from the next, and 43 per cent from the bottom quintile of jfamily status (146:250). The role of the junior college as a means for i . i social status mobility was illustrated by Clark's 1957 data on father's occupation for San Jose City College students and San Jose students attending several four-year institutions. : . ‘ Upper Lower Upper Lower White White Blue Blue Collar Collar Collar Collar (Per Cent)(Per Cent)(Per Cent)(Per Cent) Stanford University 87 7 6 0 University of Cali fornia (Berkeley) 69 14 11 6 San Jose State College 38 17 29 16 San Jose City College 23 15 45 17 City of San Jose 26 17 38 19 (27:54) Mellinger's 1959-60 study of a multi-campus metro politan junior college produced results which corroborate those of Clark (124:174). Determining parents' social I position from the Warner Index of Status Characteristics, Mellinger found that students from families in the lower and lower-middle classes accounted for 96 per cent of the : freshman population (124:176). Cooley and Becker utilized j I I i data on 16,000 males and 18,000 females obtained from a I : j nationwide study to identify the junior college student (32:464). Using a variety of socioeconomic class criteria,; i the study found that the junior college students fell be- i tween the non-college and college groups in terms of parents' education, father's job, the number of books in ! the home, and other factors related to SES classification. : They concluded that "There is a tendency for junior college students to be more like non-college students in terms of ; ability, and slightly more like college students in terms of socioeconomic factors" (32:469). The personal records of 1,031 full-time male students at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Michigan, were examined by Hagemeyer to determine the students' socioeconomic backgrounds (73: 316). It was concluded that the college was providing opportunities for students who otherwise probably would not have attended college in light of the fact that almost 90 per cent of their parents' occupations were found in clas sifications of skilled workers and foremen, operative ser vice workers, and general laborers and that only 14 per ;cent of the fathers had completed a formal education 54 j j beyond high school (73:318). Although most four-year colleges and universities do not face the problem of attempting to teach students I who possess inferior or impaired learning abilities, the ! ' : I I public junior colleges which must (or choose) to accept ! !high school graduates (or even non-high school graduates) |with low achievement records may encounter such students in ;substantial numbers. Consequently, studies of abilities iamong elementary and high school students from culturally deprived backgrounds is of pertinence to junior college educators. Havighurst notes that many young persons from culturally disadvantaged homes come from a language en vironment which is characterized by: (1) short, grammatically simple, often unfinished sentences, (2) simple and repetitive use of conjunctions (so, then, because), (3) little use of subordinate clauses to break down the initial categories of the dominant subject, (4) inability to hold a formal subject through a speech sequence, (5) rigid and limited use of adjectives and adverbs, (6) frequent use of the personal pronouns, and (7) frequent use of statements where the reason and conclusion are confounded to produce a categoric statement. (78:111) Children from these environments are found to have an in ferior auditory discrimination, inferior visual discrimi- nation, inferior judgment concerning time, number, and i other basic concepts, not because of physical defects of j l eyes, ears, and brain, but to inferior habits of hearing, seeing, and thinking (78:112). Riessman states that low 1 socioeconomic children oftexi learn in what he refers to as ! ! I a "physical style" through touching, moving, and I gestures but that the middle-class oriented public 1 schools emphasize the reading and writing dimensions of I f I learning (144:46). Edmonds' study of the verbal abilities of 1,239 i f • ' :socioeconomically deprived 11th grade students of like i j ! intellectual ability in the deep South supported the con- i ielusions of Havighurst and Riessman (50:61). Statistically I significant differences were found between the measured I : !verbal ability of both boys and girls in the highest and jlowest socioeconomic groups. Edmonds did caution, however, against arbitrarily assuming that low socioeconomic groups possess uniform inferiority, stating that within-group differences in verbal ability are as important for this level of low ability as for normal and high-ability groups (50:64). Although there was found to be considerable re- ;search on the relationship between academic achievement and SES in surveying the literature, there was a noticeable ; lack of agreement about both the strength and the nature of ;the association. Two studies of National Merit Scholarship, students supported the argument for a close relationship. Nichols and Davis found that the winners, finalists, and semi-finalists in 1961 tended to come from backgrounds of j | ; I higher SES than the students who were earning average I grades in college (134:795). Astin compared 334 scholars i • :in 1961 with their freshman classes and found that both .male and female Merit Scholars came from socioeconomic I backgrounds which tended to be higher than those of typical I college freshmen (4:581). However, the finding that Imatching of socioeconomic factors did not account for the :Merit Scholars' more frequent creative achievements and other differences on both high-aptitude students and students selected with respect to attitude led the author to suggest the need for more explicit research on the per- ’sonal and other situational variables that influence achievement (4:585). Coombs found that father's occupational level, parental aspiration for children's college education, and parental income were significantly related to high school and college academic performance (33:117). Smith and Penny, comparing both grades and achievement test scores in science, mathematics, English, and social studies of selected college students having equal ability with SES, found that the relationship of both the grades and achieve ment test scores with SES was at least as high as the re lationship with intelligence as measured in all areas in- eluded in the study (154:343). After administering the TAT to measure the n- ' Achievement of 313 high school seniors in a Midwestern i : i community, once in a situation where students had been i ' ! j rewarded for the completion of an assigned task and once i . i I • ; ’ when there was no reward, Douvan found a significant dif- iference in n-Achievement only when there was no reward i | offered, in which case students from middle-class back- ;grounds evidenced a higher need than did the students from ! working-class homes (45:308) . Also, middle-class indivi- ;duals were found by Douvan to manifest a significantly higher need to achieve than working-class individuals in response to a failure, defined as not achieving an abstract standard (45:309). Gallant's study of 663 college freshmen indicated no significant relationship between the educational levels of parents and the students' grade point averages, although the groups with the highest mean grade point averages con sisted of students whose parents' jobs were classified as professional and agricultural and those with the lowest mean grade point averages were comprised of students whose parents were employed as service workers and manual laborers (63:112). Identifying students' social class by the occupation and education of their fathers, Feldman found that individuals in the upper and upper-middle iclasses had a significantly better achievement record in 58 their first year of law school than did those in the lower and lower-middle classes (55:157). Moreover, this rela tionship was found to hold even when legal aptitude and j i i iundergraduate academic achievement were controlled(55:159).I i • j Several studies were in apparent conflict irith j those which showed a direct relationship between SES and i ' ; i . - |academic achievement. Studying all superior students j (those with grade point averages of 3.25 or above on a ! i 4.0 scale) and all probationary students (grade point aver-j ; i jage of 2.0 or lower) in the 1955-56 student body of Eastern; Washington College of Education, Weltman found no signifi cant difference between the two groups for either parent's ; education or father's occupation (181:163). After con- ? , ; ducting an extensive investigation of what happened to all ! i ] Minnesota high school graduates of the years 1938 and 1950,; ; Wolfle reported the following: Percentage of High Percentage of Col- School Graduates lege Entrants Who Who Enter College Graduate From Col- By Fathers' Occu- lege by Fathers' ____________________pations_____________ Occupations________ !Professional and Semi-professional 67 60 Managerial 50 55 White Collar (Clerical, Sales, Service) 48 57 iFarmer 24 44 i ! Factory Craftsmen, Unskilled, etc. 26 58 (186:114) Summarizing the influence of SES on college atten dance and performance, Wolfle Stated that: | Economic and social factors play an important role in helping to determine which children graduate from high school and enter college, but the differ ential is less marked for children of superior ability than children of lesser ability . . . The students who get into college have already overcome most of whatever handicaps their home environment offered. (187:232) Comparing SES, based on the occupation of father or guardian, of 265 freshman superior students who were eli gible for the Honors program at Ball State University with the results of a, 16-factor personality questionnaire, McConnell found that socioeconomic characteristics did not provide a basis for differentiation among any of the groups (116:143). Gottlieb introduced a third variable in the istudy of social class and education: academic achievement (68:273). His study of 398 college freshmen from both a large Midwestern state university and a smaller private Midwestern institution suggested that, regardless of socio economic backgrounds, students who had performed well in their previous academic efforts would have experienced certain types of rewards and influences which could be viewed as being part of all the students' sub-culture (62: 283). Thus "... social class impact may vary when cor related with academic achievement" (68:283). In a compari son of student characteristics upon admission in the fall of 1963 at Phoenix College, Phoenix, Arizona, with those of educationally successful students at the end of one, two, and four semesters, Spector found a very low relationship between SES and grade point average (157:163). Similarly, a study of students who withdrew from Northern Illinois University during their second, third, or fourth years by Lembesis found that factors which usually serve as indices of SES had no significant relationship to college success (105:97). The results reported in the preceding examinations of social class and academic achievement lend credence to Hernandez1 observation that: People in education must be cognizant of the fact that social class placement is an arbitrary device utilized for research and study, and group predictions made upon the basis of such data are to be made with care and the knowledge that there are many variables which may influence actual performance and values of groups other than social class stratification. (80:324) Two studies of junior college students arrived at contradictory conclusions. Burack found that although the proportion of students in a metropolitan junior college from lower SES backgrounds exceeded that in a four-year Midwestern college (57.0 per cent as compared with 25.9 per cent), the relation of SES to progress and retention did not appear to be strong, probably because of the selecti vity of a college population by motivation even at the junior college level (17:112). In contrast, Summerer dis covered a significant difference between entering freshmen and completing sophomores in a study of Flint Community College (163:97). Whereas all social status levels were represented by freshmen with a predominance from lower ; levels, lower social status levels were not heavily repre- j sented by sophomore students. Nevertheless, social status ■ level and academic aptitude were not found to be highly i correlated. The effects of SES upon educational and occupation al aspirations of youth are pointed up in several studies. ; Shah obtained a state-wide survey of 3,463 Wisconsin high school male seniors in 1957 and followed up with another survey of a one-third random sample of the same group in 1964 (149:107). Finding that there was a positive rela- ;tionship between social class differences and the aspira tions of high school seniors, Shah concluded that lower social class youths tend to restrict their aspirations more than higher social class boys with equal ability. From a brief questionnaire which was completed by 127,212 freshmen entering 248 heterogeneous colleges and universi ties in the fall of 1961, Werts found that relative to their numbers, low SES groups overchose careers in engi neering, teaching, accountancy, the clergy, and farming, whereas the middle groups overchose the fields of physicist, dentist, mathematician, architect, businessman, and foreign service, and the higher SES groups overchose the occupa tions of lawyer, physician, and college professor (182:77). Such evidence was believed to correspond with the idea that it is difficult to take more than one step up the social ladder without special advantages such as those of i wealth, personality, or intellect. Majors chosen by 548 freshman students in three Texas junior colleges were found by Anthony to distinguish significantly between the students' SES (1:143). Terminal students tended to come from lower socioeconomic levels than did transfer students, I . ; ialthough transfer students were found to come from all socioeconomic levels. Measuring social mobility aspiration by the difference between the student's chosen occupation and that of his father, terminal students were found to have less social mobility aspiration than did transfer students. Although some attention has been directed to the problems of social and cultural assimilation encountered by the Mexican-American student in the United States, there was a relative lack of information at the college level. From a comprehensive review of the literature of the social sciences, including education and psychology, Cabrera cited the following as cultural values of the Mexican-American which are in conflict with the values of the American middle class: (1) The primary importance of the family group (2) Individual security in the family group (3) Present-time orientation | (4) Production of goods for family consumption I i (5) Simple work patterns and organizations | (6) Material gain for itself is of little importance Gonzales cited the California School Boards Asso ciation 1965 study of ethnic imbalances in California schools in which returns from 55.6 per cent of all Cali fornia districts revealed that Mexican-American pupils com prised slightly over 11 per cent of the pupil population in grades 4-8, 10 per cent in the 9th grade, 9 per cent in the 10th grade, 8 per cent in the 11th grade, and 7 per cent in the 12th grade (65:22). Hernandez adduces two basic phi losophies which inhibit the participation of second- generation Mexican-American youngsters in the American educational system: (1) "Dios dira." (God will tell; it is in the hands of God.) The belief that all is in the hands of God can provide an easy ration alization for failure. (2) "Hay mas tiempo que vida." (There is more time than there is life.) This reinforces the justification for limited planning for the future. It permits procrastination and relieves the individual of the pressures of deadlines and promptness. (81:62) Caplan and Ruble's study of 100 families in Albu querque, New Mexico, concluded that the academic achieve ment of Mexican-American students is restricted, not by aptitude or intelligence, but because the values held in their homes are different from those held by the Anglo- American community as a whole and they have not been en couraged by the home to value certain personality charac teristics which contribute to school achievement (21:21). | Logan, using McClelland's TAT approach to the measurement i ! i of n-Achievement and a short autobiography in a study of i | Anglo-American, Mexican-American, and Mexican college 'males, found that Anglo-Protestants and Mexicans had higher n-Achievement than did Anglo-Catholics or Mexican-Americans and that, contrary to his original hypothesis, Mexican- |Americans were significantly higher than all other cultural groups on autobiographical measures of achievement need (110:133). Summary Chapter II has provided a review of research which I was believed to be pertinent to the present study. In the first section, efforts to find significant relationships between academic achievement and a variety of non-intel lectual factors were examined. In section two, the devel opment by McClelland et al. of a means for measuring achievement motivation with a projective instrument, the Thematic Apperception Test, was presented. Subsequent studies which employed McClelland's technique were describ ed. The final section explored the relationship between socioeconomic status and college attendance, academic achievement, motivation and attitudes. Because studies of junior college students in the above categories were generally scarce, related research involving high school | and senior college students was also described. CHAPTER III DESCRIPTION OP THE STUDY AND PROCEDURES Chapter II cited the need for greater understanding I of junior college students who come from lower socioeco nomic backgrounds, particularly as they compare with stu dents from middle socioeconomic levels, in light of the avowed junior college goal of enhancing the educational opportunities of such students. In the present study, an attempt has been made to assess some of the attitudinal and motivational differences between achieving and non achieving junior college students from both lower and i middle socioeconomic classes. Because they comprised over one-half of the lower socioeconomic group, Mexican-American students were treated as a sub-group. Comparisons also were made between the groups of students from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. In the 1967 fall semester, the College of the Sequoias participated in a nationwide questionnaire survey of incoming college freshmen which was sponsored by the American Council on Education. Incoming freshmen were administered a Student Information Form during freshman orientation meetings (see Appendix A). Although•absences precluded administration of the questionnaire to all in coming freshmen, close to 100 per cent participation was I obtained by inviting students who had missed the initial j administration to come to the Student Personnel Center and complete the form on an individual basis. As a conse quence, 1,331 or 99.4 per cent, of the 1,339 incoming freshmen completed the questionnaire. All of the subjects in the present study completed the questionnaire. A total of 280,650 entering freshman college stu dents at 359 colleges and universities in the United States participated in the 1967 survey (137:1). Participating in stitutions were invited to designate specific sub-groups of students within their entering freshman classes for individual tabulation and reporting. The groups included in the present study were identified for special reporting to permit comparison with both the total incoming first time freshman class at the College of the Sequoias and national norms for two-year colleges. The two-year college national norms were derived from responses of incoming freshmen from 62 two-year colleges in the United States. A comparison of the questionnaire responses of the two major socioeconomic groups of the study, in addition to the Mexican-American sub-group, is presented in Appendix B. Because of the necessity to return the completed question naires to the American Council on Education early in the fall semester, a comparison between achieving and non- achieving students could not be made. I I Chapter III presents the setting of the study, a j description of the subjects of the study, a detailed ac- ; count of the two measuring instruments, the Inventory of : Self Appraisal and the McClelland measure of n-Achievement, an explanation of how the instruments were administered and: scored, and a description of the statistical procedures ;employed. Setting of the Study i The subjects were selected from the fall 1967 in coming freshman class at the College of the Sequoias in , Visalia, California (Tulare County). The twelve high schools from which the great majority of students come, and from which all of those studied were selected, are located in Tulare and Kings Counties. Except for a limited amount of light industry, the region's economy has an agricultural base, with the principal crops being fruit, cotton, grapes, olives, and barley. Total population in the counties served by the junior college district was 251,000 as of January 1, 1965. During the 1966-67 academic year, students of Mexican- American descent comprised from. 2.0 to 43.7 per cent of all students in the twelve high schools from which subjects for the study were drawn. The median for the group was 24.0 69 per cent. In contrast, 12.6 per cent, or> 334, of the I College of the Sequoias 1967 fall semester enrollment of | ! 2,659 students were of Mexican-American descent. Description of the Sample Classification of students by socioeconomic back- ground was made in terms of the Index of Status Character- : istics (ISC), as described by Warner, Meeker, and Eells in Social Class in America (179:41). Samples of students, approximately 200 in number, were desired from the lower- : lower class and the upper-middle class, as defined by Warner et al. Four factors are employed in arriving at the ISC rating: occupation of the chief income earner, source of the family's income, house type, and dwelling area. Warner reported that the single characteristic of occupation correlated 0.91 with social class as determined by "evaluated participation", which took into account prestige and patterns of social interaction, and was in creased to only 0.97 when education, source of income, amount of income, dwelling area, and house type were added to occupation in making the classification (179:168). Hollingshead and Redlich found that judged social class had a correlation of 0.88 with occupation as compared with correlations of 0.69 for residence and 0.78 for education (87:394). Kahl and Davis, using a method of factor analy- ; sis, found that an individual's occupation accounted for most of the variability in social status (94:324). ! The class dividing lines employed by Warner in the i Jonesville study, shown in Table 1, were selected for use : in gauging the accuracy of social class placement of sub jects in the present study (179:41). Students with weighted total ISC ratings of 23 to 37 were assumed to belong in the middle group. Thus the middle classification was expanded to include not only upper-middle class, but also the two indeterminate ranges ‘above and below the Upper-Middle class. Only students judged to have ISC ratings of from 70 to 84, lower-lower class, were placed in the lower group. Selection of the students who were eventually in cluded in the study was begun in the spring semester of 1967. Administrators and counselors in the twelve partici pating high schools were requested to have all seniors com plete a brief questionnaire in their civics and senior government classes. Questionnaire responses provided in formation about parents' occupations, sources of family income, home addresses, and intentions to enroll at the College of the Sequoias in the succeeding fall semester. By examining the information sheets of the students who had stated their intentions to enroll at the College of the Sequoias, a preliminary selection of those who came from low- and middle-class families was made on the basis of parental occupation and income source data. The informa- TABLE 1 SOCIAL CLASS EQUIVALENTS FOR INDEX OF STATUS CHARACTERISTICS Weighted Totals of Ratings Social Class Equivalents 12 - 17 Upper Class 18 - 22 Upper Class; some possibility of Upper-Middle Class 23 - 24 Indeterminate: either Upper or Upper- Middle Class 25 - 33 Upper-Middle Class 34 - 37 Indeterminate: either Upper-Middle or Lower-Middle Class 38 - 50 Lower-Middle Class 51 - 53 Indeterminate: either Lower-Middle or Upper-Lower Class 54-62 Upper-Lower Class 63 - 66 Indeterminate: either Upper-Lower or Lower-Lower Class 67 - 69 Lower-Lower Class; some possibility of Upper-Lower Class 70-84 Lower-Lower Class tion sheets of the.students so classified were then taken | to the respective high schools where, after explaining the I purpose of the study and the student socioeconomic back grounds which were being sought, counselors and administra-, tors who were acquainted with the' students examined the classification. In several instances, students were ex cluded from the study because, in the judgment of the high school personnel, they did not belong in either of the two groups. For each high school, final lists of students from lower and middle socioeconomic backgrounds were prepared. Also, Mexican-American students were identified on the lists by surname and their identifications confirmed both by the high school personnel's judgment and by information on College of the Sequoias application .forms about the language (or languages) spoken at home. Following the procedure described above, a total of 430 students from lower and 500 from middle socioeconomic backgrounds were identified. Of the students who were classified as lower, 188 were identified as Mexican- American while the remaining 242 were of Anglo-Saxon heri tage predominantly. In order to have approximately equal numbers in the groups, every other name on an alphabetized list of the middle-class students was selected for the study. All names on the lower-class lists were included. The College of the Sequoias employs a counseling j and registration procedure whereby all incoming freshmen I ' ; I meet with counselors to plan their fall semester programs I during the summer months of June, July, and August. Simul-: ! taneously, all registration forms are completed so that students need not return to the college until they report to their first class meetings. In Table 2, the number of students in the group which was initially selected for the study is shown as well as the number who actually registered during.the sum mer of 1967 and the number who were still enrolled at the ; beginning of the tenth week of the fall semester. All of the original 780 high school seniors had expressed their intentions to enroll in the College of the Sequoias follow ing high school graduation. Of the 430 students from lower socioeconomic back grounds, only 289, or 67.2 per cent reported for counseling appointments during the summer of 1967. The proportion of Mexican-American students who registered was slightly below the proportion of all other students in the lower socio economic group. In contrast, 218, or 87.2 per cent of the 250 students from middle socioeconomic backgrounds were registered. The number of pre-registered students in both socioeconomic classes was expected to decline as a result I of withdrawals during the semester. Consequently, the TABLE 2 ATTRITION AMONG ORIGINAL GROUPS OF SUBJECTS PLANNING TO ENROLL IN COLLEGE Socioeconomic and Ethnic Groups Students Selected in Spring, 1967 Students Who Registered in Summer, 1967 Students Who Were Still En rolled After Ninth Week, Fall Semester LOWER: Mexican- Women American Men Total Mexican-American All Women Others Men Total All Others Total Lower MIDDLE: Total Middle Women Men Number 92 96 188 114 128 242 430 115 135 250 Per Cent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 63 61 124 76 89 165 289 98 120 218 68.5 63.5 65.9 66.7 69.5 68.2 67.2 85.2 88.9 87.2 55 56 111 69 81 150 261 93 114 207 59.8 58.3 59.0 60.5 62.7 62.0 60.4 80.9 84.4 82.8 decision was made to delete from the study the names of allj | students who had withdrawn prior to the beginning of the tenth week of the fall semester. After that date, however,! ; j I students who withdrew would be included and their status j ; ;as academic achievers and nonachievers established on the I i basis of instructors' reported grades at the date of with- j drawal. At the beginning of the tenth week of the fall ' , i semester, 261, or 60.4 per cent, of the original lower group and 207,.or 82.8 per cent, of the original middle group were still enrolled at the college. Of the original ! group of Mexican-American students, only 59.0 per cent remained at the conclusion of nine weeks of class meetings. I - j t i Table 3 presents the ethnic and socioeconomic groups who remained in the study at the conclusion of the ;first nine weeks of the fall semester. Prom two alphabetical lists, one for the original 430 students in the lower-class group and one for the ori ginal 250 in the middle-class group, the name of every fifteenth student was selected. During the months of June and July, 1967, the residences of the selected students, 29 from lower- and 17 from middle-class backgrounds, were visited and rated in terms of neighborhood and house type in accordance with Warner's Index of Status Characteristics. From the information sheets, ratings also were made for parents' occupations and sources of income. The distribu- j ,tion of ISC scores for social class is shown in Table 4. ! TABLE 3 ETHNIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS IN THE STUDY Socioeconomic Class Ethnic Group : _________ Low Middle Men 81 111 Anglo- American . Women 69 91 Mexican- Men 56 3 American Women 55 2 Total 261 207 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF INVENTORY OF STATUS CHARACTERISTICS SCORES AMONG SAMPLE GROUPS ISC Score Middle Frequency Lower ISC Score Frequency 37 1 84 5 36 2 83 4 35 2 82 3 34 1 81 2 33 0 80 2 32 1 79 1 31 2 78 0 30 3 77 2 29 . 2 76 2 28 0 75 2 27 1 74 2 26 1 73 0 25 1 72 2 24 0 71 1 23 0 70 1 Total 17 Total 29 Because the purpose of the sample was to test the accuracy of the original social status classifications, which were based on parents' occupations and sources of i • income coupled with high, school counselors' and administra- itors' evaluations, no ethnic distinctions were made. From i |the results obtained with the sample group, the classifi cations for the remainder of the sample were considered to be accurate for purposes of the study. Description of the Measuring Instruments ' The Inventory of Self Appraisal The Inventory of Self Appraisal (ISA) is: . . . one of the first paper-and pencil instru ments designed to assess the multiple correlates of achievement and underrachievement. It was developed in order to facilitate the study of variables previously found to be significantly related to the achievement motive. It appears to have significant value in helping to identify under-achievers and in locating specific areas contributing to this under-achievement. (126:1) Following the ISA's initial construction in 1958, it has been refined by means of reviews of the literature and intensive item difficulty and item discrimination analy sis. The ISA form employed in the present study has been administered to over 3,000 students, primarily in the junior high school age range. There are separate forms for men and women and, in addition, separate forms for Mexican-American men and women. Items on all forms are identical except for jthe names of the subjects about whom statements are made ~ ' “ ....“ ............. '.'..... 79 ] (see Appendix C). The student is to determine whether each statement is true of himself (Like me) or not true of j himself (Not like me). In constructing the items, their |readability was designed to be compatible with students !having low reading and language abilities. There are 150 items on the test. The theoretical model upon which the test is based |includes the following major categories: 1:00 Associations: Cognitive Domain 2:00 Associations: Social Domain 3:00 Adult Approval 4:00 Moral and Social Values 5:00 Perceived Utility of School Experience 6:00 Success Patterns 7:00 Authority Relationships 8:00 Goal Direction 9:00 Adequate Self-Concept 10:00 Interests Belleau completed a pilot study in which 190 ISA items were reduced to the 70 which proved to be of discri minative value between achievers and underachievers (7:183). Thirty additional items were then included and a 100-item test was administered to the 147 matched pairs in grades 3 through 8 in a lower socioeconomic community. Underachiev ers were defined as pupils who had attained a California : Achievement Test score one full grade level below expect- jancy while achievers were those who had attained a total CAT grade placement score at or above expectancy. The I | students were further divided into low ability (CTMM total ! !score IQ of 89 or below), average ability (CTMM total score IQ of 90-110), and high ability (CTMM total score IQ of 111 or above). Using a one-tailed test of significance, Belleau concluded that "results appeared to be significant beyond the .01 level of confidence with the exception of |results for fifth-grade girls and seventh-grade boys" (7:187) . Following Belleau's study, two additional forms of the ISA with Mexican-American proper names were prepared by Metfessel and administered to 200 Mexican-American boys and girls. Reliability coefficients for the two sexes and ethnic groups were reported as follows: (1) Anglo male form, .87; (2) Anglo female form, .99; (3) Mexican-American male form, .72; (4) Mexican-American female form, .84 (125:5). Davis, after conducting an extensive review of the literature, developed fifty additional items for the ISA. All items on the test were empirically validated through keying responses in the direction indicated by modal re sponse proportions of the 222 high achievers in her study (38:77). Davis tested 529 seventh-grade boys and girls, 272 Anglo-American and 257 Mexican-American. The pupils were classified into three achievement groups based upon |averages of all grades received in the sixth grade. The i ! :group included 222 high achievers with g.p.a.'s of 2.8 to i i 4.0, 220 average achievers with g.p.a.'s of 2.1 to 2.7, and i87 low achievers who had g.p.a.'s of 2.0 or lower. The !students were further categorized by sex and ethnicity. In discussing the group trends revealed by her study, Davis preceded her comments with the statement that any attempt to identify correlates of academic achievement for one person should be preceded by individual study and that the ISA is not sufficiently valid or reliable for in dividual diagnostic assessment (38:122). Conclusions for groups were as follows: (1) All groups were found to respond differentially by achievement levels pertaining to patterns of school success, persistence in academic endeav ors, and expectations of future success. (2) Three times as many significant items were found to differentiate among the girls' group as among the boys' group. (3) Greater agreement than disagreement was found between the ethnic groups in spite of the fact that Anglo-American pupils scored higher in tested intelligence and SES. (4) The concept of underachievement was not as closely related to identification with ISA items as was actual achievement level for the total group. (5) At all achievement levels, pupils evaluate their academic status relatively well as determined by responses to items dealing with grades. (38:133) In the present study, the 150 ISA items have been grouped into six categories, corresponding to those em- ployed by Davis. The six categories are: i Authority Relationships I - * !' I Peer Relationships j |. Moral and Social Values School Related Experiences and Aspirations Self-Concept Interest Patterns In Appendix Df these categories and their sub-areas of attitude investigation are shown with the related sec- iondary school research findings and corresponding ISA item jnumbers. McClelland1s n-Achievement Considerable space in Chapter II was devoted to a description of the theoretical basis for the use of the TAT in measuring n-Achievement, the development of McClelland's TAT measurement of n-Achievement, and research findings of studies in which McClelland's technique was employed. The present section will describe the TAT administration method and the technique employed for analysis of imaginative stories for subject matter content. In his efforts to arouse the achievement motive, McClelland created various experimental conditions on the assumption that by so doing the content of imaginative stories could be manipulated experimentally. Conditions |were manipulated so as to create relaxed, neutral, achieve-; ment-oriented, success, failure, and success-failure condi tions. In all except the neutral condition, the writing of l I ! imaginative stories was preceded by the administration of a Ipaper-and-pencil test on which students were asked to per- !form various tasks. Instructions preceding the tasks were varied in such a way as either to intensify or reduce the sense of ;importance attached to the test and to stimulate or depress the sense of urgency related to their performance. In a isuccess-oriented task, achievement goals were set suffi ciently low to permit all or nearly all of the subjects to :feel that they had exceeded the norms by which their suc cess was being determined. Under achievement-oriented conditions, the paper-and-pencil test was taken, following I instructions which made it clear that the subject's intelli gence was being measured. The procedure under failure conditions was identical to that of the success conditions with the exception that the norms quoted for comparison purposes were so high that few members of the group were able to exceed them. Under the success-failure conditions, several performance tests were given. Following the first test, low norms were quoted so as to lead the subjects to feel they had achieved success. On all of the remaining tests of the battery, however, very high norms were quoted so that most subjects failed after having first been led to expect success. The neutral condition differed from all other ex perimental conditions in that the performance task was pre ceded by, instead of being followed by, administration of i Ithe TAT. Here, the intention was neither to depress nor to I I increase the level of motivation but to keep it as normal las possible in order to obtain a measure of the motivations subjects brought with them to the situation; i.e., to measure the motivational level elicited by the cues of everyday life. | In scoring for n-Achievement, as discussed in Chapter II, the point score assigned to each TAT story was determined by the number and type of achievement-related stories and the references to achievement within stories. McClelland identified the three primary determinants of n- |Achievement scores as (1) the instructional cues, described in the paragraphs above, (2) the achievement cues within pictures of varying achievement arousal strength, and (3) the achievement cues within individuals. Because the pur pose of the present study was to employ the techniques of McClelland to measure n-Achievement determinant (3), inter nal achievement cues, the primary administrative concern was with determinants (1) and (2). Although higher n-Achievement scores were obtained from achievement oriented instructions, it was also found by McClelland that even under relaxed conditions the dis crimination between high- and low-cue pictures persisted at i ___ ____ _ ____ .__ .__________ !approximately the same level. Differences due to cues in I |the individual ”... are largest with the picture of low i cue value under conditions of achievement orientation" i i (115:205). However, McClelland also cites studies conduct ed by other investigators which demonstrate the superior i consistency of subjects tested a week apart under neutral conditions (115:209). In the present study, ten pictures of relatively low cue value were administered to groups ranging in size :from 10 to 25 under neutral conditions. The pictures were selected from Murray's Thematic Apperception Test and the Symonds Picture Story Test (see Appendix E). The admini stration technique differed from McClelland's neutral con dition in that no performance test followed the writing of imaginative stories for the TAT. Limiteing the number of pictures to ten instead of McClelland's suggested 12-16 pictures and use of the neutral condition were dictated in part by practical considerations. Experimentation with two introductory psychology classes indicated that the 50- minute class periods precluded showing more than 10 pic tures after having provided necessary instructions and allowing a few minutes for the arrival of late-comers. The neutral condition was the only experimental condition described by McClelland which did not require the use of a performance task either preceding or following administration of the TAT. In light of the fact that the TAT had to be administered to the subjects of the present study during a 50-minute class period, as explained in the i (preceding paragraph, and McClelland's findings that the i (neutral condition possessed discriminative powers similar to that of the achievement oriented condition, it was be- ;lieved that the »alue of this part of the study would not be seriously affected by such restrictions. Administration and Scoring of Measuring Instruments Inventory of Self Appraisal After having identified the subjects for the study in the spring of 1967, arrangements were mdde to assemble students in groups of from five to forty at the partici pating high schools, allowing an hour per group, for ad ministration of the ISA. At the larger high schools, it was necessary to spend several hours administering the test, whereas, one small-group administration was suffi cient in smaller Ijigh schools. Instructions given to the students were those prescribed in the manual for admini strators of the ISA and, in general, were designed to ex plain the mechanics of taking the test and reduce anxieties by pointing out that the results would not become a part of the students' high school or junior college records. The test administrator remained in the room to answer any questions that might have arisen while the test was being taken. Approximately ten per cent of the students select- ; ed for the test were absent when the test was administered.j These students were given the test under similar condi- I j tions, except that the groups were smaller, when they re- | ported to the College of the Sequoias during the months of ; i ' j : June, July, and August for pre-registration counseling. !McClelland's n-Achievement Test Several considerations led to the administration of; the McClelland TAT to students in the early weeks of the 1967 fall semester. First, and believed to be most impor- ; tant, the use of a slide projector and screen in a darkened room rendered more advisable the selection of a single !location where the test administration could be relatively ; standardized through controlled conditions. Second, it was believed that administration of both tests would place too great a burden on the already over-crowded time schedules of the high schools in the district, particularly with only four to six weeks remaining in the students' senior year. After the first two weeks of the fall semester had elapsed, during which time students were allowed to make program changes, the programs of all subjects were examined and they were summoned to the testing room during a free period on either of two days during the week. Since there were eight periods per day, or sixteen in all, it was possible to limit each group to no more than 30 per period. Because of absences, the largest number of students at a single administration was 27. When they arrived in the testing room, students were given ten 8*s x 11 inch pages on which the following questions, equally spaced, appeared on a page: (1) What is happening? Who are the persons? (2) What has led up to this situation? That is, what has happened in the past? (3) What is being thought? What is wanted? By whom? (4) What will happen? What will be done? Students were requested to write their names on the first sheet and were told that the test was a part of the same study in which they had participated during the pre ceding spring. The following instructions were then read: This is a test of your creative imagination. A number of pictures will be projected on the screen before you. You will have twenty seconds to look at the picture and then about four minutes to make up a story about it. Notice that there' is one page for each picture. The same four questions are asked. They will guide your thinking and enable you to cover all the elements of a plot in the time al lotted. Plan to spend about a minute on each question. I will keep time and tell you when it is about time to go on to the next question for each story. You will have a little time to finish your story before the next picture is shown. Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers, so you may feel free to make up any kind of a story about the pictures that you choose. Try to make them vivid and dramatic, for this is a test of creative imagination. Do not merely de scribe the picture you see. Tell a story about it. Work as fast as you can in order to finish in time. Make them interesting. Are there any questions? If you need more space for any question, use the reverse side. __________________________ The first picture was then projected onto a screen | in the front of the classroom for 20 seconds. Then, the I picture was turned off and the subjects were given four i j !minutes in which to write their stories. At the conclusion: ] ; of each minute, they were notified of the amount of time i ' remaining. When four minutes had elapsed, the students |were permitted 15 seconds in which to conclude their sto- ries before the next picture was shown. The same procedure j ; |was followed for all ten pictures. When the final picture ■ had been shown and stories written, the papers were col- ilected from the students as they left the room. During the: ensuing three weeks, additional administrations of the test: ;were given to those persons who had been absent until all ! ; students in the study had taken the test. Scoring of the test followed McClelland's sugges tion, cited in Chapter II, that in studies which seek to relate n-Achievement to college grades a larger number of pictures be shown and scored only for Achievement Imagery and Achievement Thema or Instrumental Activity'. It was decided to score for all three factors, which are defined as follows: Achievement Imagery. Stories in which an individual in a story is to be successful in terms of com petition with some standard of excellence would possess Achievement Imagery. Even though the individual in the story fails to achieve the goal, one point would be assigned for this category if the story expressed (a) competition with a standard of excellence, (b) unique accomplishment, or (c) long-term involvement in activity leading to achievement of an objective. Only one point per story was allowed for Achievement Imagery. Achievement Thema. In stories which elaborate on Achievement Imagery to the point where it became the central plot or theme of the story, an additional point was scored. As in the case of Achievement Imagery, it made no difference whether or not the individual succeeded or failed as long as the story's main concern was the attainment of a goal. Instrumental Activity. This category would be Allotted one point if in a story already scored for Achievement Imagery there was, in addition, an actual statement of activity within the story, independent of both the original statement of the situation and the final outcome of the story. Even though i several instrumental acts may have been mentioned, this category was scored only once per story. The highest possible score for any student, from the above*, would be three points per story or a total of 30 points for all ten stories. All stories were scored by two persons: the pre sent investigator and a psychology instructor at the College of the Sequoias. The psychology instructor posses ses both a Master of Arts degree in psychology and a psychometrist credential from the State of California. After reviewing the scoring method, ten TAT stories found :in the appendix of McClelland's Achievement Motive were scored by each individual and the scores compared. Identi cal scores were obtained on nearly all stories. Scoring reliability of the two persons who judged TAT stories for ■n-Achievement content was determined by calculating the 91 product-moment coefficient of correlation (r). Statistical Procedures At the conclusion of the 1967 fall semester, all subjects were identified as either achieving of nonachiev ing, using a 2.0 grade point average as the classification criterion. The numbers of achieving and nonachieving sub jects in each socioeconomic group are shown in Table 5. Tests for significant differences on the six ISA scales and the n-Achievement scores between achieving and nonachieving middle-class and lower-class (all others) subjects were computed by means of a 2 x 2 factorial analy sis of variance as described by Kerlinger (98:213). Be cause the smallest cell size was 61, a table of random numbers was employed to reduce the numbers of achieving middle- and lower-class and nonachieving lower-class groups to 61. Figure 1 illustrates the statistical model by means of which data were analyzed. A one-way analysis of variance was utilized in measuring the significant differences between achieving and nonachieving Mexican-American subjects on the six ISA scales and the n-Achievement scores. Significant differences between Mexican-American subjects and both middle SES and lower (all other) SES subjects were measured by means of a one-way analysis of variance and t-values of mean differences for the six ISA 92 TABLE 5 SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT OP SUBJECTS BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS Achiever Non- Achiever Middle Num- Lower (all others) Lower (Mexican- American) ber Per Cent Num ber Per Cent Num ber Per Cent 146 61 70.5 29.5 84 66 56.0 44.0 60 51 53.6 46.4 ^2!waw<MHaO> FIGURE 1 STATISTICAL MODEL FOR TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Achiever Non- Achiever SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS Middle Low Cell 1 Cell 2 N = 61 N = 61 Cell 3 Cell 4 N - 61 N = 61 scales and n-Achievement scores. For all groups studied, t-values of mean differ ences between achieving and nonachieving students were computed for n-Achievement scores and each of the ISA scales. The following raw data formula for the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of differences was employed: \ _ 2 ........ 1 i Ni After computing t-values from the formula t = M1 ~ f critical values of t for the two-tailed S D Mi - M2 test of significance were obtained from the t-table in Ferguson (56:308). Critical F ratio values were obtained from the 5 Per Cent and 1 Per Cent Points for the Distribution of F table in Ferguson (56:310). For the Mexican-American sub jects, the following F ratios were applicable: F^05 (1,109df) « 3.94 F 01 (1,109df) - 6.90 Critical F ratios for the middle and lower SES (all other) groups were: F>05 (l,240df) = 3.89 F>01 (l,240df) = 6.76 N. D T W2 O L>2 S D, Mi - M2 + N2 - 2 | Critical P ratios for the Mexican-American and 'middle SES groups were: j F>05 (l,316df) = 3.86 F>01 (l,316df) ■ 6.70 Critical F ratios for the Mexican-American and lower SES (all other) groups were: F>05 (l,261df) = 3.89 Ft01 (1,261df) = 6.76 Table 6 presents a frequency distribution of the fall semester grade point averages of all COS students. The 2.0 grade point average by means of which achievers and nonachievers were identified lies below the median and mean grade point averages of 2.24 and 2.26, respectively. Reliability of the two n-Achievement scores obtain- |ed for each subject was measured by the Pearson product- moment coefficient of correlation. A correlation of .902 was obtained. The figure was comparable to the reliability coefficients of correlation reported by McClelland (114: 96 ) TABLE 6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 1967 FALL SEMESTER GRADE OF POINT AVERAGES THE SEQUOIAS FOR THE COLLEGE STUDENT BODY Grade Point Average Frequency Grade Point Average Frequency 3.8 - 4.0 67 1.7 - 1.9 279 3.5 - 3.7 87 1.4 - 1.6 402 3.2 - 3.4 144 1.1 - 1.3 387 2.9 - 3.1 240 0.9 - 1.0 276 2.6 - 2.8 303 0.5 - 0.7 110 2.3 - 2.5 380 0.2 - 0.4 90 2.0 - 2.2 510 0.0 - 0.1 273 N = 2,485 X = 2.26 Mdn =2.24 CHAPTER IV t | FINDINGS OF THE STUDY I ' * I ; As was explained in Chapter III, data for the pre- l sent study were obtained from two sources: the Inventory :of Self Appraisal (ISA) and the McClelland Thematic Apper- Iception Test of n-Achievement (TAT). Subjects were classi- I fied as having come from either lower or middle socio economic backgrounds. Following completion of the fall i1967 semester, all subjects were further classified as being either achievers or nonachievers with a grade point average of 2.0 on a four point scale serving as the crite- : ' t rion of achievement. i : All incoming students at the College of the I Sequoias are required to take an academic aptitude test prior to their registration appointments. The test em ployed at the time of the present study was the College Qualification Test which is published by the Psychological Corporation. In addition to a total score, sub-scores are available from the test: a verbal score which is based |solely on vocabulary items, a natural science information score, a social science information score, and a numerical score. Nationally derived normative data for incoming 97 TABLE 7 COLLEGE QUALIFICATION TEST TOTAL SCORE PERCENTILE RANKINGS BY SOCIOECONOMIC AND ETHNIC GROUP Total Score Percentile Rank Lower Mexican- American All Others Middle Men Women Men Women Men Women 90 - 99 0 1 6 2 18 17 80 - 89 2 0 2 2 5 8 70 - 79 0 1 5 10 16 17 60 - 69 2 2 6 10 9 8 50 - 59 2 3 6 3 10 8 40 - 49 4 3 2 7 13 12 30 - 39 5 8 12 10 15 4 20 - 29 14 5 5 7 10 8 10 - 19 9 14 12 11 10 8 0 - 9 18 18 25 7 8 3 TOTAL 56 55 81 69 114 93 Median 20.2 16.3 29.5 37.8 50.5 63.9 I junior college transfer freshmen, with separate norms for ! men and women, were employed by the college in the fall I ' ! I ] |semester, 1967. Table 7 presents frequency distributions ;among total score percentile rankings for the principal groups of the present study. The most striking contrast is that which exists between Mexican-American women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and women from middle socioeconomic back grounds. The Mexican-American women's median percentile ranking is 16.3. In. contrast, the middle group of women's median percentile ranking of 63.9 presents quite vividly the relative academic handicaps and advantages. Although students from middle socioeconomic backgrounds were ob viously above all students from lower socioeconomic back grounds in their test scores, the evidence would appear further to indicate an adverse difference in the academic skills being measured by the College Qualification Test among all Mexican-American students as compared with the other students in the lower socioeconomic group. The difference between Mexican-American women and all other women (lower) exceeds that between the Mexican-American men and all other men (lower). Further support for the argument that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and particularly those of Mexican-American descent, are handicapped by a lack of the .requisite academic skills for traditional college curricula ; TABLE 8 ENGLISH PLACEMENT TEST RESULTS BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS (PER CENT) English Class Socioeconomic Groups Middle Lower Mexican- American All Others Placement Men N=114 Women N=93 Men N=56 Women N=55 Men N=81 Women N=69 English la 24.8 44.0 3.6 5.6 11.8 30.2 English 51 40.2 47.3 23.2 40.7 33.3 39.6 English 50 35.0 8.7 73.2 53.7 54.9 30.2 | is presented in Table 8. Incoming freshmen are required toi ! ' i ! take the Cooperative English Test (Pom 2), published by the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey. : Two levels of remedial English, designated as English 50 | for students who perform below a standard score of 44 and ; English 51 for those receiving standard scores between 44 and 54, are offered. Students who earn scores of 55 and above are permitted to enroll in the college transfer English course, English la. The data show that only 3.6 per cent of the Mexi can-American male students and 5.6 per cent of the Mexican- American women qualified for English la in contrast with 11.8 per cent and 30.2 per cent of the other lower-class men and women, respectively. Among the middle-class students,. 24.8 per cent of the men and 44.0 per cent of the women were placed in English la classes. Well over half of; the Mexican-American men, 73.2 per cent, and 53.7 per cent of the Mexican-American women placed in the lowest English class. Comparable placements for middle-class men and women were 35.0 per cent and 8.7 per cent respectively. Among the other lower-class students, 54.9 per cent of the men and 30.2 per cent of the women were required to take English 50. In Table 9, data about types of majors, terminal and transfer, are presented by socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Although the difference between students from I TABLE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BETWEEN TRANSFER AND TERMINAL MAJORS Social Class and Ethnic Group Transfer Number Per Cent Terminal Number Per Cent LOWER Mexican- Men 18 32.1 38 67.9 American Women 15 27.3 40 72.7 All Men 37 45.7 44 54.3 Others Women 29 42.0 40 58.0 Total Lower 99 38.1 162 61.9 MIDDLE Men 91 79.8 23 20.2 Women 74 79.6 19 20.4 Total Middle 165 79.7 42 20.3 Totals for all Groups 264 56.5 204 43.5 middle and lower socioeconomic backgrounds is large, 79.7 I |per cent and 38.1 per cent being enrolled in transfer pro- i i igrams, respectively, the Mexican-American students demon- ;strated the lowest tendency to enter transfer programs. I t Only 32.1 per cent of the men and 27.3 per cent of the women enrolled in transfer programs. All other students in I the lower socioeconomic group exceeded forty per cent en rollment in transfer curricula. For reasons cited in Chapter III, ISA and TAT data for the Mexican-American subjects of lower socioeconomic status were examined separately from those for all other subjects. Findings related to the Mexican-American sub group will be reported first, followed by those for all other students in the study. Mexican-American Lower SES Students Table 10 presents a summary of the means, standard deviations, standard errors, and minimum-maximum scores earned by achieving and nonachieving Mexican-American sub jects on the TAT and the six variables of the ISA. A substantial difference between the means of achieving and nonachieving subjects was found for n- Achievement. Of the ISA variables, only School Related Experiences and Aspirations registered a sizable difference between the means of achievers and nonachievers. On one of the ISA variables, Interest Patterns, nonachievers had a TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF SCORES FOR ACHIEVING AND NONACHIEVING LOWER SES MEXICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS Variable Group Mean S.D. S.E. Minimum Maximum n-Achievement Achieving (N=60) 7.717 5.165 .667 0 24 (TAT) Nonachieving (N=51) 4.353 3.387 .474 0 14 Authority Achieving 30.217 5.570 .719 17 40 Relationships Nonachieving 29.412 6.980 .977 15 39 Peer Achieving 17.800 3.349 .432 9 24 Relationships Nonachieving 17.098 3.276 .459 9 23 Moral and Achieving 3.900 .969 .125 1 7 Social Values Nonachieving 3.706 .965 .135 2 6 School Related Achieving 31.050 5.727 .739 14 42 Experiences and Nonachieving 28.373 6.258 .876 16 41 Aspirations Self-Concept Achieving 11.433 3.788 .489 0 17 Nonachieving 11.235 3.409 .477 3 18 Interest Achieving 4.283 1.403 .181 1 7 Patterns Nonachieving 4.392 1.662 .233 0 7 higher mean than achievers. Minimum scores were not sub stantially different for either achievers or nonachievers, j I ■ i None of the maximum scores for achievers and nonachievers j varied by more than one point with the exception of those for n-Achievement. Maximum scores of 24 for achievers and 12 for nonachievers were (earned on the n-Achievement test. In Table 11, t-values for the means of achieving and nonachieving students are shown for all variables. Only two of the variables registered significant t-values. Achieving subjects' mean n-Achievement scores were signif icantly higher than those of nonachievers (p<r.001). Mean ;scores of achievers on the ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations scale were significantly higher than those : of nonachieving Mexican-American students (p<.05). Tables 12 through 18 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance for n-Achievement and the six ISA scales. The P ratio obtained for n-Achievement (p<01) indicates rejection of the Null Hypothesis that the dif ference in scores of achieving and nonachieving students, after adjusting for "within groups" variation, was a result of sampling error. F ratios indicating significant differences between the scores of achievers and nonachievers were not found for the Authority Relationships, Peer Relationships, Moral and Social Values, Self-Concept, and Interest Patterns scales of the ISA. Tables 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 present "betweenj • TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF T-VALUES BETWEEN MEANS OF ACHIEVING AND NONACHIEVING MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS ON THE MCCLELLAND N-ACHIEVEMENT TAT AND INVENTORY OF SELF APPRAISAL (ISA) SCALES Variable Achieving (N=60) Mean S.D. Nonachieving (N=51) Mean S.D. t McClelland n-Achievement 7.717 5.165 4.353 3.387 4.0** ISA-Authority Relationships 30.217 5.570 29.412 6.980 .7 ISA-Peer Relationships 17.800 3.349 17.098 3.276 1.1 ISA-Moral and Social Values 3.900 .969 3.706 .965 1.1 ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations 31.050 5.727 28.373 6.258 2.4* ISA-Self-Concept 11.433 3.788 11.235 3.409 .3 ISA-Interest Patterns 4.283 1.403 4.392 1.662 -.4 **p<.001 *p<.05 107 TABLE 12 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR N-ACHIEVEMENT Source SS df MS F Between means 311.92 1 311.92 15.829** Within groups 2147.83 109 19.71 01 TABLE 13 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ISA- AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIPS Source SS df MS F Between means 17.86 1 17.86 .456 Within groups 4266.54 109 39.14 TABLE 14 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ISA- PEER RELATIONSHIPS Source SS df MS F Between means 13.58 1 13.58 1.236 Within groups 1198.11 109 10.99 TABLE 15 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ISA- MORAL AND SOCIAL VALUES Source SS df MS F Between means 1.04 1 1.04 Within groups 101.99 109 .94 1.110 TABLE 16 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS' ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR ISA-SCHOOL RELATED EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS Source SS df MS P Between means 197.63 1 197.63 5.534* Within groups 3892.77 109 35.71 *P<. 05 TABLE 17 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE ISA-SELP-CONCEPT STUDENTS' FOR Source SS df MS P Between means 1.08 1 1.08 .083 Within groups 1427.91 109 13.10 TABLE 18 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS' ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR ISA-INTEREST PATTERNS Source SS df MS F Between means .33 1 .33 .140 Within groups 254.34 109 2.33 Ill groups" and "within groups" variations and P ratios for i I these scales. i I Only one ISA scale, School Related Experiences and ; jAspirations, obtained an P ratio indicating rejection of I ' I the Null Hypothesis. The "between groups" variationfor ; this scale was found to be significant at the .05 confi- | dence level. Table 16 presents "between groups" and "with-l i ; ! in groups" variations and P ratios for ISA-School Related ! Experiences and, Aspirations. The n-Achievement scores for achieving and non achieving Mexican-American subjects indicate that the ;McClelland TAT n-Achievement test distinguished between ;achievers and nonachievers. Only one of the ISA scales, School Related Experiences and Aspirations, distinguished between the achieving and nonachieving Mexican-American students. Middle and Lower (All Other) SES Students Table 19 presents a summary of n-Achievement and ISA means and standard deviations for middle- and lower- class achievers and nonachievers. Except for the differ- ;ences in the means of achievers and nonachievers from both SES groups on the n-Achievement test and ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations, substantial achiever-non- achiever differences are not apparent. An additional facet of the remaining ISA scales wasj TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF N-ACHIEVEMENT AND ISA MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR MIDDLE AND LOWER SES ACHIEVERS AND NONACHIEVERS Achievers Nonachievers Middle Lower Middli Lower Variable (N=61) (N=61) (N=61) (N=61) Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. n-Achievement 5.53 3.58 6.16 3.99 4.44 3.61 3.80 2.80 ISA-Authority Relationships 31.85 5.61 30.34 6.14 30.62 5.67 29.00 6.39 ISA-Peer Relationships 18.32 3.53 17.21 4.43 18.07 3.20 16.64 3.82 ISA-Moral and Social Values 3.56 1.02 3.72 1.02 3.28 1.04 3.67 1.03 ISA-School Related Experi ences and Aspirations 27.92 6.04 28.80 6.99 25.62 6.37 26.20 6.41 ISA-Self-Concept 12.15 3.46 11.02 3.35 11.85 2.94 10.64 3.16 ISA-Interest Patterns 5.03 1.16 4.69 1.72 5.16 1.53 4.51 1.57 noted. Differences in the means of the middle and lower j j SES achievers were greater than the differences between those of achieving and nonachieving middle-class subjects 1 j and achieving and nonachieving lower-class subjects. The I j | ISA-Authority Relationships scale may be used for illus- ! trative purposes. Whereas the difference between means of ! i i achieving and nonachieving middle-class subjects was 1.23 I i ! (31.85 minus 30.62), the difference between means of I ' i achieving middle- and lower-class subjects was 1.51 (31.85 j minus 30.34). Similarly, whereas the difference between I means of achieving and nonachieving lower-class subjects was 1.34 (30.34 minus 29.00), that between middle- and lower-class nonachievers was 1.62 (30.62 minus 29.00). ;Comparable results were obtained for the other ISA scales j • with the exception of School Related Experiences and Aspirations. Table 20 presents matrices of t-values between means for n-Achievement scores and the six ISA scales. The :numbers representing each group conform to the cell desig nations of Figure 1 in Chapter III. The cell groups are: (1) middle SES achievers; (2) lower SES achievers; ; (3) middle SES nonachievers; (4) lower SES nonachievers. For the n-Achievement variable, significant differ-; ences (p«^01) were found between groups 1 and 4, middle !SES achievers and lower SES nonachievers, and groups 2 and ; | ; j 4, lower SES achievers and nonachievers. In addition, a significant difference (p<«05) w®s obtained between groups 2 and 3, lower SES achievers and middle SES non- achievers . ISA-Authority Relationships produced a significant ! | difference (p<T. 01) between means for the middle SES iachievers and lower SES nonachievers. I _ Two significant differences (p^^05) between means i for ISA-Peer Relationships were obtained. The middle SES achievers' mean score was significantly higher than the mean scores for lower SES nonachievers as was the mean score for middle SES nonachievers in comparison with lower SES nonachievers. Only one positive significant difference (p^^05) was found for means on ISA-Moral and Social Values, that between low SES achievers and middle SES non achievers. In addition, a negative t-value between the means of middle SES nonachievers and low SES nonachievers was found to be significant at the .05 level. Variable 5, ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations, produced the only significant differences be tween achievers and nonachievers within the same SES groups. Significant differences (p^^05) were found be tween middle SES achievers and nonachievers as well as between lower SES achievers and nonachievers. A signifi cant difference (p^.01) was found also between the mean ;scores for lower SES achievers and middle SES nonachievers. 115 TABLE 20 MATRICES OP T-VALUES BETWEEN MEANS FOR SELECTED GROUPS Variable 1: n-Achievement Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 -.9 1.6 2.9** 2 0 2.5* 3.8** 3 0 1.1 4 0 Variable 2: ISA-Authority Relationships Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 1.4 1.2 2.6** 2 0 -.3 1.2 3 0 1.5 4 0 116 TABLE 20 Continued Variable 3: ISA-Peer Relationships Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 1.5 .4 2.5* 2 0 - 1.2 .8 3 0 2.2* 4 0 Variable 4: ISA-Moral and Social Values Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 -.9 1.5 -.6 2 0 2.4* .3 3 0 -2.1* 4 0 TABLE 20 Continued Variable 5: ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 -.7 2.0* 1.5 2 0 2.6** 2.1* 3 0 -.5 4 0 Variable 6: ISA-Self-Concept Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 1.8 .5 2.5* 2 0 -1.5 .6 3 0 2.2* 4 0 118 TABLE 20 Continued Variable 7: ISA-Interest Patterns Group 1 2 3 4 1 0 1.3 -.5 2.1* 2 0 - 1.6 .6 3 0 2.3* 4 0 *p<. 05 **p<.01 119 ‘ | For the remaining two variables, ISA-Self-Concept i and ISA-Interest Patterns, the results were comparable to those obtained from the preceeding ISA scales, with the exception of ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations. ISA-Self-Concept produced mean scores that were signifi- i f _ i cantly different (p^. 05) between middle SES achievers and j ;lower SES nonachievers as well as between middle SES non- iachievers and lower SES nonachievers. j Significant differences (p<.05) between means for ; |middle SES achievers and lower SES nonachievers and between; imiddle SES nonachievers and lower SES nonachievers were ob-| tained from the ISA-Interest Patterns scale. Summarizing the information from Table 20, scores of lower SES nonachievers on the n-Achievement test were I significantly lower than those of middle and lower SES achievers. On the ISA, only the School Related Experiences and Aspirations scale provided significant differences be tween middle SES achievers and nonachievers and lower SES achievers and nonachievers. Finally, significant differ ences between the mean scores of middle SES nonachievers and lower SES nonachievers were obtained on the Peer Relationships, Moral and Social Values, Self-Concept, and Interest Patterns ISA scales. Results of the two-way analyses of variance for n- Achievement scores and ISA scales are presented in Tables i21 through 27. As was explained in Chapter III, equal cell; sizes of 61 were obtained by means of a table of random numbers. Thus, the test scores of a total of 244 subjects, drawn equally from middle SES achievers and nonachievers jand lower SES achievers and nonachievers were examined. j P ratios' for n-Achievement are reported in Table 21, The Achievement variable produced a significant F ratio | (p^.Ol) , indicating rejection of the Null Hypothesis that ;the difference in n-Achievement scores of achievers and i 'nonachievers was a result of sampling error. Neither Socioeconomic Status nor Interaction produced statistically significant F ratios. ISA-Authority Relationships scores did not differ entiate significantly between achievers and nonachievers. However, the scale did differentiate significantly (p«^05) between subjects by socioeconomic status. A summary of the analysis of variance for ISA-Authority Relationships is presented in Table 22. Similar to the ISA-Authority Relationships results were those obtained for ISA-Peer Relationships and ISA- Moral and Social Values, shown in Tables 23 and 24. Socio economic Status was the source of F ratios which were sig nificant at the .01 and .05 confidence levels for Peer Relationships and Moral and Social Values, respectively. Again, neither the Achievement variable nor Interaction be tween Achievement and Socioeconomic Status was the source of significant variance. 121 ! “] i TABLE 21 | j TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ! SUMMARY FOR N-ACHIEVEMENT I Source df F Achievement (A) 1 14.440* Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 .000 Interaction (A x SS) 1 .102 Error 240 Total 243 *p<^.01 TABLE 22 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY FOR ISA-AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIPS Source df P Achievement (A) 1 2.890 Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 4.000* Interaction (Ax SS) 1 .000 Error 240 Total 243 *p<^05 122 TABLE 23 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY FOR ISA-PEER RELATIONSHIPS Source df F \ Achievement (A) 1 0.810 Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 6.760* Interaction (A x SS) 1 .006 Error 240 Total 243 *p<7 01 TABLE 24 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS FOR ISA-MORAL OF VARIANCE SUMMARY AND SOCIAL VALUES Source df F Achievement (A) 1 1.690 Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 4.410* Interaction (A x SS) 1 .003 Error 240 Total 243 *p<: 05 i L ‘ 123 | TABLE 25 | TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY FOR ISA-SCHOOL RELATED EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS Source df F Achievement (A) 1 8.410* Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 .810 Interaction (Ax SS) 1 .006 Error 240 Total 243 * p < ^ 0 1 TABLE 26 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS FOR ISA- OF VARIANCE SUMMARY SELF-CONCEPT Source df F Achievement (A) 1 .640 Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 7.840* Interaction (Ax SS) 1 .0 0 0 Error 240 Total 243 *p<T01 TABLE 27 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY FOR ISA-INTEREST PATTERNS Source df F Achievement (A) 1 .010 Socioeconomic Status (SS) 1 6.760* Interaction (A x SS) 1 .006 Error 240 Total 243 *p<J01 The only ISA scale on which Achievement did provide i ja variance which was sufficiently high to reject the Null |Hypothesis was ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspira- tions (p^^Ol) shown in Table 25. The variances produced ;by Socioeconomic Status groups and Interaction between ;Achievement and Socioeconomic Status were not significant. As in the cases of the first three.ISA scales, Authority Relationships, Peer Relationships, and Moral and Social Values, the variance for Socioeconomic Status pro duced an P ratio for ISA-Self-Concept which was significant at the .01 level. As shown in Table 26, significant dif ferences between the scores of achievers and nonachievers were not obtained nor was Interaction between Achievement and Socioeconomic Status significant. ISA-Interest Patterns produced results similar to those cited in the preceeding paragraph. Table 27 shows that significant differences between subjects on the basis of Socioeconomic Status were found (p^nOl). A significant difference between achievers and nonachievers was not found. Interaction between Achievement and Socioeconomic Status was not the source of a significant difference. A summary of the significant differences found for n-Achievement and the ISA scales for the Socioeconomic Status and Achievement variables is presented in Table 28. Several observations are suggested by the data. First, the jonly ISA scale which was sensitive to achievement differ- TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR N-ACHIEVEMENT AND ISA TESTS Significant SES Differences Significant Achiever- Nonachiever Differences Significant Interaction n-Achievement ** ISA-Authority Relationships * ISA-Peer Relationships ** ISA-Moral and Social Values * ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations ** ISA-Self-Concept ** ISA-Interest Patterns ** *p<05 **p<^ 01 126 ences, ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations, was | not sensitive to SES differences. All other ISA scales were sensitive to SES but not to achievement differences. |The data would indicate that for junior college freshmen, i i j the ISA is more useful in the detection of SES differences ; 'than achievement differences. The McClelland TAT for n- :Achievement produced significant differences between achievers and nonachievers and thus would appear to be use-; ful for detecting achievement differences. Direct statistical comparisons between Mexican- American achievers and nonachievers and those of the other groups in the study were not made. However, to make pos sible general observations about all groups, Table 29 pre sents a summary of mean scores for achievers and non- ;achievers of all SES groups and sub-groups on the n- Achievement test and ISA scales. The two scores which provided the greatest absolute difference between achievers are the n-Achievement (7.72 minus 5.53 = 2.19) and ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations (31.05 minus 27.92 = 3.13) scores for the middle SES and lower SES Mexican-American groups. The same ISA scale also produced the greatest absolute difference between mean scores of nonachieving middle SES and lower SES Mexican-American subjects (28.37 minus 25.62 «* 2.75). In the instances cited above, Mexican-American subjects had the higher mean scores. A difference in the means of TABLE 29 SUMMARY OP MEAN SCORES FOR ALL GROUPS ON N-ACHIEVEMENT AND ISA SCALES GROUP MEAN SCORES n- Achieve- ment ISA- Authority Relation- ships ISA- Peer Relation- ships MIDDLE Achievers Nonachievers 5.53 4.44 31.85 30.62 18.32 18.07 LOWER: All Others Achievers Nonachievers 6.16 3.80 30.34 29.00 17.21 16.64 LOWER: Mexican- American Achievers Nonachievers 7.72 4.35 30.22 29.41 17.80 17.10 ISA- Moral and Social Values 3.56 3.28 3.72 3.67 3.90 3.71 TABLE 29 Continued GROUP ISA- School Related Experiences and Aspirations MEAN SCORES ISA- Self- Concept ISA- Interest Patterns MIDDLE Achievers 27.92 12.15 5.03 Nonachievers 25.62 11.85 5.16 LOWER: Achievers 28.80 11.02 4.69 All Others Nonachievers 26.20 10.64 4.51 LOWER: Achievers 31.05 11.43 4.28 Mexican- American Nonachievers 28.37 11.24 4.39 middle SES and Mexican-American achievers of 1.63 (31.85 minus 30.22) was reported for ISA-Authority Relationships, i The middle SES group had the higher mean in this instance. : | ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations • accounted for other relatively large differences in means. : i I The mean score of nonachieving Mexican-Americans was higher ' than those of all other groups with the exception of the j achieving lower SES subjects. Statistically defensible conclusions may not be made, of course, but the results I i suggest that ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations; ‘ differentiated between achievement, socioeconomic status, j and ethnic background when data for the Mexican-American students were included in the comparisons. Table 30 presents a summary of t-values between the imeans of Mexican-American lower SES and middle SES subjects for the test of n-Achievement and the ISA scales. Differ ences which were significant at the .001 level were found for n-Achievement, ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations, and ISA-Interest Patterns. Also, a signifi cant difference ( p ^ ’ 01) was found for the ISA-Moral and Social Values scale. With the exception of tihe ISA- Interest Patterns scale, means for Mexican-American sub jects were the higher. In Table 31, a summary of t-values between means of the Mexican-American and all other lower SES subjects for jthe ISA scales and n-Achievement test are presented. TABLE 30 SUMMARY OF T-VALUES BETWEEN MEANS OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES STUDENTS AND MIDDLE SES STUDENTS ON THE MCCLELLAND N-ACHIEVEMENT TAT AND INVENTORY OF SELF APPRAISAL (ISA) SCALES Variable Mexican-American Lower SES Means Middle SES Means t n-Achievement 6.172 4.984 4.526** ISA-Authority Relationships 29.847 31.235 1.779 ISA-Peer Relationships 17.477 18.194 1.626 ISA-Moral and Social Values 3.810 3.419 2.962* ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations 29.820 26.769 3.800** ISA-Self-Concept 11.342 12.003 1.472 ISA-Interest Patterns 4.333 5.099 4.065** **p<.001 *p<01 TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF T-VALUES BETWEEN MEANS OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES AND ALL OTHER LOWER SES STUDENTS ON THE MCCLELLAND N-ACHIEVEMENT TAT AND INVENTORY OF SELF APPRAISAL (ISA) SCALES Variable Mexican-American Lower SES Means All Other Lower SES Means t n-Achievement 6.172 4.984 4.605** ISA-Authority Relationships 29.847 29.672 .213 ISA-Peer Relationships 17.477 16.926 1.113 ISA-Moral and Social Values 3.810 3.697 .863 ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations 29.820 27.500 2.768* ISA-Self-Concept 11.342 10.828 1.138 ISA-Interest Patterns 4.333 4.598 1.250 **P<C.ooi *p<C.01 Significant differences between means were obtained for the n-Achievement test (p^.001) and ISA-School Related Ex periences and Aspirations (p<. 01). Table 32 summarizes the Mexican-American and middle |SES students' one-way analysis of variance for n-Achieve- | iment and the ISA scales. Two ISA scales, Authority Rela tionships and Interest Patterns, revealed differences which ;were significant at the .01 level of significance. In :addition, the Peer Relationships, School Related Experi ences and Aspirations, and Self-Concept ISA scales indicat ed differences which were significant at the .05 level. In Table 33, Mexican-American and lower SES (all other) subjects' one-way analysis of variance for n- ! Achievement and the six ISA scales are presented. The ISA- School Related Experiences and Aspirations scale revealed a significant difference at the .05 level. No other sig nificant differences were found. 134 TABLE 32 MEXICAN-AMERICAN LOWER SES AND MIDDLE SES STUDENTS' ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR N-ACHIEVEMENT AND ISA N-ACHIEVEMENT SCALES Source SS df MS F Between means 52.76 1 52.76 3.06 Within groups 5,443.50 316 17.22 ISA-AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIPS Source SS df MS F Between means 465.93 1 465.93 12.49** Within groups 11,784.32 316 37.29 ISA-PEER RELATIONSHIPS Source SS df MS F Between means 85.20 1 85.20 4.37* Within groups 6,159.27 316 19.49 135 TABLE 32 (Continued) ISA-MORAL AND SOCIAL VALUES Source SS df MS P Between means 3.48 1 3.48 2.85 Within groups 386.89 316 1.22 ISA-SCHOOL RELATED EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS Source SS df MS F Between means 201.93 1 201.93 4.84* Within groups 13,169.87 316 41.67 ISA-SELF-CONCEPT Source SS df MS F Between means 58.15 1 58.15 5.05* Within groups 3,634.17 316 11.50 ISA-INTEREST PATTERNS Source SS df MS F Between means 52.66 1 52.66 25.19** Within groups 663.06 316 2.09 ■ » ■ **p<.01 *p<.05 136 TABLE 33 i ! MEXICAN-AMERICAN AND ALL OTHER LOWER SES STUDENTS' ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR N-ACHIEVEMENT AND ISA SCALES i N-ACHIEVEMENT Source SS df MS P Between means Within groups 59.80 4,820.67 1 261 59.80 18.47 3.23 ISA-AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIPS Source SS df MS P Between means Within groups 17.65 12,621.96 1 261 17.65 48.36 0.36 ISA-PEER RELATIONSHIPS Source SS df MS P Between means Within groups 28.56 7,488.09 1 261 28.56 28.69 0.99 137 TABLE 33(Continued) ISA-MORAL AND SOCIAL VALUES Source SS df MS F Between means 1.07 1 1.07 0.69 Within groups 339.33 261 1.53 ' ISA-SCHOOL RELATED EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS Source SS df MS F Between means 379.47 1 379.47 5.85* Within groups 16,918.02 261 64.82 ISA-SELF--CONCEPT Source SS df MS F Between means 28.68 1 28.68 2.06 Within groups 3,625.29 261 13.89 ISA-INTEREST PATTERNS Source SS df MS F Between means .37 1 .37 0.12 Within groups 759.51 261 2.91 *PC.05 ! CHAPTER V i | SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter V is divided into three general sections, ithe first of which presents the problem to be studied and describes the study. In the second section, the findings and conclusions based upon the hypotheses are discussed. Lastly, related conclusions followed by recommendations for further research are presented. Summary: Problem and Procedures The Problem The observed lack of academic success among junior college students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds sug gested the need to learn more about such students in com parison with those from families of middle-class socio economic status. The present study sought to determine whether or not there were identifiable personality factors which distinguish between achieving and nonachieving junior college freshmen from lower- and middle-class socioeconomic.^ backgrounds. More specifically, it was the purpose of the study to determine: (1) whether or not measures of values, 138 need for achievement, attitudes, goals, aspirations, self concepts, and interest patterns distinguished between i achieving and nonachieving junior college freshmen, i ! (2) which, if any, of these measures distinguished between | students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, (3) what; I ' I relationship existed between socioeconomic backgrounds and i academic achievement in junior college, (4) what differ ences in the factors studied served to distinguish between nonachieving students from different socioeconomic back grounds, and (5) what curricular and counseling impli- ! cations the answers to questions (1) through (4) held for the junior college. The Group Studied Subjects for the study were tentatively identified during the spring semester of their senior year in high :school. By means of student questionnaires about parents' occupations and incomes, consultation with high school counselors and principals, and a rating of the residences of samples of each socioeconomic status group, a total of 680 students were classified as either lower-lower or middle-class in accordance with the Warner et al. Index of Status Characteristics. The total group consisted of middle-class subjects and lower-class subjects. Early in ;the selection process, the fact was recognized that about one-half of the lower-class subjects were from Mexican- 140 American backgrounds. Employing students' surnames, in- I formation from application-for-admission forms about !languages spoken in the home, and consultations with high |school officials, a sub-group of Mexican-American subjects :from lower-class SES backgrounds was identified for statis tical study. In order that the number of middle-class i subjects might be reduced to approximately the number of lower-class subjects, every.other one of the middle-class students was randomly deleted from the study. Those students who were still enrolled and attend ing college at the end of the ninth week of the fall semester were included in the final study of achieving and :nonachieving students. At the end of the ninth week of the ;fall semester, 207 middle-class, 150 lower-class (excluding Mexican-American subjects), and 111 lower-class (Mexican- iAmerican) subjects were still enrolled at the college. Criterion of Achievement Students who attained a fall semester grade point average of 2.0 or above on a four point scale were classi fied as achievers. Those with less than a 2.0 grade point average were classified as nonachievers. The 2.0 grade point average achievement criterion was below the 2.26 mean and 2.24 median grade point averages obtained for all College of the Sequoias students during the 1967 fall semester. Appraisal Instruments i The Inventory of Self Appraisal (ISA). One of the ; |instruments employed was an objective paper-and-pencil test , i i _ . ^ which had been designed for the specific purpose of identi fying the multiple correlates of achievement and under achievement among junior high school and high school stu dents. Separate forms for men and women, as well as for Mexican-American students, were available and employed in the study. The 150 items of the ISA were divided into six sub-groups and the responses of students which indicated an achievement orientation were tallied. The six sub groups, or scales, of the ISA are: 1. Authority Relationships 2. Peer Relationships 3. Moral and Social Values 4. School Related Experiences and Aspirations 5. Self-Concept 6. Interest Patterns The ISA was administered to all tentative subjects late in the spring semester of their senior year in high school and, in the case of those subjects who were absent from school at the time the test was given, during the summer of 1967 when students reported to the college for pre-registration. McClelland Thematic Apperception Test of n- Achievement (TAT). The second measuring instrument which was administered to the students was a group form of the Thematic Apperception Test. Subjects were shown ten pic- i tures, selected from the Murray TAT and the Symond's 'Picture-Story Test, by means of a slide projector and screen. Students were allowed approximately four minutes |to write an imaginative story about each picture, following general guidelines provided on the paper with which they were provided. No mention was made of the purpose of the study except to explain that the students' creative imagi nations were being tested. The TAT was administered early in the fall semester to groups of from 10 to 27 students. The same room was employed in all administrations and, as nearly as possible, identical test conditions were established. Each story was scored by two persons. A correlation coefficient of .902 was obtained between the two sets of scores. Statistical Procedures Data for achieving and nonachieving Mexican- American subjects were treated separately from those for achievers and nonachievers in the lower (all others) SES sub-group and middle SES groups. A one-way analysis of variance between achievers and nonachievers was calculated jfor n-Achievement and each of the ISA scales. For each of r 143 i the measuring scales, t-values were also computed between means of achievers and nonachievers. 1 ! A two-way analysis of variance was employed in the |statistical investigation of test scores of middle-class |achievers and nonachievers and lower-class achievers and i nonachievers. The two independent variables were Achieve ment and Socioeconomic Status with n-Achievement and each iof the six ISA scales serving as dependent variables. For each of the seven measurements, t-values for middle- and lower-class achievers and nonachievers were determined. Significant differences between Mexican-American i subjects and both middle SES and lower (all other) SES subjects were measured by means of a one-way analysis of variance and t-values of mean differences for the six ISA scales and n-Achievement scores.. Summary of Findings and Conclusions The six hypotheses, of the study are summarized for results on the n-Achievement test and the six ISA scales. Where applicable, findings for the Mexican-American sub jects will be presented first. For each of the hypotheses, the findings were as follows: Hypothesis 1. Identifiable attitudes will distinguish between achieving and nonachieving studentiT Significant differences (p<<.01) in n-Achievement . ". - ; i4 4 .“] scores between achieving and nonachieving Mexican-American ; students were obtained. The ISA-School Related Experiences! and Aspirations scale also provided significant differencesj f (p<n05) between achieving and nonachieving Mexican- jAmerican subjects. Significant differences between achieving and non- 1 achieving Mexican-American students were not found on the ISA scales for Authority Relationships, Peer Relationships,; Moral and Social Values, Self-Concepts, and Interest Pat terns . For the subjects from middle and lower (all other) SES backgrounds, significant differences (p^^Ol) in n- Achievement scores of achievers and nonachievers were found. Also, the ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations scale produced significant differences (p^^05) between achieving and nonachieving students. The remaining five ISA scales produced no signifi cant differences between achieving and nonachieving students. Hypothesis 2. Identifiable attitudes will dis tinguish. between the students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Five of the ISA scales were found to produce sig nificant differences between subjects from different socio economic backgrounds. The scales, their significance levels, and the SES groups with the higher means were: 145 Authority Relationships (p^.05); middle Peer Relationships (p^. 01); middle Moral and Social Values (p^. 05); lower Self-Concept (p^.Ol) ; middle Interest Patterns (p^^Ol) ; middle Significant differences by socioeconomic groups were found for neither the n-Achievement scores nor the ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations scale. Hypothesis 3. Nonachieving students from different socioeconomic backgrounds will have significant attitudinal differences. Four of the ISA scales were found to produce sig- : nificant differences between nonachieving subjects from I different socioeconomic backgrounds. The scales, the ; levels of significance of differences, and the SES groups with the higher means were: i Peer Relationships (p^^05) ; middle Moral and Social Values (p^^05); lower Self-Concept (p^T05) ; middle Interest Patterns (p^. 05) ; middle Significant differences by socioeconomic group for nonachieving subjects were not found for n-Achievement, ! ISA-Auth«rity Relationships, and ISA-School Related ;Experiences and Aspirations. Hypothesis 4. Measures of achievement motivation will distinguish between achieving and nonachieving students. " - - - - - ■ — The McClelland n-Achievement TAT distinguished be- j |tween achieving and nonachieving Mexican-American students. i _ i !The mean difference, favoring achievers over nonachievers, I iwas significant at the .001 level. A test of the significance of the differences in I the n-Achievement means of all middle and lower SES achiev- ^ ers and all middle and lower SES nonachievers produced an ;F ratio significant at the .01 level. The t-value for middle SES achievers and nonachiev ers mean n-Achievement scores did not indicate a signifi cant difference, although a mean difference favoring achievers did exist. The difference in mean n-Achievement scores of lower SES achievers and nonachievers, favoring achievers, was significant at the .001 level. Hypothesis 5. Measures of achievement motivation will distinguish between students from different socioeconomic back grounds" The t-value between n-Achievement means of lower SES Mexican-American and middle SES subjects was signifi cant at the .001 level while the F ratio was significant at the .01 level. N-Achievement scores of middle SES and lower SES subjects did not yield significant differences. " ".......... ' .""....~~....................... 147 ' | j Hypothesis 6. Measures of achievement motivation I and identifiable attitudes will "dis- | tinguish between lower socioeconomic l level Mexican-American students and both all other students from lower | socioeconomic backgrounds and middle- I class students^ Five of the ISA scales produced significant differ-; i i j ences between Mexican-American lower SES subjects and i ; middle SES subjects. The scales, their significance | levels, and the group with the higher means were: Authority Relationships (p^Ol); middle Peer Relationships (p^I05); middle School Related Experiences and Aspirations (p^^05); Mexican-American Self-Concept (p^^. 05); middle Interest Patterns (p-^^01) ; middle Only one ISA scale, School Related Experiences and • Aspirations, produced a significant difference (p^^05) between lower SES Mexican-American and lower (all other) subjects. The mean score of Mexican-American students was higher. Related Conclusions Stress should be placed on the fact that the trends which the present study reported were group trends. The study's conclusions are not intended to suggest the use of either the McClelland n-Achievement TAT or the Inventory of Self Appraisal as an individual educational counseling 1 instrument. __; _____________________________________ - ... ' ' . ' 148 1. Results of the McClelland test of n-Achievement did not lend support to the thesis that junior college stu dents from lower, socioeconomic backgrounds experience less I academic success because they lack the necessary aspiration ! to achieve. The ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspira- tions scale, which may be assumed to possess a high degree of motivation measurement, further substantiates this con clusion. There was a lack of significant socioeconomic ! differences in scores of lower and middle SES subjects on jthe scale. F ratios of .000 and .006 between SES groups on the n-Achievement test and ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations scale, respectively, point to greater agreement; than disagreement in the two groups’ motivation to achieve. Mexican-American students from lower SES back grounds had higher ISA-School Related Experiences and Aspirations scores than did the middle SES students. The F ratio was significant at the .05 level. 2. The results are not interpreted as providing support for the conclusion that no motivational differences exist between youth from different SES backgrounds. The students from lower SES groups who enter junior college represent a smaller per cent of all lower SES youth of col lege age than do students from middle SES backgrounds. They represent, in short, those who persevered through 149 twelve years of elementary and high school education, often i | against severe cultural handicaps, and sought to continue their educations, beyond high school. Whereas they may be I ' i presumed not to represent the accepted motivational norms j : | of their SES group, middle SES students probably do. 3. The fact that achieving lower SES students, ! including the Mexican-American subjects, had higher n- i ! Achievement scores could be interpreted to suggest that I those lower SES students who did achieve had to possess far \ . i more motivation to do so than did subjects from middle SES i backgrounds. Such a conclusion is further implied by the i fact that the proportion of abhieving lower SES subjects : was considerably smaller than that for middle SES subjects.; Viewed in such a light, the five ISA scales which distin guish between SES groups but not achievement groups may still be construed as possessing some relationship to academic achievement. That is, in identifying lower SES groups, they may also be interpreted as identifying groups who will have less chance of academic success. 4. The relatively high achievement motivation scores of both lower SES sub-groups, combined with the ob servation that a smaller proportion of lower SES subjects achieved academically, compared with middle SES subjects, suggest that the junior college either is not providing i curricula which meet the needs of many of the students or that many of those working in the junior colleges have not idetermined how their institutions may effectuate the aims | Sfor the junior college which were cited in the introductory I I chapter. Whatever the cause, a large proportion of lower ! ■ _ • !SES junior college entrants may be presumed to have ex perienced disillusionment in their hopes for attaining post-high school education. i 5. The Mexican-American woman at the College of the Sequoias faces disadvantages which the Mexican-American male need not encounter. Her choice of two-year vocational majors is limited primarily to the field of business, in which the completion of four English and speech courses is required. In addition, many of the courses in business are highly verbal in content. In contrast, a number of vocational-technical majors which require the completion of only one English course and in which seven units in^perfor mance courses may be earned each semester to offset low English, social science, etc., grades are available to Mexican-American men. English 50 (the lowest level of re medial English) was the greatest source of "D" and "F" grades for Mexican-American students. 6. The low percentage of academic achievement among lower SES subjects and the accompanying low aptitude and English placement test scores suggest the need for special remedial, vocational, and academic curricula which i will better serve their needs and aspirations. 7. Finally, high school and junior college coun selors, realizing the proportionately lower achievement rate among entering students from low SES backgrounds, |should accept as one of their primary responsibilities the provision of a realistic evaluation of students' aspira- j jtions and the demands of a college education. ! • Recommendations for Further Research 1. The McClelland n-Achievement TAT results are assumed to have provided a general index of students' sub conscious achievement needs. However, n-Achievement is not assumed to provide the more specific measure of students' willingness to expend the effort or make the sacrifices required of a junior college education. Although the test did distinguish between achieving and nonachieving groups, many nonachieving lower SES subjects with n-Achievement scores above the mean for middle SES achievers did not attain a 2.0 grade point average. Studies of the relation ships between study habits, language and arithmetic skills, and academic aptitude and high motivation of nonachieving junior college students may give more specific direction to the attempt to help such students attain their educational goals. 2. Experiments in which knowledge about the learn-! j ing process is applied to the particular learning problems ! | of lower SES students in the junior college may reveal how | I junior colleges can help these students overcome their ! ■ i . i jeducational handicaps. The success of tutorial methods, j for example, suggests that more systematic study of their I methods and results would provide a source of valuable in- I i formation for junior college educators. i ; 3. Curriculum development would appear to be a major part of the effort to better serve the lower SES stu- i ' dent at the junior college. Experiments with core language: ;and arithmetic skills courses which are designed to direct ; j educationally handicapped students into more traditional vocational and academic curricula should be made. 4. Teaching the educationally disadvantaged stu dent demands personal and intellectual traits which in struction of a more traditional nature does not. Research should be designed to detect those traits which are most I compatible with the demands of teaching lower SES students. Their identification would enable junior colleges to re cruit instructors who will be more successful in over coming the effects of educational and cultural deprivation. 5. Each public junior college, especially where local control and open admission for all high school gradu-: ates prevail, must establish the limits of its educational goals. Most junior college educators agree that they can not educate every high school graduate. How far below the ! j traditionally accepted level of academic proficiency ex- jpected of entering freshmen the junior college should go |would vary financially and philosophically. The decision, :however, can be made on more rational grounds if the learn- ;ing limitations of educationally disadvantaged students iwith deceptively low tested aptitudes for college work could be gauged. Improvement of the means for making such determination are desperately needed. Knowledge about the potential educability of incoming junior college students, intellectual as well as motivational, will aid in deter mining the extent to which a junior college should expend effort and money in seeking to provide post-high school : training. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony, Donald Maxon. "The Relationship of Certain Socioeconomic and Academic Factors to Student Choice of Occupation and Program in the Public Junior College." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, School of Education, The University of Texas, 1964. Appell, Harold L. "The Relationship Between Certain Aspects of the Intellectually Superior Student's School Record and His Recollection of and Ex pressed Feelings About That Record," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIV (1964), 3196-3197. (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The American University,1963) Armstrong, Marion E. "A Comparison of the Interests and Social Adjustment of Underachievers and Nor mal' Achievers at the Secondary School Level," Dissertation Abstracts, XIV (1955), 1349-1350. Astin, Alexander W. "Socio-Economic Factors in the Achievements and Aspirations of the Merit Schol ar," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII No. 6 (February, l9<>4) , 581-566. Barrett, Harry 0. "An Intensive Study of Thirty-two Gifted Children," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVI (1957), 192-194. Barwick, Janice M. "A Study of the Relationship Be tween Parental Acceptance and the Academic Achievement of Adolescents," Dissertation Ab stracts , XXI (1961), 3698-3695T (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University School of Education, 1960) Belleau, George A. "Investigation of a Self-Report Method in the Study of Underachievement Among Elementary School Children." Unpublished doc toral dissertation, School of Education, Univer sity of Southern California, 1963. 156 | I 8. Bishton, Roger C. "A Study of Some Factors Related to| Achievement of Intellectually Superior Eighth Grade Children," Journal of Educational Researchr LI (1957), 203-207: j ! 9. Blocker, Clyde E., Plummer, Robert H., and Richardson,! Richard. The Two Year College: A Social Syn- thesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- i Hall, Inc., 1965. 10. Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. 11. Bradfield, Lloyd Eugene. ’ ’ The Personal Characteris tics Related to College Performance and Adjust ment of Work-Study and Non-Work-Study Freshman Males." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, De partment of Education, The University of North Dakota, 1966. 12. Brazen, Harvey E., and Martin, David. "Social and Economic Determinants of the Demand for Education" in Mushkin, S.J., Economics of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1962, 21-43. 13. Brookover, Wilbur B., Shailer, Thomas, and Paterson, Ann. "Self-Concept of Ability and School Achieve-! ment," Sociology of Education, XXXVII, No. 3 (Spring, 196'4J , T ? ----- 14. Brown, Maurice Burton. "Multiple Discriminant Analy sis of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Study of Values Scores of Achieving and Non-Achieving Low Ability College Freshmen." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, The Florida State University, 1965. 15. Brown, William F., Abeles, Norman, and Iscoe, Ira. "Motivational Differences Between High and Low Scholarship College Students," The Journal of Educational Psychology, XLV, No. 4 (December, r$'S*j, 215-753".----- 16. Buchin, Jean. "An Analysis of.the Relationship Be tween Anxiety and the Self-Concept and College ^ Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, New York University, 1965. ! . .....' .......“ : "... ' “ - 15 7 ! 1 I t I I 17. Burack, Marvin. "Relationship of the Social Status | of Students to Their Retention and Progress at j the Junior College Level.1 1 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University j ; of Chicago, 1951. | 18. Byers, Joe L. "A Study of the Level of Aspiration of j Academically Successful and Unsuccessful High School Students," California Journal of Educa tional Research, XIII, No. 5 (1962), 209-216. 19. Cabrera, Ysidro Arturo. "A Study of American and Mexican-American Culture Values and Their Sig nificance in Education." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Colorado, 1963. 20. Campbell, Jae Watkins, "Factors Related to Scholastic! Achievement (Louisiana State University's 1963-64 | Freshman Class)." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, School of Education, Louisiana State University, 1965. i 21. Caplan, Stanley W., and Ruble, Ronald A. "A Study of | Culturally Imposed Factors on School Achievement, in a Metropolitan Area," The Journal of Educa- tional Research, LVIII, Nol 1 (September, l9<>4) , 16- 21 “ ------------------------------ 22. Carney, Richard Edward. "An Analysis of University Student Behaviors With Measures of Ability, Atti tude, Performance, and Personality." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Michigan, 1961. 23. Carter, Harold D. "Over-Achievers and Under-Achievers in the Junior High School," California Journal of Educational Research, XI-XII (March, 1961), 51-56. 24. Cassell, Jr., John W. "An Investigation of the Re lationship of Educationally High and Low Aspiring i High School Seniors to Selected Attitudinal and Ecological Variables," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIII (1963), 4604-4605“ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962) 25. Chansky, Norman N. "Aptitude, Personality, and A- chievement in Six College Curricula," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXV, No. 4 (Summer, 1065), 1117-1124. 158 26. Cheyney, Arnold B. "Teachers of the Culturally Dis advantaged," Exceptional Children, XXXIII, No. 2 (October, 1966), 83-88. 27. Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College: A Case Study. New York": McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., I960'. 28. Clarke, William Edward. "The Relationship Between College Academic Performance and Expectancies." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Michigan State University, 1960. 29. Cohen, Elizabeth G. "Parental Factors in Educational Mobility," Sociology of Education, XXXVIII, No. 5 (Fall, 1965), 404-425. 30. Combs, Charles F. "A Study of the Relationship Be tween Certain Perceptions of Self and Scholastic Underachievement in Academically Capable High School Boys," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIV (1963), 620-621. (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1963) 31. Conant, James Bryant. Slums and Suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. 32. Cooley, William W., and Becker, Susan J. "The Junior College Student," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV, No.”5 (January, 1966), 464-469. 33. Coombs, Robert Holman. "A Socio-Psychological Analy sis of the Relationship Between High School and College Scholastic Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Washington State University, 1964. 34. Crockett, Harry Jennings. "Achievement Motivation and Occupational Mobility in the United States." Un published doctoral dissertation, School of Educa tion, University of Michigan, 1961. 35. Curran, Ann Marie. "Non-Intellective Characteristics of Freshman Underachievers and Overachievers at the College Level." Unpublished doctoral dis sertation, Department of Education, University of Connecticut, 1960. - - .... -.... 159 36. Davids, A., and Sidman, J. "A Pilot Study - Impul- sivity, Time Orientation and Delayed Gratifica tion in Future Scientists and in Underachieving High School Students," Exceptional Child, XXIX (1962) , 170-174. 37. Davis, Allison. Social-Class Influences Upon Learn ing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer sity Press, 1950. 38. Davis, Shirlee Dunn. "An Investigation of Selected Correlates of Academic Achievement Among Seventh- Grade Pupils." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern Cali fornia, 1966. 39. DeHart, Jr., Aria Lando. "Possible Selective Admis sions Criteria for the California Public Junior College." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Stanford University, 1961. 40. Della-Dora, Delmo. "The Culturally Disadvantaged: Educational Implications of Certain Social- Cultural Phenomena," Exceptional Children, May, 1962, 467-472. 41. _____. "The Culturally Disadvantaged: Further Observations," Exceptional Children, January, 1963, 226-236. 42. Demos, George D., and Weijola, Merrill J. "Achieve- ment-Personality Criteria as Selectors of Parti cipants and Predictors of Success in Special Programs in Higher Education," California Journal of Educational Research, XVII, No. 3 (September, r9TO","Tg^T$T:------ 43. Dickema, Anthony J. "Level of Occupational Aspira tion, Performance in College, and Facilitation: A Preliminary Test of Certain Postulates Concern ing the Relationship Between Attitudes and Be havior." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Michigan State University, 1965. 44. Diener, Charles L. "Similarities and Differences Be tween Over-Achieving and Under-Achieving Stu dents," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVIII, N6. 5 (January, i960), 396-400. - 160 | 45. Douvan, Elizabeth. "Social Status and Success | Strivings" in Webster, Staten W. (Ed.), The Disadvantaged Learner, San Francisco: Chandler j Publishing Company, 1966. 46. Dove, Virginia. "An Investigation into Relationships ! Between Three Aspects of Achievement Motivation and Academic Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University ! of Utah, 1964. 47. Dressel, Paul L., and Grabow, John M. "The Gifted Evaluate Their High School Experiences," Excep- tional Children, XXIV (1958), 394-396. 48. Drews, Elizabeth M., and Teshan, John E. "Parental Attitudes and Academic Achievement," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIII (1957), 328-332. i 49. Easter, Lawrence V., and Murstein, Bernard F. "A- chievement Fantasy as a Function of. Probability of Success," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXVIII, No. 2 (April, 1964),154-159. 50. Edmonds, William S. "Sex Differences in the Verbal Ability of Socio-Economically Depressed Groups," The Journal of Educational Research, LVIII, No. 2 | (October, 1964), 61-64. 1 51. Eells, Walter Crosby. The Junior College. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931. 52. Ellis, B.W. "To Attend or Not to Attend College: Some Factors in the Decision of Qualified High School Graduates." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, School of' Education, University of Southern California, 1962. 53. Evans, Ellis Dale. "The Effects of Achievement Moti vation and Ability Upon Discovdry Learning and Accompanying Incidental Learning Under Two Condi tions of Incentive Set," The Journal of Educa- tional Research, LX, No. ! > (January, i$67) , 195-5W.------- i e ;54. Feather, N.T. "Performance at a Difficult Task in Relation to Initial Expectation of Success, Test Anxiety, and Need Achievement," Journal of Per sonality, XXXIII, No. 2 (June, 1965), 260-217. 55. 56. i i 57. ! | 58. I | 59. | 60. 61. 62. 63. : 64. _ 161 ; i ! ’ j Feldman, David. "Social Class and Academic Achieve ment at Law School." Unpublished doctoral dis sertation, School of Education, Stanford Univer- j sity, 1960. Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychol- ! ogy and Education*! New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Finger, Jr., John A. "An Analysis of Some Research Methodology Through an Investigation and Re appraisal of Selected Research on Academic Moti vation," The Journal of Experimental Education, XXXV, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), 43-52. Finger, John A., and Schlesser, George E. "Non- Intellective Predictors of Academic Success in School and College," The School Review, LXXIII, No. 1 (Spring, 1965), 14-29. . r Fisher, Seymour, and Morton, Robert B. "Levels of Prediction from the TAT," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXI, No. 2 (February, 1957), 115-120. Ford, Thomas R. "Social Factors Affecting Academic Performance," The School Review, LV, No. 4 (Winter, 1957), 415-422. Frankel, Edward. "A Comparative Study of Achieving and Underachieving High School Boys of High In tellectual Ability," journal of Educational Re search, LIII (1960), 172-166. Frazier, Gordon Edmond. "A Conceptual Paradigm of the Culturally Disadvantaged: An Inquiry into Interrelationships•and Consequences with Impli cations for Education." Unpublished doctbral dissertation, School of Education, Southern Illinois University, 1966. Gallant, Thomas Francis. "Academic Achievement of College Freshmen and Its Relationship to Selected Aspects of the Student's Bafckground." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1965. Gardner, John W. Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too? New York: Harper and Row, Pub lishers, 1961. 162 65. Gonzales, Eugene. "The Mexican-American in Califor nia," California Education, III, No. 3 (November, 1965), 19-22. 66. Goodstein, Leonard D., and Heilbrun, Alfred B. "Prediction of College Achievement from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule at Three Levels of Intellectual Ability," The Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI, No. 5 (May, 1962 ) , 317-320: 67. Gordon, Edmund W. "Counseling Socially Disadvantaged Children" in Riessman, Prank et al. (Ed.), Mental Health of the Poor, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, 275-282. 68. Gottlieb, David. "Social Class, Achievement, and the College-going Experience," The School Review, LXX, No. 3 (Autumn, 1962), 273-286. 69. Gough, H. "Factors Relating to the Academic Achieve ment of High School Students," The Journal of Educational Psychology, XL (1949), 65-^8. 70. Gowan, John C. "The Underachieving Gifted Child— A Problem for Everyone," Exceptional Children, XXI (1955), 247-249. 71. Greenberg, Judith W., Gerver, Joan M., Chall, Jeanne, and Helen H. Davidson. "Attitudes of Children from a Deprived Environment Toward Achievement- Related Concepts," The Journal of Educational Research, LIX, No. 2 (October, 1966), 57-62. 72. Haddad, Harvey Dyer. "Achievement Motivation in Relation to Academic Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965. 73. Hagemeyer, Richard H. "Socio-Economic Background of Full-Time Male Students in Henry Ford Community College," The Junior College Journal, XXIX, No. 6 (February, 1 9 5 9 T ,”313-321.-----------: ------- 74. Halsey, A.H., Flond, Jean, and Anderson, Arnold (ed.) Education, Economy, and Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 75. Handerson, George. "Aspiration and Social Class in Pockets of Poverty: A Study of Educational Obso lescence." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 76. j i ! 77. i ! 78. | l : 79. ; 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. : 85. .." 163.. School of Education, Wayne State University, 1965. Harper, William Rainey. "President's Annual Report, University of Chicago, July, 1902" in Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago, I, Chicago, 1903, XCVI. “ Havighurst, Robert J. "Social Change and the Com munity College," The North Central Association Quarterly, XLI, No. 3 (winter, 1967),241-248. . "The Educationally Difficult Student," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, IXL, No. 299 CMarch, 196 5r;""ii o -12 ?T---------— ______. "Who Are the Socially Disadvantaged?" in Webster, Staten W. (ed.), The Disadvantaged Learner, San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1966. Hernandez, David E. "Is the Concept of Social Class Being Misused in Education?", The Journal of Edu- cational Sociology, XXXVI, No. 7 (March, 1963), 322-324. Hernandez, Luis F. "The Culturally Disadvantaged Mexican-American Students Part I," Journal of Secondary Education, No. 2 (February, 1967), 59-65. Herron, Elmer Wayne. "Intellectual Achievement- Motivation: A Study in Construct Clarification." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, The University of Texas, 1962. Hills, John R. "Needs for Achievement, Aspirations, and College Criteria," The Journal of Educational Psychology, No. 1 (September, 1958), 156-161. Hillway, Tyrus. The American Two-Year College. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1958. Holland, John L., and Nichols, Robert C. "Prediction of Academic and Extracurricular Achievement in College," The Journal of Educational Psychology, LV (1964), 55- 65".----- ------ 164 86. Hollingshead, August B. Elmtown's Youth; The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1940. 87. Hollingshead, August B., and Redlich, F. Social Classj and Mental Illness. New York: John Wiley and ! Sons, Inc., 1958. 88. Hollinshead, Byron W. Who Should Go To College? New ; York: Columbia University Press, 1952. 89. Hunt, David E. "Adolescence; Cultural Deprivation, Poverty, and the Dropout," Review of Educational Research, XXXVI, No. 4 (October, 1966), 463-473. i 90. Kahl, Joseph A. "'Common Man' Boys," in Halsey, A.H. et al. (ed), Education, Economy, and Society, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 91. _____ "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man'.Boys," Harvard Educational Review, XXIII (Summer, 1953) , 186-203. “ 92. ______ . "Some Measurements of Achievement Orien- tation," American Journal of Sociology, LXX, No.5 (May, 1965), 669-681. 93. _____ . The American Class Structure. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 185?. 94. Kahl, Joseph A., and Davis, James A. "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status," American Sociological Review, June, 1955, 317-325. 95. Kantrowitz, Judy Leopold. "The Effects of Crisis on Academic Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dis sertation, Boston University Graduate School, 1966. 96. Karolchuck, Patricia A., and Worell, Leonard. "A- chievement Motivation and Learning," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIII, No. 2 (September, 1956), 255-257. 97. Kearney, Dorothy Lucille. "Selected Non-Intellectual Factors as Predictors of Academic Success in Junior College Intellectually Capable Students." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1966. 98. 99. i I I i i j ! 100. i | 101. i ; 102. i j 103. t ; 104. 105. 106. 107. ~ "...... ” 165 Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Re search. New YoricT Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Koenigsberg, Lewis Arnold. "An Investigation of Background Factors and Selected Personality Cor relates of Achievement Motivation." Unpublished docttoral dissertation, Department of Education, Syracuse University, 1962. Kolb, David A. "Achievement Motivation Training for Underachieving High School Boys," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, II (December, 1965), 783-792. Koos, Leonard V. The Junior-College Movement. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1925. Kurtz, John J., and Swenson, Esther D. "Factors Related to Over Achievement and Under Achieve ment in School," School Review, LIX (1951), 472-480. Lange, Alexis F. "The Junior College," Proceedings of the National Education Association, 1915, I1 9 -T 5 4 ":-------------------------------------- LaVerd, John. "The Relationship of the Achievement Motives as Projected into Thematic Apperception Stories to Childrens' School Achievement." Un published doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Utah State University, 1960. Lembesis, Anne Constance. "A Study of Students Who Withdrew from College During Their Second, Third or Fourth Years." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, Department of Education, University of Oregon, 1965. Lessinger, Leon M., and Martinson, Ruth A. "The Use of the California Psychological Inventory with Gifted Pupils," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIX (l96l), 572-575. Lindzey, Gardner, and Heinemann, Shirley H. "The matic Apperception Test: Individual and Group Administration," Jburnal of Personality, XXIV, No. 1 (September, 1955), 34-55. 108. j ! i | 109. i j 110. m . j 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. “ 166 “ j i j Lindzey, Gardner, and Silverman, Morton. "Thematic Apperception Test: Techniques of Group Admini stration, Sex Differences, and the Role of Verbal Productivity," Journal of Personality, XXVII, No. 3 (September, 1959) , Sll-323. Locke, Edwin A. "The Relationship of Intentions to Level of Performance," Journal of Applied Psy chology, L, No. 7 (February, 1966), 60-66. Logan, Daniel Lanier. "An Empirical Investigation of the Cultural Determinants of Basie Motiva tional Patterns." Unpublished doctoral disser tation, School of Education, University of Arizona, 1966. Long, David E. "A Study of Socio-Economic Status as Related to Various Characteristics of Selected! Students at Indiana University, Fall 1960." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Indiana University, 1961. Lum, Mabel K.M. "A Comparison of Under- and Over achieving Female College Students," Journal of Educational Psychology, LI, No. 3 (March, 1960), r<T9-TT5~---------- MacCurdy, Robert D. "Characteristics and Backgrounds of Superior Science Students," The School Review, LXIV (1956) , 67-71. McClelland, David (ed.). Studies in Motivation. New York: Appleton-Century-Cro£ts, Inc., 1955. McClelland, David Atkinson, John W., Clark, Russell A., and Edgar L. Lowell. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953. McConnell, Claudia Mae. "Analysis of Socioeconomic Achievement and Personality Characteristics of Special Groups of Superior College Students." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Indiana University, 1964. McDill, Edward L., and Coleman, James. "Family and Peer Influences in College Plans of High School Students," Sociology of Education, XXXVIII, No. 2 (Winter, 1965), 112-126. 167 ~ ] 118. i 119. 120. j ! j 121. I | | 122. | 123. 124. 125. t 126. McDonald, Keith Henry. "An Investigation into the Relationship of Socio-Economic Status to an Objective Measure of Motivation The Michigan M-Scale." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Michigan State University, i 1962. McKinley, Donald Gilbert. Social .Class and Family Life. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1964. ; Malcolm, Richard Ward. "An Analysis of Selected Conditional Admissions at the University of Southern California." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1966. Maxwell, Roy Thomas. "The Relationship Between Achievement Motivation and Academic Achievement in Elementary School Children." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, 1962. Mayo, George Douglas, and Manning, Winton H. "Motivation Measurement," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXI, No. 5 (September, 1 9 6 1 ), 73-B3.-------------; -------- Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., T9"60. Mellinger, Morris. "Changing Trends Among Public Junior College Student Bodies," The Junior Col- lege Journal, XXXIII, No. 3 (November, 1962) , m r - tHt;----- Metfessel, Newton S., et al. "An Investigation of Individual Attitudinal Correlates with Under- achievement Through Utilization of a Paper- and-Pencil Instrument," Pilot Investigation #1, Center for the Study of Educations1ly Disadvan- taged Youth, University of Southern California, 1963. Metfessel, Newton S., and Plott, Sandra J. Project Potential: Interpretive Guide for the Inventory of self Appraisal, ios Angeles: Center for the 1 Study of Educationally Disadvantaged Youth, University of Southern California, 1966. 127. 128. i w 1129. f 1130. 1131. i 132. i 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. ■ c * i _____________________________________________________ _ ___ 168 ] I Middleton, Jr., George, and Guthrie, George M. "Personality Syndromes and Academic Achievement,"! Journal of Educational Psychology, L, No. 2 (February, 1959), 66-69. | Mogar, Robert E. "Competition, Achievement, and Personality," The Journal of Counseling Psychol- i ogy, IX, No. 2 (Summer, 1962), 168-172. Mohandessi, Khosrow, and Runkel, Philip J. "Some Socioeconomic Correlates of Academic Aptitude," Journal of Educational Psychology, XLIX, No. 1 (February, 1^58), 47-32. i Morgan, Henry H. "Measuring Achievement Motivation with 'Picture Interpretations'," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVII, No. 4 (April, 1953),! 289-292. Myers, Albert E. "Risk Taking and Academic Success and Their Relation to an Objective Measure of Achievement Motivation," Educational and Psy- chological Measurement, XXV, No. 2 (October, 1555)', '355-3(63'.------------- Nason, Leslie J. Academic Achievement of Gifted High School Students. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1958. Newton, Eunice Shaed. "Verbal Destitution: The Pivotal Barrier to Learning" in Webster, Staten W. (ed.), The Disadvantaged Learner, San Fran cisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1966. Nichols, Robert C., and Davis, James A. "Character istics of Students of High Academic Aptitude," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII, No. 8 7AprIY,"T9?>4), 754-806.------------ Ornstein, Allan C. "Who Are the Disddvantaged?" Journal of Secondary Education, XLI, No. 4 TAp£n“ i9T«), 15 4 -16 3:------- Osborne, Duncan. "The Relationship of Personality Factors to Academic Achievement in College." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Columbia University, 1963. Panos, Robert J., Astin, Alexander W., and Creager, John A. National Norms for Entering College Freshmen:" Fall 1967. Washington, D.C.: 138. i j 139. | ! 140. i j 141.. 142. 143. 144. 145. il46. j 169 | ! | American Council on Education, 1967. j i Paralko, Ronald M., and Bishop, David R. "Socio- | economic Status and College Plans: A Study of Canadian High School Students," Sociology of Education, XXXIX, No. 3 (Summer, 1966), 268-296. r t Parsons, Talcott. "The School Class as a Social System: Some of Its Functions in American So ciety" in Halsey, A.H. et al. (ed.), Education, Economy, and Society, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Pendarvis, Sylvester Tucker. "A Study of the Re lationship Between High School Grades and the Desire for Scholastic Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, , University of Southern Mississippi, 1962. Peppert, Ralph, and Archer, N. Sidney. "A Compari son of Two Methods of Classifying Underachievers ; with Respect to Selected Criteria," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLI (1963), 788-791. : Peterson, Richard Emil. "Peer Conformity and Achievement Motivation as Functions of Sex, Intellectual Ability, and. Family Social Status." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, 1962. Raths, James D. "An Application of Clarifying Tech niques to Academic Underachievers in High School," Dissertation Abstracts, XXI (1961), 3024-30251 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1960) Riessman, Frank. "Low Income Culture, The Adoles cent, and the School," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Princi pals, XLI, No. 3O0 (April, 1965), 45-49. ________. The Culturally Deprived Child. New York: ; Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962. Rogoff, Natalie. "Local Social Structure and Edu cational Selection" in Halsey, A.H. et al. (ed.), Education, Economy, and Society, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 170 147. Rosen, Bernard C. "Race, Ethnicity, and the Achieve ment Syndrome," American Sociological Review, XXIV, 1959, 47-6(5": 148. Seashore, Carl E. The Junior College Movement. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1940. 149. Shah, Vimalbhai Premchand. "Social Class and Aspi rations of Wisconsin Boys." Unpublished doctoral! dissertation, School of Education, University of Wisconsin, 1966. 150. Shaw, Merville C. "Need Achievement Scales as Pre dictors of Academic Success," Journal of Educa tional Psychology , LII, No. 6 (January, 1961), 282-286. 151. Shaw, Merville C., Edson, Kenneth, and Bell, Hugh M. "The Self-Concept of Bright Underachieving High School Students as Revealed by An Adjective Check List," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIX,(1960), 193-196. 152. Shore, Milton F., and Lemian, Alan H. "Parental Per ceptions of the Student as Related to Academic Achievement in Junior College," The Journal of Experimental Education, XXXIII, No. 4 (Summer, Experi i m t t ; 391-39T.- 153. Smith, Charles Philip. "Situational Determinants of the Expression of Achievement Motivation in Thematic Apperception." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Michigan, 1961. 154. Smith, Herbert A., and Penny, Lawrence L. "Educa tional Opportunity as a Function of Socioeconomic Status," School and Society, LXXXVII, No. 2157 (September 12, 1959), 342-343. 155. Snyder, Eldon E. "Self-Concept Theory: An Approach to Understanding the Behavior of Disadvantaged Pupils," The Clearing House, XL, No. 4 (December, 1965), 242-246. 156. Sewell, William H., and Shah, Vimal P. "socioeconom ic Status, Intelligence, and the Attainment of Higher Education," Sociology of Education, XL, No. 1 (Winter, 1967), 1-23. 157. i 158. | j 159. ! 160. | 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. _ _ .....„ „ 1 7 i Spector, Irwin Leonard. "An Analysis of Certain Characteristics and the Educational Success of Junior College Freshmen." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Arizona State University, 1966. Spellman, C.L. "Psycho-Social Retardation in Edu cation," School and Society, February 19, 1966, 101-102. Stein, Ruth S. "An Approach to Modifying College Concepts and Improving Academic Performance of a Group of Low-Testing Junior-College Students." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966. Stone, LeRoy A., and Foster, James M. "Academic Achievement as a Function of Psychological Needs," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII, No. 1 (September, 1^64), 52-56. Stuckey, June Elizabeth. "The Relationship of Aca demic Achievement to Selected Personality Needs." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Iowa State University, 1962. Sumerwell, Harriet C., Campbell, Mary M., and Sarason, Irwin G. "The Effect of Differential Motivating Instructions on the Emotional Tone and Outcome of TAT Stories," Journal of Consul- ting Psychology, XXII, No. 5 (January, 1958), 385-388. Summerer, Kenneth Harvey. "A Study of Social Status and Selected Factors Represented by Entering Freshmen and Students Completing Two Years of College Work at Flint Community Junior College." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Michigan State University, 1965. Sundheim, Betty Jean Madden. "The Relationship Among 'n' Achievement, 'n' Affiliation, Sex-Role Con cepts, Academic Grades, and Curricular Choice." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Columbia University, 1962. Sutcliffe, Charles E. "Factors Related to Low Achievement by High School Pupils of High Mental Ability." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 172 School of Education, University of Southern California, 1958. 166. Syed, Anna K. "Patterns of Parent Behavior Influen cing Academic Achievement in the Junior High School," Dissertation Abstracts, XXII (1961), 1514-1515. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1961) 167. Teshan, John E. "Parental Attitudes and College Success," Journal of Educational Psychology, LIV (1963), i o f t o t: 168. Terrell, Jr., Glenn, and Durkin, Kathryn. "Social Class and the Nature of the Incentive in Dis crimination Learning," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX (1959), 270-272. 169. ' Titus, Walter Franklin. "Relationship of Need for Achievement, Dependency and Laws of Control in Boys of Middle and Low Socioeconomic Status." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Indiana University, 1966. 170. Thomas, Frank Waters. "The Functions of the Junior College" in Proctor, William Martin (ed.), The Junior College; Its Organization and Administra tion, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1927. 171. Thurston, Alice. "Now That We Are Nine Feet Tall: A Look at Junior College Students," Junior Col- lege Journal, XXXII (February, 1962), 334-539. 172. Todd, Frederick J., et al. "Differences Between Nor mal and Underachievers of Superior Ability," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI (1962), 183-190. 173. Tracey, Ellen K. "A Survey of the Characteristics of the Intellectually Gifted Child and the Educa tional Facilities for the Gifted Student in Several Carefully Selected Secondary Schools on Long Island," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIV (1963), 635. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1963) 174. Tueland, John K., and Wursten, Rosemary. "The In fluence of Intra-Personal Variables on Academia Achievement," California Journal of Educational Research, XVI, No. 2 (March, 1965), 58-64. ; 175. j i j j | 176. / i 1177. j 178. 179. ; 180. 181. 182. 183. Uhlinger, Carolyn A., and Stephens, Mark W. "Rela tion of Achievement Motivation to Academic Achievement in Students of Superior Ability," Journal of Educational Psychology, LI, No. 5 Way7"'iS60) ' » 2^ 266: ---- ------ Veroff, Joseph, Wilcox, Sue, and Atkinson, John W. 1 "The Achievement Motive in High School and Col lege Age Women," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVIII, No. 1 (January, 1953), IM-1T9. ---- Ward, Forrest Baird. "The Achievement Motive: An Incentive Value for High and Low Levels of Achievement Success." Unpublished doctoral dis- ' sertation, Department of Education, The Ohio State University, 1963. Warner, W. Lloyd, Havighurst, Robert J., and Loeb, Martin B. Who Shall Be Educated: The Challenge of Unequal Opportunities. New York: Harper and : Brothers Publishers, 1944. Warner, W. Lloyd, Meeker, Marchia, and Eells, Kenneth. Social Class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1949. Weiss, Peter, Wertheimer, Michael, and Broesbeck, Byron. "Achievement Motivation, Academic Apti tude, and College Grades," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XIX, No. 4 (December, T959)7 6<53-1566\----------- Weltman, Morris. "A Comparison of Failing and Superior Students in a State College." Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, School of Educa tion, University of California, Los Angeles, 1957. Werts, Charles E. "Social Class and Initial Career Choice of College Freshmen," Sociology of Edu cation, XXXIX, No. 1 (Winter, 1966),74-65. Westfall, Frank Wilbur. "Selected Variables in the Achievement or Nonachievement of the Academically Talented High School Student." Unpublished doc- ! toral dissertation, School of Education, Univer sity of Southern California, 1958. r " " " ■ 1 7 4 184. Whiteley, John M., and Hummel, Raymond. "Adaptive j Ego Functioning in Relation to Academic Achieve- j ment," Journal of Counseling Psychology, XII, ! No. 3 (Fall, 1565)', 306-310. --------- i 185. Wilson, Robert C., and Morrow, William R. "School and Career Adjustment of Bright High-Achieving and Under-Achieving High School Boys," The Journal of Genetic Psychology, Cl (1962), 91-103. 186. Wolfle, Dael (ed.). America's Resources of Special ized Talent. New York: Harper and Row, Pub- lishers, 1954. 187. Wolfle, Dael. "Educational Opportunity, Measured In telligence, and Social Background" in Halsey, A.H. et: al. (ed.), Education, Economy,and Society, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, l96'4'7 1188. Wylie, Ruth C. "Children's Estimates of Their Schoolwork Ability as a Function of Sex, Race, and Socioeconomic Level," Journal of Personality, XXXI (June, 1963), 203-224. APPENDIX A ACE STUDENT INFORMATION FORM 176 STUDENT INFORMATION FORM YOUR NAM E (please prin t)- HOME S T R E E T A D D R E S S - F irs t M idd le or Maiden L o tt C ity State Z ip Code ( il known) When were you born? Your Social Security Number (please copy carefully) — 1 — 1 I 1 « i i i Month Day Year (01*12) (01-31) i i i. i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i | N O T E : The information in this report is being collected for the American Council on Education os part of a continuing study of higher education. Your cooperation in this research w ill contribute to an understanding of how students arc a ffe c t ed by their college experiences. Identifying information has been requested by the Council in order to make subsequent m ail follow -up studies possible. Your i responses w ill be held in the strictest professional confidence, and w ill be used only in group summaries for research purposes. ®®©@ ©OO© ©©©© ©0©© ©©©© ©©©© ©©©© 000© ©©@® ©©©© ©©©©OOO©© ©®©©©®®©© ©©©©©©©©© ©0©0©00®® ©©©©©©©©© ©®©©®©©@© ©000©®©©© ©®©®©®@©© ®®©©®®®@© D IR E C T IO N S : Your responses w ill be read by an autom atic scanning device. Your careful observance of these few simple rules w ill be most appreciated. Use only black lead pencil (No. 2 b or softer). Make heavy black marks that fill the circle. Erase cleanly any answer you wish to change. Make no stray markings of any kind. Yes No Example: Will marks made with ball pen or O ® fountain pen be proper ly read? 1. Your Sex: MaleO Female O 2. How old will you be on December 31 of this year? (Mark one) 16 oi younger . . , . 0 1 7 ........................... O 1 8............. O 1 9 ........................... O 2 0............O 2 1.............. O Older than 2 1 O 3. What was your average grade in secondary school? (Mark one) A oi At . . . o B - .. . . . . O A - . . . . . . . o Cr ... . . O Bi . . . . . . . o C . . . . . . . o B ........ . . . o D .... . . . O 4, To how many colleges other than th is one did you a ctually apply for admission? From how many did you receive acceptances? (Mark one in each column) Applications Acceptances No other .................................O .................... O One...........................................O ....................O Two ........................................O .................... O T h re e ......................................O ....................O F o u r.........................................O ....................O Five ..................................... O ...................O Six or mote ............................O ................O 5. Mark one: This is the first time I have enrolled in college as a freshman............................O I came to this college from a junior college ............................................O I came to this college from a four-year college or university...............................O 6. The follow ing questions deal with accomplishments that might possibly apply to your high school years. Do not be discouraged by this lis t; it cavers many areas of interest and few students w ill be able to say " y e s " to many items. (Mark all that apply) Was elected piesident of one or moie student organizations (lecognized Yes by the school)............................................................................................................O Received a high rating (Good, Excellent) in a state or regional music contest.. O Participated In a state or regional speech oi debate contest........................... O Had a major part in a p la y ........................................................................................O Won a varsity letter (spoils)......................................................................................O Won a prize oi awaid in an ait com petition.............................................................O Edited the school paper, yeaibook, oi literaiy magazine.....................................O Had poems, stories, essays, or articles published.................................................© Participated in a National Science Foundation summei progiam.........................O Placed (fiist, second,or third) in a state oi regional science contest.................O Was a member of a scholastic honor society...........................................................O Won a Certificate of Merit oi Letter of Commendation in the National Meiit Progiam............................................................................................. O 7. What is the highest academic degree that you intend to obtain? (Mark one) N one.................................................O A ssociated equivalent) O Bachelor's degiee (B.A., B.S., e tc .) 0 Mastei's degiee (M.A., M.S., etc.) . © Ph.D. or E d .D .................................O M.D.,D.D,S„0i D.V.M..................... O LL.B. orJ.D. . . . . ' ..........................O B.D ....................................O Other.................................................O 8. Do you have any concern about your ability to finance your college edu- . cation? (Mark one) None (I am confident that I w ill have sufficient funds) .......... . . O Some concern (but I w ill probably have enough fu n d s ).... .................o Majoi concern (not suie I w ill be able to complete college) , , , , , , , 0 9, Are you a twin? (Maik one) N o .................................................O Yes, identical , , . , .................O Yes, fraternal same s e x........ . O Yes, fraternal opposite s e x ,,,, © I 10. Through what source do you in- „ „ „ tend to (inonec the firs t veor o( S ^ £ your undergraduate education? £ i? % (Mark oqs In each tow 1 ^ ^ Personal savings and/or employment O O O Parental or other family aid................O O O Repayable loan....................................O O O Scholarship,grant,or other g ilt..........O O O 11.What is the highest level of formal education ob tained by your parents? (Mark one In each column ) Father Mother s.O.... o . . a . ... ..o . .0 .... . . . . . o ..a... ........o . .o . ............ . . . . . o . .o . ............ a 12. Who! is your best estimote of the total income last year of your parental family (not your own family if you are married)? Consider annual in come from all sources before taxes. (Mark one) Less than $4,000 O $15,000-$19,999. .O $4,000-55,999 . . .0 $20,000-524,999. .O $ 6 , 000-57.999 . . .O $25,000-529,999. .A $8,000*$9,999 . . o $30,000 or mote . .O $10,000-514,999 .0 I have no idea... .O 13, What is your racial background? (Mark one) i Caucasian............................................. O j Negro......................................................O i Ameiican In d ia n .....................................O Oriental ................................................O I O ther...................................................... O i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14. Mork one in eoch Y°u'„P!esenl column below: Protestant ......... Roman Catholic Jewish.............. O ther................ None.................. Which You Religious Weie Reared Piefeience .. . . 0 . .......... ...o ........0 . .............,o . . . . . o . ........... ........ . 0 . . . . . o . ..............o . . . . . 0 . .......... ..a 15. While attending high school, did you: (Maik one) Date one steady girl frlendfboy friend)...............A Have a series of steady girl fiiends (b o y frie n d s )..................................................... O Date a few diffeient girls (boys), but none steadily................................................O : Pietty much play the fie ld ....................................O Seldom or never date............................................A i 16, How many students in high school did you know | by their first names or nicknames? (Mark one) 5or less 6-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 more o o o o o o o How many of these students did you consider close friends? (Mark one) 5or less 6-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 more o o o o o o o 11111111111111111 17. For each of the following activities, indicate if you presently can perform the activity competently. (Maik one in each low) _________ No,________ Yes, but 1 and 1 have 1 can would like no desire presently to be able to be able do this to do to do well this well thls.well Type 40 words or more pel minute............................... .........- o ........... ..........n . A Sketch people so that they can be recognized.......... ...........o .......... .......... a . A Speak a second language fluently............................... ...........o .. .......... o - A Bieak 100 in g olf........................................................... ...........0 - .......... o - A Watcr-skl......................................................................... .. o .... o - A Ski on snow ................................................................... .- o.. .......... o - A Sight-read piano m usic................................................. .- o .............- o - A Read music (singing)................................................... ...........o .......... .......... o - A Identity at least fifteen species ol birds on sigh t.. . ...........o .. .......... -O - A Refetee one oi more spoiling events.......................... .. o . ........ .......... -O - .. A Recite long passages from plays or poems without notes. . . O . ........... o . A Identify oi describe examples from seveial . architectural styles..................................................... ...........o .......... .......... -O - A ...........o . ........ ........... 0 . n Identify most of the major constellations of stais . . . ...o . ......... ........ -O . A Use a sewing machine...................................................o... .. o . A Use Robert’s Rules of O idei......................................... 0 .. . . . . . . a. A ..o..... o . o ...........n..... o . o Name the starting players for a professional athletic team . 0 . .........., o . .O Scoie a tennis match..................................................... ...........0 ............. o . A Identify many classical musical compositions by title and composei................................................. ...0 ....A. ( ) Piogiam a computet.........................................................A....A. O .. 0 ............A . o Swim a mile without stopping..................................... ...........o....a. A Name the animal phyla................................................... 0 ....A A Desciibe the difference between stocks and bonds . ...o. ........ ..........A . * ........ A Develop and print photographs (daikioom work)........ . . . . . . 0 ....A ... A Bake a cake from scratch (no m ixes)......................... ...0 .....A A Describe the personal freedoms guaranteed by the B ill of R ig h ts......................................................... 0 ....A A Do at least 15 push-ups.................................................o.....A. A What is your best guess as to the chances that you w ill: (Maik one in each tow ) Good Some Little No Chance Chance Chance Chanc Get married while in college? ................................... ................0.... . . , 0 . . . . . . . o . . . . . . o Get married within a year after college?.................... .... 0.... . . A . . . . ..o.. . . . A Obtain an A -or better over-all giade point aveiage?. .... o.... . . A . . .. . a . .. . . A Change major fie ld ? ..................................................... n n Change careei choice?................................................. .... o.... . . o . . . . n o Fail one oi moie courses?........................................... .... o.... . O . . o o Graduate with honors?.......... ...................................... .................0.. .. . . A . . .,o„ , . , A Be elected to a student office?...................... .................0 . . . . . . o . .. . . D Join a social fraternity, sorority, oi club?............. .................0 . . . . . . A . . .. . . A . ., . , A Author or co-author a published article?........ .. .................0 . . . . . . A . . .. . . o . .. . . A Be elected to an academic honor society?................... 0 . . . . . . O . . . .. . A . .. . . A Participate in student piotests oi demonstrations? ,.... 0 . . . . . . A . . .. . A . .. . . A Drop out of this college temporarily (exclude transferring)? . . . 0 . . . . . . A . . .„A„ . . . A Drop out permanently (exclude transferring)?, , , , , , , .................o .„. . . A . . .. . A . . .. . . A Tiansfei to anothei college befoie graduating? . . . . . ( ) II I I I I I I I I I I I I 178 19. Mark one in each column: 3 5 / s i f £■§/ i Alabama O | Alaska................O j Arizona O j Aikansas O j California O ! Colorado O ; Connecticut . . . . O | Delaware O D.C.....................O Florida O Georgia O | Hawaii.. O | Idaho................. O . j Illin o is O 1 Indiana..............O ! Iowa...................O i Kansas..............O I Kentucky O ; Louisiana O | Maine................. O !• Maryland O ; Massachusetts . . O : Michigan O | Minnesota O ; Mississippi O ; Missouri O ; Montana O j Nebraska O ! Nevada O i New Hampshire . 0 ! New Jersey . . . . O j New Mexico . . . . O j New Y o ik O | Noith Carolina . . O Noith Dakota . . . O : Ohio...................O | Oklahoma O ■ Oregon............... O : Pennsylvania . . . O Rhode Island . . . O | South C arolina..O : South Dakota . . . O Tennessee O , Texas................O ; Utah...................O , Vermont O ! Virginia O : Washington . . . . . O | West Virginia . . . O ; Wisconsin O : Wyoming O j Other U.S O | Canada O ! Latin America. . . O j Europe................O j Other . . . O I I I I I I I I f a ? a ? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 111 20. Moilt only three responses, one in each column. Your probable careei occupation. Your father's occupation. ^ Y o u r mothei's occupation. iO©® NOTE: If youi father (or mother) is deceased, please Indicate his (her) last occupation. Accountant oi actuary..................© © © Actor or cnteitainei ...................... © © © A rch itect........................................© © © A rtis t..............................................© © © Business (clerical)....................... , © © © Business executive (management, administrator) . . . . © © © Business owner or proprietor. . . . © © © Business salesman oi buyci........© © © Clergyman (ministei.pnest), . . . • . . © © @ Clergy (othci religious)................ © © © Clinical psychologist....................© © © College teachei............................. © © © Computer piogrammei.................... © © © Conservationist or forestci...........© © © Dcntistdncluding oithodontist) . , © © © Dietitian or home economist © © © Engineer ........................© © © Farmer oi lanchei.......................... © © © Foreign service woikei (including diplomat)....................© © © Housewife...................................... © © © Interior decorator (including designed.................... 0 © ® Interpietor (translator)..................© © © Lab technician or hygienist 0 © ® Law enforcement o ffic e i...............0 © ® Lawyer (attorney).......................... 0 © ® Military seivice (career) ...............0 © ® Musician (per foimet, c o m p o s e r)...® © ® N urse................ ..............................0 © ® Optometrist.................................... 0 © ® Pharmacist......................................0 © ® Physician........................................ 0 © ® Scnool counselor............................ 0 © ® School principal oi s u p e rin te n d e n t® © ® Scientific leseaicher ....................0 © ® Social worker.................................. 0 © ® S tatistician.................................... 0 © ® Therapist (physical, occupational, speech)................ 0 © ® Teachei (elementary).................... 0 © ® Teachei (secondary)...................... 0 © ® Veterinarian ..................................0 © ® Writer oi journalist........................ © © ® Skilled trades............................. , , © © © Other............................................... 0 Undecided ..............................0 Laboiei (unskilled).............................. © © Semi-skilled woikei.............................. © © Othei occupation..................... . . , . . . . © © Unemployed..........................................© I I I 21. Below is a lis t o( 66 different undergraduate major fields grouped into general categories. Maik onjy three of the 66 fields as follows: 0 First choice (your piobablo m ajorfleld ol studyl. 0 Second choice. © The field of study which is least appealing to you. ARTS AND HUMANITIES Architecture...................© 0 © Engl(sh(literature) . . . . 0 0 © Fine a rts .......................0 0 © History...........................0 0 © Jouinalismlwntmgl . . . 0 0 © Language (modem) . . . . 0 0 © Language (other i ...........0 0 © M u sic ...................0 0 © Philosophy.....................0 0 © Speech and drama.........0 0 © Theology.......................0 0 © Other.............................. © 0 © BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE Biology (general)...........0 0 © Biochemistry.................0 0 © Biophysics.....................0 0 © Botany...........................0 0 © Zoology.........................0 0 © Other.............................. 0 0 © BUSINESS Accounting.....................0 0 © Business admin.............0 0 © Electronic data processing .................0 0 © Secretarial studies . . . . 0 0 © O th e r..........................0 0 © ENGINEERING Aeronautical .. . 0 0 © Civil .......... 0 0 © Chemical . . . . ...............0 0 © E le c tric a l.... ............... 0 0 © Industrial. . . . ...............0 0 © M echanical.... .............0 0 © Othei.............................. 0 0 © PHYSICAL SCIENCE Chem istry.,.. ...............0 0 © Earth science .. ........... 0 0 © Mathematics... .............© 0 © P hysics.........................© 0 © Statistics.......................© 0 © O thei,......................., . . © 0 © PROFESSIONAL Health Technology (mcoical, dental, laboratory)............. . 0 0 G Nursing.................... . 0 © G Pharmacy................. © 0 G Predentistry........... . ® 0 G Prelaw ...................... © © G Premedical............. . © 0 G Pievetciinary........... 0 © G Theiapy (occupat., physical, s p e e c h l..© 0 G Other .......................® 0 G SOCIAL SCIENCE Anthiopology............ © 0 G Economics............... © 0 G Education............... © 0 G H istory....................© 0 G Political science (government, int. relations) . . . . . © 0 G Psychology............. 0 0 G Social w ork.............. © © G Sociology................. 0 0 G O ther........................ O 0 G OTHER FIELDS A griculture............ Communications (radio, T.V., etc.) Electronics (technology! . . . . . Forestry.................. Home e c o n o m ic s . Industrial arts........ Libiaty science . . . Military science . . . Physical education and recieation.... Othei (technical).. Othei (nontechnical) Undecided.. . © 0 G © 0 G © 0 G © 0 G © O G © 0 G © 0 G © 0 G © 0 G © 0 G © 0 G ©0G Please he suie that only three circles have been maiked in the above list, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 179 2 2 .Below is a general lis t of things that students sometimes do. Indicate which of’ these things you did during the oast veai In school. II you engaged In an activity fiequently, maik " F ." II you engaged In an activity one oi moie times, but ^ j? not frequently, maik " 0 " (occasionally). Maik " N " c .£ m (not at all) if you have not performed the activity J 1 £ S' duilng the past yeai. (Maik one (oi each Item ) ^ ^ f | Voted In a student e lection........................................... © @ ® Came late to class...........................................................© @ © Played a musical Instiument......................................... © @ © Studied in the lib ia iy.................... © 0 ® Checked out a book oi journal fiom the school l ib r a r y © ® ® Ananged a date foi another student..............................© @ ® Oveislept and missed a class oi appointment..............© @ ® Typed a homewoik assignment....................................... © ® © Paitlclpated In oiganlzed demonstrations....................© ® © Failed to complete a homewoik assignment on time . . © ® © Aigued with a teachei In c la s s ..................................... © © © Was a guest in a teacher's home ® © Rode on a m otoicycle..................................................... © © © Slept oi dozed In class................................................... © ® ® Studied with other students........................................... © @ © Did extia (unassigned) leading foi a co uise ................© @ © Took sleeping p ills .........................................................© © © Tutored anothei student................................................. © ® © Played chess...................................................................© © © Saw a foielgn movie.........................................................© @ © Took a tianquilizing p ill.................................................© ® © Discussed lellglon ..........................................................© ® © Took vitamins...................................................................© @ © Visited an ait galleiy oi museum................................... © ® © Took a tiip of mote than 500 m ile s............................... © ® © Got a tiaffic ticke t...........................................................© ® © Missed school because of Illness................................. © @ © Smoked cigarettes...........................................................© ® ® Discussed politics...........................................................© ® © Played tennis...................................................................© @ © Diank beet......................................... ...............................© ® © Played biidge...................................................................© ® © Discussed sp oits............................................................ © @ © Asked a teachei foi advice aftei class......................... © ® © Had vocational counseling............................................. © @ © Stayed up all night...........................................................© ® © 23. Indicate the importance to you per sonally o f the follow ing persons or events in your decision to enroll in th is c o lle ge. (Maik one foi each item ) Patent or other lelative ........................ High school teachei oi co u n se lo r,...., Fiiends attending this college.............. Giaduate oi othei repiesentative fiom this college............................................ Professional counseling oi college placement seivice.................................. Athletic piogiam of the c o lle g e ............ Othei extiacuuiculai a c tiv itie s ............ Social life of the college........................ Oppoitunity to live away fiom hom e.,,, Low c o s t................................................. Academic reputation of the college . , , , Most of the students aie like m e .......... Religious affiliation................................ V £ , o . . „ . a . . . , . . o . , . . o . ,„o. -O •O •O , o . . a . ,o.. . 0 . — .o— .a— .o. .0 — . . a , o „ o . o . . a o . . q , o . . a , o . . o . - o . . a o . . o . , o . . a , o 24. Indicate the importance to you personally of £ J? ^ each of the following:(M aik one foi each item ) _ S J S s s # I * ~ Becoming accomplished in one of the performing arts (acting, t2 £ £ ' dancing, etc.) .................................................................................© © © © Becoming an authoiity on a special subject in my subject field . © © © © Obtaining tecognitlon fiom my colleagues foi contributions In my special fie ld .....................................................................................© © © ® Becoming an accomplished musician (peiformei oi composer) . . . © © © © Becoming an expeit in finance and commeice................................© © © © Having adminlstiative lesponsibility foi the woik of otheis.........© © © © Being vciy well-off fin a n cia lly........................................................© © © © Helping otheis who aie in d iffic u lty ................................................© © © © Paiticipating in an organization like the Peace Coips oi V i s t a . . © © © ® Becoming an outstanding athlete..................................................... © © © © Becoming a community leadei .........................................................© © © © Making a theoretical contiibution to science..................................® © © © Wilting oiiginal woiks (poems, novels, shoit stoiics, e tc.I..........© © © © Nevei being obligated to people..................................................... © © © © Creating aitistic woik (painting, sculptuie. decoiating, etc.) . . . © @ © ® Keeping up to date with political a ffa iis ........................................© © © © Being successful in a business of my own ................................... © © © © Developing a meaningful philosophy of life ................................., . © © © © ( Agree strongly Agree somewhat ( Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly each i 2 2 College faculty are moie competent than aie students to specify the curriculum..............................................Q . . . O . . . The activities of mauled women aie best confined to the home and family................................................. Q .. .O ... Patents should be dlscouiaged fiom having latge families ..........................................................0---0-- Colleges would be impioveid if oiganlzed spoits weie de-emphasized...............................................................O .. . Q .. Scientists should publish their findings legaidless of the possible consequences...................................... Realistically, an individual peison can do little to biing about changes in out society...............................O .. . © . , .The chief benefit of a college education is that it incieases one's earning powei .......................... Q . . . Q . . My beliefs and attitudes aie similar to these of most othei college students.......................................O .. .O ■ - Faculty piomotions should be based in part on student evaluations..................................................... O . . . Q . . Student publications should be cleaied by college officials.............. O...Q.. W om en should be subject to the d ia ft...........................O .. . © . . The voting age should be lowejed to I B ......Q...Q.. College officials have the tight to ban peisons with extieme views fiom speaking on campus , . Q ,. , Q . . Students fiom disadvantaged social backgrounds should be given ptefeiential treatment in college admissions, O . . . , © . . Most college officials have been too lax in dealing with student piotests on campus , , , , , , .............. . . . . 0 . . . Q . . | I 2 5 2 a I * S ’ .2 * ? (5 a . 0 . . . . 0 . 0 . . . . 0 0—0 0-0 ,a ...o 0—0 .0 . - 0 . 0—0 .0-0 .0—0 .0—0 .Q...0 .o-o: Q . . . O P tep ored b y O ffic e o l I t u a i c h , A m *rie o n C ou ncil on E d uca tion 1785 M a ito c h u it ttt A v e , N .W W o ifc in g ts r, 0 C . P ia ti'tv r ri 8> N o« :cn o l C om pute* System * 1015 S outh 6 th S tie e l M p l» , M in n . 55415 r APPENDIX B ACE SURVEY OF ENTERING COLLEGE FRESHMEN, FALL 1967 RESULTS ACE Survey of Entering College { Freshmen,~ Fall 1967 | All of the subjects of the present study and 1,331 iof the 1,339 incoming COS freshmen completed the American Council on Education Survey of Entering College Freshmen, jFall 1967 (ACE Survey) during the months of September and ;October, 1967. Because many of the ACE Survey items were found i either to have no pertinence to the present study or to !duplicate information acquired elsewhere, some discrimi nation was exercised in the selection of information to be reported. In general, those sections of the questionnaire which provide insight into the subjects' family back- igrounds, educational achievements, and perceived problems are reported. Although early submission of the question naire data to the American Council on Education for pro cessing precluded a statistically refined analysis of dif ferences between achieving and nonachieving subjects, a comparison of the responses of subjects in different socio economic groups and sub-groups is possible. Tables 34 to 41 present data for subjects in the socioeconomic groups and sub-groups of the present study. In addition, the responses of all COS freshmen and two-year college national norms, based on questionnaire returns from 62 two-year colleges throughout the United States, are jshown. All data are reported in percentages. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 182 j i I Table 34 shows the ages of students as of Decern- | ! ber 31, 1967. A disproportionately high number of Mexican-1 ! i ] • ; jAmerican students of both sexes were over 18 years of age. I |Only 21.2 per cent of the men and 7.6 per cent of the women jin the middle-class group were over 18 years of age as com-! ipared with 44.2 and 34.6 per cent of the Mexican-American I men and women, respectively. Although the difference be- j tween middle and all other lower-lower class students was not as great, the disparity was still substantial. Age data comparisons between the study groups and 1 : both all COS freshmen and the two-year college norms were not as directly comparable as were those for the groups and sub-groups within the study. The study groups included only students who had come to COS directly from high schoolj iwhereas the total groups included some students who had come to college several years after completion of high school; i.e., following military service, full-time employ ment, etc. Nevertheless, the Mexican-American group still contained a larger proportion of both men and women in the age groups over 18 years than did either all COS freshmen or the two-year college national norms. Item 3 on the ACE Survey asked students to mark itheir average grades in secondary school. Responses to Item 3 are reported in Table 35. Proportionately more male j and female middle-class students reported average grades of j !"A" and "B" than did either the Mexican-American or other I i j TABLE 34 STUDENTS' AGES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1967 (PER CENT) SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS ALL TWO-YEAR COLLEGE C.O.S. NATIONAL MIDDLE LOWER ENTERING NORMS Mexican- All FRESHMEN AGE IN American Others Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Total YEARS N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N= 114 93 56 55 81 69 798 533 17,905 12,340 30.245 16 or younger o • o o • o 0.0 o • o 0.0 o • o o • o o • o o • o 0.1 O' • o 17 0.9 2.2 1.9 1.8 0.0 2.3 1.1 1.6 1.8 3.0 2.3 18 77.9 90.2 53.8 63.6 67.3 75.0 66.8 77.7 63.8 75.4 68.5 19 21.2 6.5 30.8 29.1 .22.4 20.5 22.2 12.1 22.3 14.0 18.9 20 0.0 1.1 5.8 5.5 io.2 2.3 3.7 1.8 4.1 2.1 3.3 21 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.5 1.5 0.7 1.2 Over 21 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 6.3 6.5 4.8 5.8 students from lower-class backgrounds. Whereas 62.9 and 79.3 per cent of the middle-class male and female subjects, j respectively, reported "A" and "B” grade point averages, j ! | I comparable percentages were 51.9 and 46.3 for the male and ! i : ! ' ! !female Mexican-American subjects and 44.8 and 63.6 per jcent, respectively, among all other male and female lower- ! i |class subjects. In addition, the percentage of "A" and "B"; grade averages reported by all COS entering freshmen, 51.4 j i ; ;for males and 66.2 for females, was exceeded by the middle-! :class group. ■ None of the lower-class males reported average grades of "A" or "A-" in high school. Conversely, a great er proportion of the lower-class students reported averagesj !of "C+", "C", and "D" than did either the middle-class I group or the total incoming freshman class at COS, with close to one-half of all except females in the all-other lower-class group indicating grade averages at these levels. From the data in Table 35, it may be concluded that both sub-groups of lower-class students experienced less academic success than did either the middle-class subjects or the entire entering freshman class at COS. However, the disparity between middle-class and lower-class subjects in ! i reported grade point averages did not appear to be as great: as were those in both the aptitude test scores and the jEnglish placement test results presented in Chapter III. j TABLE 35 AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRADES REPORTED BY STUDENTS (PER CENT) AVERAGE SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS ALL TWO-YEAR COLLEGE C.O.S. NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MIDDLE LOWER ENTERING NORMS Mexican- All FRESHMEN GRADE American Others Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Total A or A+ 0.9 2.2 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.5 1.8 1.0 A- 4.4 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 2.8 7.2 1.5 4.9 2.9 B+ 8.0 22.8 15.4 3.7 2.0 18.2 6.5 13.7 5.3 12.2 8.1 B 24.8 29.3 19.2 20.4 16.3 22.7 21.0 28.8 15.8 26.3 20.1 B- 24.8 13.0 17.3 18.5 26.5 15.9 20.3 15.1 16.2 18.0 17.0 C+ 23.0 14.1 23.1 20.4 24.5 22.7 24.3 17.5 27.2 19.7 24.1 C 14.2 6.5 23.1 33.3 30.6 13.6 23.6 15.9 31.4 16.3 25.2 D 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 2.2 0.7 1.6 185 186 The inconsistency may reflect the probability that a greater proportion of the middle-class students were en rolled in college preparatory programs in high school whereas proportionately more of the lower-class group were | enrolled in vocational and general curricula in which less j stringent grading practices prevailed. Also, the fact that ! the data in Table 35 are derived from the subjects' recol- ! lections of their high school grade point averages may I have contributed to the apparent disagreement between re- ;ported average high school grades and performances on tests | of academic aptitude and English proficiency. Table 36 shows the responses to Item 6 on the ACE |Survey, in which students were requested to report their ;accomplishments while in high school. The data suggest that the students in both lower-class sub-groups, particu larly the Mexican-American subjects, generally experienced fewer accomplishments in high school than did either the middle-class students or the overall student body at COS. The most striking difference would appear to be in the •realm of athletic endeavors where the proportion of middle- class males earning a varsity letter in sports, 57.0 per cent, exceeded that for Mexican-American males, 36.5 per cent, by more than 20 per cent and that for all other lower-class males, 42.9 per cent, by over 14 per cent. Item 22 presented a list of "Things that Students I Sometimes Do" and asked the respondents to indicate whether; TABLE 36 HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENTS REPORTED BY STUDENTS (PER CENT) SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ALL TWO-YEAR COLLEGE C.O.S. * NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MIDDLE LOWER ENTERING NORMS Mexican- All FRESHMEN ACHIEVEMENTS American Others Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Total Elected Pres. Student Organization 19.3 22.8 1.9 9.1 22.4 6.8 16.2 13.5 13.9 14.9 14.3 High Rating State Music Contest 11.4 8.7 5.8 3.6 6.1 4.5 8.5 8.2 6.3 8.7 7.3 State/Regional Speech Contest 6.1 4.3 0.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 2.7 3.6 3.0 4.0 3.4 Major Part in Play 10.5 9.8 0.0 1.8 4.1 9.1 8.8 9.8 12.8 14.0 13.3 Varsity Letter (Sports) 57.0 16.3 36.5 14.5 42.9 9.1 48.4 11.1 43.1 11.9 30.3 Award in Art Competition 7.9 7.6 9.6 7.3 10.2 6.8 7.6 7.5 5.1 5.6 5.3 Edited School Paper 5.3 15.2 0.0 1.8 8.2 2.3 3.4 8.9 4.6 9.9 6.8 Had Original Writing Published 7.0 17.4 1.9 5.5 10.2 6.8 8.0 10.7 7.5 13.0 9.8 . NSF Summer Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 State/Regional Science Contest 0.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 Scholastic Honor Society 11.4 25.0 7.7 7.3 8.2 13.6 9.0 15.9 6.2 16.0 10.2 National Merit Recognition 2.6 6.5 0.0 1.8 6.1 2.3 3.4 3.2 1.8 3.2 2.4 187 or not they had engaged in the activity. In Table 37, re- ; |sponses about the activities which were believed to have j j some pertinence to the present study are presented. As wasj the case with the data in Table 36, responses to these items were marked as much by the similarity of the students; . i I within the various socioeconomic classes as by the differ- I ences. For both males and females in the lower-class sub- j groups, the proportion of students of each sex who indi cated that they had overslept and missed classes exceeded those for middle-class male and female subjects. Affirma- , tive responses of all middle-class subjects to this item also were less than those of the corresponding males and females among the entire COS freshman class and the two- year college national norms. Differentiating both between subjects by socio economic background and between the sexes within each socioeconomic category was the "Argued with a Teacher in Class" item. The normally expected aggressive role of the males was demonstrated by the fact that male affirmative responses were almost double those of females in nearly all groups, with those of all-other lower-class males being three times those of females in the same socioeconomic class, 64.6 as compared with 20.5 per cent. Only the national norm group showed a comparison of considerably less than 2 to 1. Another disparity concerning Item 22 may be noted, j Compared with male and female responses in all other categories, the Mexican-American students indicated less ! ' ’ i jfrequently by a considerable degree that they had argued with a teacher in class, the figure for Mexican-American ! ; males being 39.2 per cent in contrast with 64.6 per cent for the other lower-class males and 60.2 per cent for the middle-class male subjects. Middle-class females indicat- j ;ing an affirmative response exceeded by at least 10 per !cent both lower-class sub-groups. The statement "Did Extra (Unassigned) Reading for a Class" appears to have evoked responses which more ef fectively differentiate between the sexes than between 1 socioeconomic groups. However, it also provides an inter esting contrast. Affirmative responses by middle-class male and female subjects correspond rather closely, pro portionately, with those of all COS freshmen and the two- year college national norms. Among the two lower-class sub-groups, with the single exception of the Mexican- American males, the proportions of affirmative answers exceed those of similar sex in the middle-class, all COS freshmen, and two-year college national norms. The rather substantial differences in responses be-; tween middle- and lower-class groups which appeared on the statement "Took a Trip of More than 500 Miles" suggest dif-i Iferences in the two groups1 geographical scope of experi- TABLE 37 THINGS STUDENTS REPORTED THEY HAD DONE (PER CENT) SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ALL TWO-YEAR COLLEGE C.O.S. NATIONAL MIDDLE LOWER ENTERING NORMS Mexican-. All FRESHMEN American Others Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Total Checked out a Library Book 39.5 68.1 37.3 63.6 33.3 63.6 37.4 55.5 42.0 57.6 48.3 Overslept & Missed a Class 19.3 8.8 33.3 21.8 31.3 15.9 26.0 14.9 26.9 16.9 22.8 Argued with a Teacher in Class 60.2 30.8 39.2 16.4 64.6 20.5 51.2 28.5 49.4 33.4 42.8 Was a Guest in a Teacher's Home 35.1 43.2 31.4 30.9 30.6 29.5 33.5 33.9 31.3 32.4 31.7 Slept or Dozed in Class 62.3 30.8 46.0 32.7 68.8 43.2 55.4 31.5 .53.3 33.8 45.4 Did Extra Reading for a Class 9.7 14.3 9.8 20.0 14.6 27.3 9.3 14.9 10.0 13.7 11.5 Tutored Another Student 28.9 29.7 32.0 37.0 33.3 34.1 28.2 27.5 32.3 36.7 34.1 Visited Art Gallery or Museum 68.4 70.0 56.0 76.4 59.2 72.7 63.2 68.2 60.6 70.5 64.6 Took a Trip of More Than 500 Miles 70.2 67.0 62.0 55.6 56.3 50.0 68.1 60.9 65.3 62.5 64.2 Discussed Politics 19.3 22.2 8.0 12.7 14.6 9.3 16.5 11.7 19.0 13.6 16.8 Asked Teacher for Advice 18.6 24.2 30.0 25.5 14.6 31.8 17.4 22.2 20.9 22.2 21.5 190 ence. Whereas 70.2 per cent of the males and 67.0 per cent of the females answered affirmatively, corresponding percentages of 62.0 and 55.6 for the Mexican-American and j I 56.3 and 50.0 for all other lower-class subjects, male and | female respectively, were obtained. The percentages of | middle-class students with affirmative responses also ex ceeded slightly those of all COS freshmen and the two-year ;college national norms. Perhaps most noteworthy is the observation that between approximately one-third and one- half of all groups, including the middle-class students, indicated that they had never taken a trip of more than ;500 miles distance. All students on whom data are reported would appear to be somewhat apolitical, judging from responses to the item "Discussed Politics". Again, the middle-class sub jects exceeded all other groups of both sexes in their positive responses of 19.3 and 22.2 per cent for men and women respectively. Mexican-American men, with 8.0 per cent, and all other lower-class women, with 9.3 per cent, provided the lowest percentages of positive responses. Lower-class subjects generally indicated less concern with politics than did subjects in the middle-class, all COS freshmen, and two-year college national norms. Item 11 asked that respondents indicate the highest level of formal education their parents had attained. Table 38 contains the results of the responses to the item. ■ " ' ' .. ".".'...~ ' ‘ 192 j i Data for the subjects of the present study conformed to j expectations in light of the socioeconomic bases employed for classification. | . Mexican-American subjects' parents were reported to ! * ;have the least amount of formal education with the men in- i dicating that 71.4 per cent of their fathers and 75.5 per i cent of their mothers had completed no more than a grammar school education or less while the women stated that 82.7 per cent of their fathers and 77.4 per cent of their moth ers had completed a grammar school education or less. When the next category, "Some High School", is added to the figures, the data indicate that 91.8 per cent of both the Mexican-American men's fathers and mothers had not com pleted a high school education. Among the women, 96.2 per cent of fathers and 94.4 per cent of Ixhe mothers were re ported to have less than a high school education. Only 8.2 per cent of the men and 1.9 per cent of the women in dicated that their fathers were high school graduates while 6.1 and 5.7 per cent, respectively, reported that their mothers had completed a high school education. Among the men, none reported that their fathers had ever attended college and only 2.0 per cent indicated that their mothers had done so. Comparable figures for the women were 1.9 per cent for fathers and none for mothers. Men and women of the other lower-class sub-groups ;reported low levels of education for their parents also, J TABLE 38 REPORTED PARENTS' EDUCATIONAL LEVELS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ALL TWO-YEAR COLLEGE C.O.S. NATIONAL MIDDLE LOWER ENTERING NORMS Mexican- All FRESHMEN FATHER'S American Others EDUCATION: Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Total i Grammar School I _ A A . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . . _ « . _ _ _ - ------ - . _ or Less 8.0 4.3 71.4 82.7 46.8 44.2 24.9 28.6 15.3 14.3 14.9 Some High School High School 10.7 9.8 20.4 13.5 29.8 30.2 21.3 17.9 24.1 22.0 23.3 Graduate 33.0 27.2 8.2 1.9 19.1 20.9 24.9 24.8 33.0 31.1 32.2 Some College 24.1 23.9 0.0 1.9 4.3 4.7 16.3 15.7 14.8 17.4 15.8 College Degree 17.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.6 9.4 11.2 10.1 Postgraduate Degree MOTHER'S EDUCATION: Grammar School ! 7.1 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 4.4 3.3 4.1 3.7 of Less 3.5 5.4 75.5 77.4 27.1 29.5 19.2 20.2 9.4 9.6 9.5 Some High School High School 16.8 3.3 16.3 17.0 43.8 34.1 21.1 18.6 20; 9 19.9 20.5 Graduate 39.8 32.6 6.1 5.7 12.5 22.7 34.5 28.2 46.3 41.7 44.4 Some College 21.2 31.5 2.0 0.0 16.7 11.4 16.8 21.3 13.8 18.2 15.6 College Degree 13.3 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 6.8 8.9 8.2 9.2 8.6 Postgraduate Degrees 5.3 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 193 though not as low as those for Mexican-American subjects. Combining the first two responses, "Grammar School or i Less" and "Some High School", 76.6 per cent of the men's fathers and 70.9 per cent of their mothers had completed less than a high school education. Among the women, 74.4 per cent of their fathers and 60.6 per cent of their moth- ; ers had less than a high school education. Middle-class subjects, as expected, reported sub stantially higher levels of educational attainment for their parents than those of the other sub-groups, all COS freshmen, and the two-year college national norms. Com bining the categories "College Degree" and "Post-Graduate Degree", 24.1 per cent of the men and 34.8 per cent of the women reported this level of education for their fathers. For the mothers, the comparable percentages were 18.6 and 27.1 for the men and women, respectively. At the other extreme, combining the categories "Grammar School or Less" and "Some High School", only 18.7 per cent of the men and 14.1 per cent of the women reported less than a high school education for their fathers while 20.3 per cent of the men and 8.7 per cent of the women reported less than a high |school education for their mothers. Further evidence on the socioeconomic backgrounds iof the subjects was provided by responses to Item 12 on the ACE Survey. Students were requested to provide the "Best |Estimate of the Total Income Last Year of Your Parental TABLE 39 ESTIMATED PARENTAL (PER CENT) INCOME INCOME LEVEL SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MIDDLE LOWER Mexican- American Men Women Men Women Men Women ALL c.o.s. ENTERING FRESHMEN Men Women TWO-YEAR COLLEGE NATIONAL NORMS Men Women Total Less than $4,000 0.0 0.0 36.5 47.3 28.6 29.5 10.3 12.8 5.8 6.0 5.9 4,000 - 5,999 8.9 5.6 21.2 27.3 26.5 25.0 11.6 12.7 11.8 11.2 11.6 6,000 - 7,999 4.4 5.6 13.5 3.6 10.2 9.1 14.2 10.1 17.9 13.4 16.1 8,000 - 9,999 15.0 16.9 11.5 0.0 18.3 18.1 15.2 12.7 16.1 12.6 14.7 10,000 - 14,999 28.3 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 14.5 22.1 16.3 19.8 15,000 - 19,999 8.8 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 3.3 6.4 4.9 5.8 20,000 - 24,999 6.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 25,000 - 29,999 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 30,000' or more 7.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.6 Have no idea 19.5 28.1 17.3 21.8 16.3 18.2 19.4 29.9 14.9 31.2 21.5 195 Family (Not Your Own Family if You Are Married)". Income from all sources before taxes was sought. Discounting the probability of ignorance about parent's income among many of the College of the Sequoias freshmen, as suggested by the 16 to 30 per cent in Table 39 who had no idea of their parent's income, the data tend to corroborate further the original socioeconomic classifications. Among the middle- j class subjects, 51.2 per cent of the men and 43.8 per cent I of the women reported annual parental income of $10,000 and above. None of the lower-class subjects reported pa rental incomes of over $10,000. In contrast, among Mexican-American subjects, 57.7 per cent of the men and 74.6 per cent of the women indi cated family incomes of less than $6,000. Comparable fig ures for the other lower-class students were 55.1 per cent and 65.0 per cent for the men and women respectively. Only 8.9 per cent and 5.6 per cent of the middle-class men and women, respectively, showed parental incomes below $6,000. In Table 40, information provided by incoming freshmen about their fathers' occupations is summarized. Over 60 per cent of the Mexican-American men and women re ported that their fathers were semi-skilled workers, un skilled workers, or unemployed. Although the proportions reported for the other lower-class sub-groups for the same items were lower, being 30.3 per cent and 19.5 per cent for men and women respectively, an additional 16.3 per cent of \ TABLE 40 FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS REPORTED BY STUDENTS j (PER CENT) | SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ALL TWO-YEAR COLLEGE C.O.S. NATIONAL OCCUPATION MIDDLE LOWER ENTERING NORMS Mexican- All FRESHMEN American Others Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Total Artist (Including Performer) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 Businessman 49.6 37.8 2.2 3.8 2.3 2.4 23.0 22.3 23.2 24.2 23.6 Clergyman 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 College Teacher 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 ' 0.2 Doctor (M.D. or D.D.S.) 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 Educator(Secondary) 3.5 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.6 1.2 1.6 1.3 Elem. Teacher 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Engineer 4.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 4.9 3.0 1.7 6.2 6.4 6.3 Farmer or Forester 12.4 13.3 11.1 17.3 14.0 24.4 19.2 18.4 9.3 7.7 8.6 Health Professional (NOfl-M.D.) 0.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 Lawyer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 Military Career 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 Research Scientist 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 Skilled Worker 5.3 5.5 6.7 3.8 16.3 24.4 12.0 10.4 17.6 14.6 16.4 Semi-skilled Worker 0.0 0.0 26.6 19.2 7.0 9.8 6.2 6.7 11.7 9.5 10.8 Unskilled Worker 0.0 0.0 35.6 40.4 16.3 7.3 6.3 8.4 5.4 5.0 5.2 Unemployed 0.0 0.0 4.4 3.8 7.0 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.2 Other 15.9 22.2 13.3 9.6 27.9 24.4 20.7 22.9 18.9 23.7 20.9 ! 197 198 ithe-men and 24.4 per cent of the women marked the skilled worker item. The fact that approximately 25 per cent of j the men and women indicated "Other" raises the possibility | i ' ! |of a higher proportion being in the skilled, semi-skilled, I J and unskilled worker categories. For the middle-class subjects, the greatest pro portion of men and women, 49.6 and 37.8 per cent respec tively, reported that their fathers were businessmen. i | ;These figures compare with responses of less than 4 per cent for both sexes in the lower-class sub-groups. Because! ;no means for determining the size of farms which their i fathers own was available, the subjects' responses for "Farmer or Forester" yielded little additional information ; about the father's econmmic status. Related to the data presented in Tables 39 and 40 are the answers ££ students to Item 8. To the question "Do You Have Any Concern About Your Ability to Finance Your College Education?" the following responses could be made: None (I am confident that I will have sufficient funds.) Some Concern (But I will probably have enough funds) Major Concern (Not sure I will be able to complete college) Table 41 summarizes the students' replies to the questions about financing their educations. Among middle- 0 — \- i TABLE 41 STUDENTS' CONCERN ABOUT FINANCING THEIR EDUCATIONS (PER CENT) DEGREE OF CONCERN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MIDDLE Men Women LOWER Mexican- All American Others Men Women Men Women ALL C.O.S. ENTERING FRESHMEN TWO-YEAR COLLEGE NATIONAL NORMS Men Women Men Women Total NONE 30.7 39.1 19.2 12.7 22.9 20.5 27.5 33.6 35.0 36.9 35.7 SOME CONCERN 64.0 58.7 57.7 56.4 39.6 54.5 59.5 55.2 56.5 54.3 55.6 MAJOR CONCERN 5.3 2.2 23.1 30.9 37.5 25.0 13.0 11.3 8.6 8.8 8.7 199 class students, the lack of serious concern about financing! I their college educations is evidenced by the relatively lowj i percentage, 5.3 for men and 2.2 for women, who checked | "Major Concern" and the 30.7 per cent and 39.1 per cent of ; i ; ! men and women who expressed no concern about having insuf- | ficient funds. In contrast, 23.1 per cent and 30.9 per cent of the Mexican-American men and women, respectively, ‘considered the financing of their educations to be a major iconcern. For the other lower-class subjects, 37.5 per cent of the men and 25.0 per cent of ther women also con- !sidered the financing of their educations to be a major concern. With the exception of Mexican-American women, only 12.7 per cent of whom indicated no concern about iability to finance their education, about one in five of jthe subjects of the lower socioeconomic backgrounds ex pressed no concern about financing a college education. In attempting to evaluate the data on students' concern about the financing of their college educations, direct comparisons between subjects from different socio economic classes are difficult because very often the stu dents were describing different educational goals. As suggested by the data of Table 41, financial concern by the Mexican-American students, about 70 per cent of whom were *•>* pursuing terminal majors, was for the relatively brief and less costly objective of an educational program of two |years or less. For the middle-class student, the financial! ' 201 outlay under consideration in 80 per cent of the cases was that required for a minimum of four years of college, at least two years of which must be completed with the added expenses of living away from home and, possibly, the pay ment of tuition. Most, or at least one-half, of the lower- class students were indicating their concern about finan cing an education which they could receive while living at home and paying no tuition. Under the circumstances, the expression of "some concern" or "major concern" about educational financing may have very different connotations for the middle-class as opposed to the lower-class subjects. APPENDIX C INVENTORY OF SELF APPRAISAL r “ ' " ' - — - .....^ 203- INVENTORY OP SELF APPRAISAL Like Not Me Like Me 1. Art's teacher almost seems like a father or mother to him-------------r ART IS 1. 2. Bob thinks his teacher is one of the best friends he ever had------- ---------- BOB IS 2. 3. Carl wants to be like someone he already knows, when he grows up------------CARL IS 3. 4. Don usually goes around with the smarter kids---------------------------------DON IS 4. 5. Ed likes most of the others in his class ED IS 5. 6. Fred doesn't like a lot of the kids------------------------------- FRED IS 6. 7. Greg feels the other kids don't like him very well-------------- -----— GREG IS 7. 8. Harry likes most of the kids at school but feels they don't like him HARRY IS 8. 9. Ike has a few very close friends IKE IS 9. 10. Joe likes to play with all the kids-------------------------------- JOE IS 10. 11. Ken feels like he's different than most kids--------------------------- KEN IS 11. 12. Larry doesn't get along very well with others-----------------------LARRY IS 12. 13. Mike is usually chosen quickly by others MIKE IS 13. 14. Other kids come to Nat for help NAT IS 14. i 15. Ollie doesn't need to show off— OLLIE IS 15. 16. Pete thinks others are too busy— PETE IS 16. ' r"~ " .".....".. ' .~~~ “..1 . ' 204 Like Not Me Like Me i |17. Quincy feels others are interested in his hobbies — QUINCY IS 17. |18. Ron feels he can't talk to anyone | about his problems-----------------RON IS 18. j ;19. Sam is often chosed to be leader— SAM IS 19. i20. Tommy finds it easy to make friends TOMMY IS 20. 21. Ustes finds it fun to reach the goals | parents or teachers have set-USTES__IS 21. i 22. Vic's parents and teacher are happy. with the work he does------------- VIC IS 22. 123. Wes doesn't have anyone to tell him how well he has done WES IS 23. ! ;24. No matter how hard Axel tries, they are never satisfied AXEL IS 24. 25. Bill always tries to be a good friend j to others-----------------------— BILL IS 25. :26. Cal often finds it doesn't pay to be honest with his friends----------- CAL IS 26. 27. Dave has trouble with kids who copy his work DAVE IS 27. 28. Ernie usually spends part of Sunday in Sunday school or church ERNIE IS 28. 29. Frank feels adults expect so much that he often has to tell fibs-------FRANK IS 29. |30. When George is in a hurry, he some times copies his friends' school work GEORGE IS 30. 31. Henry likes to help others who have less than he does HENRY IS 31. s i32. Izzy usually treats others the way j he wants them to treat him IZZY IS 32. ' • . .....~. 205 Like Not Me Like Me 33. Jack is really kind of bored with school JACK IS 33. 34. Kermit feels that the things he is supposed to learn in school will have no real importance in life KERMIT IS 34. 35. Lyle finds his school work a snap (easy to do) LYLE IS 35. |36. Martin is dissatisfied with school because they just do the same old things over and over-----------MARTIN IS 36. |37. Neil could probably do better but already gets pretty good grades without working too hard— •------NEIL IS 37. 38. Orville feels that you hardly ever get to do anything new, fun, or exciting at school------------ ORVILLE IS 38. :39. Paul thinks school would be more fun and challenging if there was a little more healthy competition ---------------------------------- PAUL IS 39. 40. Quentin often tries to get the best grade in class-----------QUENTIN IS 40. 41. Rex usually tries to do better than he did on his last paper---------- REX IS 41. 42. Steve feels he is doing pretty good in school---------------- ; --STEVE IS 42. 43. Teddy usually gets good grades— TEDDY IS 43. 44. Ulysses has always done well in school ULYSSES IS 44. 45. Vito seldom gets good grades VITO IS 45. |46. Willard sometimes gets poor grades------------ ; ------------WILLARD IS 46. 47. Xerses had good teachers and did well when he first began school -XERSES IS 47. 48. Yuel thought first grade was very hard— YUEL IS 48. 49. Zeph likes school because he does well------------------------- ZEPH IS 49. 50. Al is usually near the top of his class------------------------ AL IS 50. 51. Art can't seem to do anything right-------------------------------ART IS 51. 52. Bob feels his teacher doesn't really understand him--------------BOB IS 52. 53. Carl feels teachers don't explain things well---------------CARL IS 53. 54. Don is afraid of p&licemen---------DON IS 54. 55. Ed finds it hard to talk to teachers----------------------• ----- ED IS 55. 56. Fred thinks his teacher is always right---------------------- FRED IS 56. 57. Greg greatly admires teachers-------------------------- GREG IS 57. 58. Harry likes others to tell him what to do because it's hard to make up his mind sometimes------ HARRY IS 58. 59. Ike usually makes up his own mind about things------------------IKE IS 59. 60. Joe is usually told what to do-----JOE IS 60. 61. Ken feels grown-ups take ad vantage of him--------------------- KEN IS 61. 62. Larry wishes grown-ups were more fair— — LARRY IS 62. 207 Like Not Me Like Me 63. Mike can talk things over with his parents------------ -----MIKE IS 63. 64. Nat thinks he has too many chores -NAT IS 64. 65. Ollie feels like you can never please grown-ups OLLIE IS 65. 66. Pete's parents take him to many interesting places---------------- PETE IS 66. 67. Quincy thinks his parents are too strict with him QUINCY IS 67. 68. Ron gets punished too much— RON IS 68. 69. Sam has it coming when he gets punished---------------------- SAM IS 69. 70. Tommy feels people expect too much of him TOMMY IS 70. 71. Ustes wishes his parents would treat him more like a grown-up— USTES IS 71. 72. Vic wishes his parents would take more interest in the things he does--------------------- VIC IS 72. 73. Wes wishes his father would pay more attention to him----------WES IS 73. 74. Axel feels his parents love him very much--------------------- AXEL IS 74. 75. Bill thinks it's important to dp well in school so you can get a good job and make lots of money----------------------------- BILL IS 75. ;76• Ron would like to go to college----RON IS 76. i 77. Sam doesn't know what he wants to be---------------------- --SAM IS 77. 208 I i Like Not | Me Like i Me 78. Tommy's father would like him to do well in school so he can get farther ahead in life than he did TOMMY IS 78. 79. Ben feels important----------------BEN IS 79. 80. Cap is good looking----------------CAP IS 80. 81. Del wishes things could be different--------------------------DEL IS 81. 82. Emmett is glad he is himself-------------------------EMMETT IS 82. 83. Fitz wishes he had more friends— FITZ IS 83. 84. Gerald wishes he was somebody else---------------------- GERALD IS 84. 85. Hal feels most people like him HAL IS 85. 86. Ivan can usually come up with the right answer IVAN IS 86. 87. Jack wishes he could make friends more easily------ — ------------- JACK IS 87. 88. Len will stick to his idea if he thinks he's right----------------- LEN IS 88. 89. Marty worries about himself MARTY IS 89. 90. Neil feels lonesome---------------NEIL IS 90. 91. Olney doesn't mind being alone OLNEY IS 91. 92. Paul is afraid he won't be good enough-----------------------PAUL IS 92. 93. Roland worries when he doesn't need to-------------------------ROLAND IS 93. 94. Steve thinks he is a nice person---------------------------STEVE IS 94. 95. 96. I 97- 1 98. : "• i 100. ; 101. j 102. ;io3. ;io4. 105. 106. 107. I 108. 109. 209 ! i I Like Not i Me Like j Me j Tab understands things easily TAB IS 95. Art likes to study alone--------- ART IS 96. Bob feels at ease in a group------ BOB IS 97. Carl likes most of the things they do in school----------------CARL IS 98. Dean thinks school is a lot Of fun--------------------------- DEAN IS 99. i Ed likes to explore new things and ideas----: ----------------------ED IS 100. Bob would like to be like his favorite teacher------------------BOB IS 101. If Art doesn't understand class direction, he asks the teacher after class----------------------- ART IS 102. Carl feels that his teachers do not like him----------- -------- CARL IS 103. Don often talks about his after high school plans with his parents--------------------------- DON IS 104. Ed's parents talk to him about the importance of a college education ED IS 105. Fred's parents like to know how he is doing in school--------FRED IS 106. Greg does not feel at ease when talking to adults-----------GREG IS 107. Harry knows an adult who talks to him about the importance of school-------------------------- HARRY IS 108. Joe does not like to go places with adults----------------------- JOE IS 109. 110. i I ; 111. j ! 112. | | 113. | ! 114. i : 115. | 116. j 117. ; 118. : 119. 120. 121. j 122. 123. 124. 210 Like Not Me Like Me Ken has had a teacher who knew how to do something better than anyone else KEN IS 110. Larry feels his parents did well in school LARRY IS 111. Mike's father wears a tie to work----------------------------- MIKE IS 112. One of Nick's parents went to college NICK IS 113. Pete admires a relative who went to college----------------------- PETE IS 114. Ron's friends do very well in school------------------------- — RON IS 115. Rick's friends do not like school----------------------------RICK IS 116. Sam's friends talk about their plans to go to college-----------SAM IS 117. Tom has close friends in the upper grades who do well in school----------------------------TOMTS 118. Steve has many friends who have larger homes than he does----- STEVE IS 119. Van has many friends whose parents have gone to college---- VAN IS 120. Vic has not been a leader in "Y", Scouts or Clubs--------------VIC IS 121. Wes is seldom chosen as a class officer---------; WES IS 122. Bill's friends think he is a leader--------------------------- BILL IS 123. Cal feels his parents like his friends--------------------------- CAL IS 124. 125. 1 ! i | 126. 1 127. ! j 128. j 129. j 130. | 131. j 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 1 138. 211 Like Not Me Like Me j Dave's parents are very nice to his friends when they visit him . DAVE IS 125. Ernie feels every class is important in some way-----------ERNIE IS 126. Prank wakes up early on school days--------------------- PRANK IS 127. George does not like to come back to school after vacations — GEORGE IS 128. i • i Henry does not talk to his friends and relatives about what he has learned : HENRY IS 129. Jack gives up when the assignment is very difficult JACK IS 130. Lee often checks his work to make sure it is right-------------LEE IS 131. Martin continues to. work on problems even when he is discouraged--------------------MARTIN IS 132. Neil does not set aside a certain amount of time for study each day-------------------NEIL IS 133. Paul studies in the same place every day------------------PAUL IS 134. Ted regularly reviews what he learns in school---------------TED IS 135. Tim always hands in his homework on time-------------------------- TIM IS 136. Joh always follows the teacher's directions very carefully-------- JON IS 137. Pete does not expect to do well in school in the future--------- PETE IS 138. 139. j j 140. j | | 141. ! i i i 142. I i ! 143. ; 144. j 145. 1146. 147. ; 148. 149. 212 Like Not Me Like Me Nat feels he can get good grades even if the work is more difficult----------------- NAT IS 139. When he finishes school, Cliff would like to get "dressed up" to go to work------------------- CLIFF IS 140. Norm feels it is not important to go to college to get the kind of job he wants------------------NORM IS 141. Jack does not know what he wants to do when he gets out of school JACK IS 142. When Moe finishes school, he wants others to work for him-------------MOE IS 143. Tab would rather spend his spare time working instead of studying-TAB IS 144. Ivan would rather spend his money on little things than save it— -IVAN IS 145. Fritz goes to the show before he finishes his homework-----------FRITZ IS 146. Marty has continued a hobby for a year or more MARTY IS 147. Leon has taken music lessons at some time------------------------ LEON IS 148. Ben has had many different hobbies--------------------------- BEN IS 149. 150. Les does not have many out of school interests LES IS 150. APPENDIX D ISA CATEGORIES AND SUB-AREAS WITH RELATED RESEARCH FINDINGS AREAS OP ATTITUDE INVESTIGATION 1. AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIPS (46 items) Relationships i With Teachers I 1 Relationships jWith Parents | Relationships ;With Other j Adults i f IAbilities of i Teachers ! Abilities of I Parents Abilities of Other Adults Adult Approval of Performance '214 RELATED RESEARCH ISA ITEM RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS NUMBERS Appell ( 2) Achievers tend 1,2,56, to seek positive 57,101, relationships 102,103 with teachers. Gowan (70) Achievers, tend to have parents who stress the importance of education. 68,66,72, 73,74,104 105,106 Combs (30) Achievers tend to relate well with adults. 3,61,62, 107,108, 109 MacCurdy (113) Achievers tend to emulate suc cessful teachers. 110 Drews and Teshan (48) Achievers'parents 111,112, tend to be edu- 113 cationally and vocationally suc cessful. MacCurdy (113) Achievers may identify with other adults' specialized abilities. 114 Bishton Achievers' efforts 21,22 (8) tend to be met with approval by parents and adults. Adult Approval of Sutcliffie Achievers' parents 124,125 Friends (165) tend to approve of their friends. 215 AREAS OF ATTITUDE RELATED INVESTIGATION RESEARCH RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS ISA ITEM NUMBERS Reasonable Ex pectations Freedom from Dependency Freedom from Excessive Conflicts Freedom from Feelings of Rejection Syed (166) Armstrong (3) Teshan (167) Barwick (6) Achievers' par- 23,24 ents expect achievement commensurate with ability. Achievers tend to 53,58,59, be self-sufficient 60,71 and independent. Achievers tend to experience fewer conflicts. 52,54,55 Achievers tend to 64,65,67, feel closer to 68,69,70 adults and to be able to communicate with them. II. PEER RELATIONSHIPS (26 items) Abilities of Peers Attitudes of Peers Peer Acceptance Peer Relationships ;Age Preference ;of Peers Combs (30) Kurtz and Swenson (102) Barrett (5) Combs (30) Bishton (8) Lessinger and Martinson (106) Achievers tend to 4,115 select friends who achieve academically. Achievers tend to 116,117 select friends who have positive atti tudes toward school, studying, and home. Achievers tend to accept and be accepted by peers. 5-10 Achievers tend 11-18 to have close and valued peer rela tionships . Achievers may tend to associate with older students. 118 216 AREAS OP ATTITUDE RELATED INVESTIGATION RESEARCH RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS ISA ITEM NUMBERS Socioeconomic Level of Peers Cassell (24) Social Acceptance Leadership Roles Barrett (5) Gowan (70) III. MORAL AND SOCIAL VALUES (8 items) Acceptance of ' Raths Societal Value (143) System IV. SCHOOL RELATED EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS (44 items) Freedom from Boredom Importance of School Satisfying Experiences Challenging Experiences L Gowan (70) Nason (132)) Carter (23) Dressel and Grabow (47) Achievers tend to 119.120 be from upper socio economic levels and to select friends from upper levels. Achievers tend to 20 feel socially at ease with peers and adults. Achievers tend to 19,121, assume and are 122,123 chosen for leader ship roles. Achievers tend to 25-32 possess socially acceptable values. Achievers tend to 33 feel stimulated and involved in school work. Achievers tend to 34,35 perceive school as preparing them for the future. Achievers tend to 36 feel that school is personally re warding. Achievers feel 37,38 motivated by ehal- lenging experiences. 217 AREAS OP ATTITUDE INVESTIGATION RELATED RESEARCH RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS ISA ITEM NUMBERS Competition ■ Rosen (147) Achievers tend 39,40,41 to enjoy "proving themselves" against competition. - Learning for ' Learning's Sake i | Terrell and Durkin (168) Achievers tend to find learning intrinsically rewarding. 126,127, 128,129 iPersistence 1 MacCurdy (113) Achievers tend to be tenacious in complying with assignments. 130,131, 132 Study Habits Gough (69) Achievers tend to have well- organized study plans. 133,134, 135 : Academic |Success Bishton (8) Achievers tend to feel compe tent in school work. 42,43,45, 46,49,50, 51 iSuccess through ;Conformance Wilson and Morrow (185) Achievers tend to succeed by con forming to assign ments . 136,137 Previous Academic Success Holland and Nichols (85) Achievers tend 44,47,48 to have experienced past success. Future Academic Success Byers (18) Achievers tend to set realistic goals and have positive expecta tions for future ^success. 138,139 Future Income iAspirations Wilson and Morrow (185) Achievers tend 75 to anticipate higher socioeconomic status. 218 AREAS OP ATTITUDE INVESTIGATION Ability to Work Long and Hard I Educational |Aspirations i Career !Aspirations !Internalized jGoals Impulse 'Control |V. SELF-CONCEPT (19 items) iSelf-Confidence Freedom from Feelings of Inferiority ;Freedom from |Excessive Fears and Anxieties RELATED RESEARCH ISA ITEM RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS NUMBERS Barrett Achievers tend 77 (5) to persist in their long-range goals. Frankei Achievers tend 76 (61) to plan for college. Bishton Achievers tend 140,141, (8) to have more 142,143 Todd definite career (172) plans. Kahl Achievers feel 78 (91) they must meet parental expectations. Davids Achievers demon- 144,145 and strate a pattern 146 Sidman of deferred gra- (36) tification. Peppert Achievers per- and ceive themselves Archer as possessing (141) competent skills and abilities. . 79,80,88, 94 ,95,97 Combs (30) Achievers tend to feel they are acceptable to others. 81-87,96 Shaw (150) Achievers tend to experience fewer fears and anxieties. 89-93 219 AREAS OF ATTITUDE RELATED INVESTIGATION RESEARCH RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS ISA ITEM NUMBERS VI, INTEREST PATTERNS (7 items) Spontaneous Interests Leisure Time Activities Sutcliffe (165) Tracey (173) Achievers tend 98,99,100 to be motivated by spontaneous interests. Achievers tend 147,148, to have varied 149,150 hobbies. APPENDIX E TAT PICTURES 221 SSI • ‘• ■ m m + I i'-T' ■Y r w. V . & ? i 228

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Non-Intellective Characteristics Of Selected Students Of Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

A Study Of Undergraduate Education In Selected Seventh-Day Adventist Colleges

PDF

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Student Personnel Services Of Small Junior Colleges In California

PDF

The Impact Of Selected Colleges On Students' Values

PDF

Art Education Programs Of The California State Colleges For Elementary Teachers

PDF

Probation And Dismissal Policies In California Community Colleges

PDF

Biology In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The Church Related College In California

PDF

The Pre-Calculus Mathematics Curriculum In California Community Colleges

PDF

The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

PDF

Community Service Programs Of California Community Colleges: An Analysis Of Recent Developments

PDF

Conflicts In Role Expectations For Academic Deans In Church-Related Colleges

PDF

The Image Of Higher Education In American Novels, 1920-1966

PDF

Differences Among Junior College Transfer Students, Four-Year College Transfer Students, And Native Students In Academic Performance And Attitudes In Home Economics At A Selected California State...

PDF

A Historical Analysis Of Vocational Education: Land-Grant Colleges To California Junior Colleges, 1862-1940

PDF

The Remedial Mathematics Curriculum In Selected California Community Colleges

PDF

The Organization And Administration Of Special Counseling Programs For Adult Women In Colleges And Universities

PDF

The Fullerton College Student Tutorial Assistance Program: An Evaluation

PDF

Geology In The Junior College

PDF

Achievement In Junior College As Related To Eligibility Level On Entrance

Asset Metadata

Creator Hall, Lincoln Herbert (author)

Core Title Selective Variables In The Achievement Or Nonachievement Of Junior College Students From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Higher Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), Phillips, E. Bryant (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-628863

Unique identifier UC11361228

Identifier 6817026.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-628863 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6817026.pdf

Dmrecord 628863

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hall, Lincoln Herbert

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA