Self Perception 9780313075520, 9781567505887

Citation preview

SELF PERCEPTION

Recent Titles in International Perspectives on Individual Differences Richard J. Riding and Stephen G. Rayner, Series Editors Volume 1: Cognitive Styles Richard J. Riding and Stephen G. Rayner, editors

SELF PERCEPTION Edited by Richard J. Riding and Stephen G. Rayner

International Perspectives on Individual Differences, Volume 2

Ablex Publishing Westport, Connecticut London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Self perception / edited by Richard J. Riding and Stephen G. Rayner. p. cm. — (International perspectives on individual differences ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-56750-588-0 (alk. paper) — ISBN 1-56750-589-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Self-esteem in adolescence. 2. Self-esteem in adolescence—Cross-cultural studies. I. Riding, R. J. II. Rayner, Stephen. III. Series. BF724.3.S36 S38 2001 155.5’182–dc21 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2001 by Richard J. Riding and Stephen G. Rayner All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 00-069968 ISBN: 1-56750-588-0 1-56750-589-9 (pbk.) ISSN: 1525-1926 First published in 2001 Ablex Publishing, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.ablexbooks.com Printed in the United States of America

∞ The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

00-069968

CONTENTS

PART I. SELF-PERCEPTION ISSUES 1

On the Importance of Importance Ratings in Understanding Adolescents’ Self-Esteem: Beyond Statistical Parsimony

3

Susan Harter and Nancy R. Whitesell

2

Aspects of the Self as Learner: Perception, Concept, and Esteem

25

Stephen G. Rayner

3

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

53

W. Ray Crozier

4

Self-Perception in Context: Toward a Model of Individual Differences in School Performance

77

Richard J. Riding

5

Self-Perception of Team-Roles: Some Implications for Business and Management

101

Eugene Sadler-Smith

6

Transition across Educational Phases and the Impact upon Pupil Academic Self-Concept Andrew H. Margerison

133

vi

Contents

PART II. STUDIES OF SELF-PERCEPTION 7 Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions: One Factor, Two Factors, or Does It Depend on the Construct? 149 Herbert W. Marsh, Andrew J. Martin, and Raymond Debus

8 Self-Esteem and Self-Perceptions in the Classroom: Valuing Circle Time?

171

Stephen G. Rayner and Usha Devi

9 Causal Links between Academic Intrinsic Motivation, Self-Esteem, and Unconditional Acceptance by Teachers in High School Students

209

E. Makri-Botsari

10 Achievement and Self-Concept in Mathematics and Verbal Arts: A Study of Relations

221

Einar M. Skaalvik and Harald Valås

11 Self-Beliefs and School Success: Self-Efficacy, Self-Concept, and School Achievement

239

Frank Pajares and Dale H. Schunk

12 The Effect of Home Background, Gender, Cognitive Style, and Self-Perception on School Performance 267 Richard J. Riding and Jamal Al-Hajji

Author Index Subject Index Contributors

283 287 291

Part I

Self-Perception Issues

1 ON THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPORTANCE RATINGS IN UNDERSTANDING ADOLESCENTS’ SELF-ESTEEM: BEYOND STATISTICAL PARSIMONY Susan Harter and Nancy R. Whitesell

Historical scholars of the self, notably James (1890) and Cooley (1902), not only posited that an individual constructs an overall judgment about his/her worth as a person but speculates on the origins of this global evaluation of the self, namely, self-esteem or self-worth. James’s formulation will be the focus of this article. For James, self-esteem could not simply be reduced to the aggregate of perceived successes. Rather, it derived from the ratio of successes to one’s pretensions. Thus, if perceived successes are equal to one’s pretensions or aspirations for success—that is, if the individual evaluates the self positively in domains where he/she aspires to excel—high self-esteem will result. Conversely, if pretensions exceed successes— that is, if an individual feels unsuccessful in domains deemed important—he/she will experience low self-esteem. Thus, those who fall short of their ideals, creating a discrepancy between perceived successes and their pretensions, will evaluate their worth as a person negatively. It is critical to appreciate that from a Jamesian perspective, inadequacy in domains deemed unimportant to the self should not adversely affect self-esteem. (James’s admitted deficiency in the Greek language did not erode his self-esteem because he had no pretensions to be proficient at Greek.) In more contemporary life, an adolescent may judge the self to be unathletic; however, if athletic prowess is not an aspiration, then self-esteem will not be adversely affected. As one of our high self-esteem participants exclaimed: “I’m not that good at sports but big deal,

4

Self-Perception Issues

who wants to be on the soccer team, I couldn’t care less.” Thus, the high selfesteem individual is able to discount the importance of domains in which he or she is not competent, whereas the low self-esteem individual appears unable to devalue success in domains of perceived inadequacy. Such discounting represents one of several self-enhancement strategies that have been identified in the social psychological literature (see Banaji & Prentice, 1994; Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989; Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Pelham, 1995; Pelhman & Swann, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988). James’s formulation has more recent counterparts in the work of those who have addressed issues of the centrality and salience of the postulates in one’s selftheory. For Kelly (1955), the self-system was hierarchically organized into core constructs, namely, those through which a person maintains his/her identity, and more peripheral constructs that can be altered without seriously modifying one’s self-theory. Others (e.g., French & Kahn, 1962) have built upon the notion of psychological centrality, arguing that people differ with regard to the domains that are important to their self-esteem. Employing a similar framework, Rosenberg (1979) provided some initial documentation that the importance of a domain will determine the degree to which success and failure affect overall self-evaluation. Focusing on the centrality of one characteristic, likability, he found that among those adolescents who cared about being likable, the relationship of perceived likability and global self-esteem was much stronger than for those to whom this quality mattered little. With adults, Tesser and his colleagues have demonstrated that if a dimension is highly relevant to one’s self-definition, performance judged to be inferior will threaten one’s sense of self-esteem (Tesser, 1980; Tesser & Campbell, 1983). Pelham (1995) has also provided evidence that for adults, if an individual aspires to success in given life arenas and achieves one’s dreams, high self-esteem will be one outcome. These formulations have much in common with theories that emphasize how discrepancies between real and ideal self-images can impact the larger self-system, dating from the writings of Rogers and Dymond (1954). This literature reveals that failure to achieve one’s ideals will not only result in negative self-evaluations (see Harter, 1999, for a review) but will also lead to negative emotions such as anxiety and depression (e.g., Higgins, 1991). In our own work, we have remained more faithful to those formulations that emphasize importance in the form of the salience or centrality of domains in which evaluations of success or failure will lead to more global perceptions of one’s worth as a person. One concern with realideal self-image discrepancies (see Rosenberg, 1979) is that it is often unclear whether one’s ideal is a fantasied ideal (e.g., an academic dreams of winning a Nobel prize) or is a more realistic committed ideal that reflects one’s day-to-day aspirations (e.g., I would like to obtain tenure). Thus, having individuals rate the importance of success across different domains not only seemed to better mirror James’s concept of pretensions or aspirations but also avoids the potential confound between a committed and a fantasied ideal.

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

5

More specifically, we ask individuals explicitly to rate how important ageimportant domains are to their sense of worth as a person. For example, a representative item in the domain of scholastic performance reads: Some kids think it is important to do well at their schoolwork in order to feel good about themselves as a person but other kids don’t think that how well they do at schoolwork is important to how they feel about themselves as a person. Participants first select which type of kids they are more like. They then rate that statement as either “really true” for them or just “sort of true.” Those indicating that it is really true that scholastic success is important receive a score of 4, a 3 is assigned to the judgment of sort of true, whereas those indicating that it is not important at the level of sort of true receive a 2, and if it is really true that scholastic success is unimportant, a score of 1 is assigned. Thus, our importance items explicitly focus on how aspirations affect satisfaction with the self, overall. (They do not specify some absolute level of success in that the interpretation of “doing well at schoolwork” may vary from individual to individual.) In addition to indicating this type of importance rating, individuals evaluate their adequacy or competence across the same age-relevant domains, employing a similar question format. Individuals also evaluate their overall worth as a person, namely, their self-esteem, through items that directly ask them how much they like themselves as a person, how satisfied they are with themselves, overall, and so forth. (These items are similar in nature to those developed on Rosenberg’s [1979] self-esteem scale.) All items are scored on four-point scales where a 4 represents the most positive evaluation or the greatest importance and a l represents the most negative evaluation or the least importance. Our empirical efforts have been directed toward illuminating the determinants of global self-worth or self-esteem across the life span. However, in this article, we focus on the period of adolescence. The construction of a self-theory, including the evaluative concept of one’s worth as a person, is particularly interesting during this developmental phase. The creation of a self-portrait is clearly influenced by the emergence of newfound cognitive abilities. Both Piagetian (Piaget, 1960) and neo-Piagetian (e.g., Fischer, 1980) formulations alert us to the development of abstract reasoning skills that can be applied to concepts of self. The ability to think about one’s thinking allows the adolescent to develop concepts about the internal workings of the self-system, for example, to create an understanding of how the relationship between the importance of success and perceived adequacy impacts the overall evaluation of one’s worth as a person. Relatedly, the ability to reason within a hypothetico-deductive framework allows for the conscious construction of metatheories about the causes of global self-esteem (see Harter, 1990b; Harter & Jackson, 1993; Harter & Marold, 1993). That is, adolescents begin to become more aware of these processes. Newfound introspective abilities and heightened self-consciousness also lead to a preoccupation with the self and its formation as young adolescents attempt to make meaning of their experiences.

6

Self-Perception Issues

Against a backdrop of such internal processes, external factors such as the transition to middle school, junior high school, or high school also make adolescence an interesting developmental period. Importance hierarchies may well change given the values emphasized in the new school culture. In addition, perceptions of competence are subject to change given the increased salience of social comparison, the presence of new social reference groups (given that there is typically more than one feeder school for a given middle school, junior high school, or high school) and greater expectations of teachers and parents. Heightened awareness of these potential changes, leading to reevaluations of both importance and one’s adequacy or competence across domains has implications, in turn, for one’s level of self-esteem or self-worth. We began our investigation into the utility of a Jamesian approach at an idiographic level, examining the profiles of importance ratings and of competence/adequacy judgments for individuals differing in overall level of self-worth. By way of illustration, Figure 1.1 presents two individuals, one with high selfesteem (Child A) and one with low self-esteem (Child B), where the term selfworth is synonymous with self-esteem (see Harter, 1999). These adolescents were selected for illustrative purposes because although they differ markedly in their level of self-esteem, the scores that define their profile across the individual selfconcept domains are quite similar. In our earlier work (Harter, 1990a), we questioned how these two adolescents can look so similar in their domain-specific selfevaluations yet report such disparate levels of global self-worth or esteem. James’s formulation provides a partial explanation, leading us to construct importance ratings that allow us to examine this formulation directly. It can be seen, in Figure 1.1, that Child A, with high self-esteem, judges scholastic and athletic competence to be relatively unimportant. Thus, such an individual can discount the importance of areas in which he/she is not competent, while touting the importance of domains in which he/she is doing well. Conversely, Child B is unable to discount the importance of scholastic and athletic competence, leading to a large discrepancy between very high importance judgments and very low competence evaluations in these two domains. From a Jamesian perspective, this discrepancy, therefore, should take its toll on global self-worth or self-esteem. We have documented this pattern systematically, with group data from adolescents (Harter, 1990a). We have employed two data-analytic strategies, each of which tells the same story. We first constructed actual discrepancy scores between importance ratings and competence judgments in each domain. Averaging across domains, we have determined that the larger the discrepancy—that is, the more one’s importance ratings exceed one’s perceived adequacy or competence—the lower one’s self-worth. Across numerous studies, these correlations typically range from .55 to .72. However, given the potential problems with discrepancy scores, including concerns with their reliability as well as meaning, when one type of judgment (e.g., importance) is subtracted from another type of evaluation (e.g., competence/adequacy) we have more recently turned to other techniques. Thus,

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

7

Figure 1.1. Profiles of two adolescents with similar competence/adequacy scores for specific domains but very different levels of global self-esteem.

we are currently examining self-esteem as a function of the average absolute competence/adequacy ratings for only those domains rated as important. Recall that for James, incompetence in domains deemed unimportant should not affect selfesteem. Rather, perceptions of competence in areas in which one has aspirations are the critical determinants of self-esteem. From this perspective, the level of per-

8

Self-Perception Issues

Figure 1.2. Self-esteem as a function of level of competence/adequacy in important domains.

ceived competence/adequacy in domains of importance should be part of the predictive equation because those with strengths in these areas are more likely to have high self-esteem than are those with weaknesses. This procedure is preferable (in comparison to the creation of discrepancy scores) because it preserves the actual levels of perceived competence/adequacy that contribute to global evaluations of worth. Discrepancies, on the other hand, do not take level of competence/adequacy into account. By way of example, we have determined that an adolescent with average competence or adequacy judgments of 3.5, where average importance ratings are 2.5, will have higher self-worth than an adolescent with competence/adequacy judgments of 3.0, where importance ratings are 2.0 (even though the discrepancies are comparable, namely, both are 1). Figure 1.2 illustrates the relationship between competence in domains of importance and global self-worth for a group of young adolescents in middle school (sixth, seventh, and eighth graders). Subgroups were initially selected based upon their perceived competence/adequacy scores in only those domains each rated as important. As can be seen in the figure, there is a systematic linear relationship between perceived competence/adequacy in domains deemed important and global self-worth. This relationship has further been documented by correlational analyses in which we find that the correlation between competence or adequacy in important domains and global self-worth is typically in the range of .60 to .70. The pattern is the same for high school adolescents. Others, notably Marsh and his colleagues (Marsh, 1986, 1993; Marsh & Hattie, 1996), have challenged the value of a Jamesian approach, questioning the contri-

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

9

bution of importance ratings in predicting global self-worth or self-esteem. Marsh (1986) acknowledges that the Jamesian formulation has obvious intuitive appeal. However, he questions the utility of this formulation based on his own data revealing that merely correlating competence/adequacy scores with self-esteem (ignoring importance) yields values that are not significantly different from values based on procedures in which importance is taken into account. Similar findings have been reported by Clever, Bear, and Juvonen (1992) who find that importance ratings add nothing to the statistical prediction of self-esteem, over and above merely correlating competence/adequacy ratings with self-esteem. Marsh and colleagues (Marsh, 1986; Marsh & Hattie, 1996) further argue that the most appropriate test of the contribution of individually weighted importance scores is an examination of self-concept × importance interactions within a multiple regression model. Employing such techniques, their findings reveal that the variance explained by the interaction terms is negligible and nonsignificant. Based upon such findings, these investigators conclude that it is more parsimonious to ignore importance ratings altogether and to predict global self-esteem based upon unweighted competence or adequacy scores, alone. We do not contest these statistical claims. In our own data, we find the same patterns: Competence/adequacy scores alone will generally predict global selfworth or esteem at approximately the same level as competence/adequacy scores in domains of importance, and the interaction of competence/adequacy and importance within a multiple regression model does not contribute significantly to the prediction of global evaluations of worth. However, we do question whether these are the most appropriate statistical tests to examine the role of importance ratings and the value of a Jamesian approach. We have found that several other procedures, to be described in this article, more meaningfully demonstrate the utility of considering importance ratings in understanding the causes of an individual’s level of self-worth. Moreover, although statistical parsimony may well be achieved by considering only unweighted competence/adequacy ratings, we contend that the processes underlying the construction of a global sense of worth are not psychologically parsimonious (see also Pelham, 1995; Pelham & Swann, 1989), particularly beginning in early adolescence. In other words, there is ample evidence that individuals differentially value some domains more highly than others, and that performance in these domains is critical to the evaluation of one’s identity and one’s global sense of self (e.g., Harter & Monsour, 1992; Kelly, 1955; Markus & Wurf, 1987). In addition, adolescents readily formulate aspirations, creating ideal selves to which they aspire, and they consciously evaluate the extent to which they meet or fall short of these goals (see Glick & Zigler, 1985; Harter, 1999; Higgins, 1991; Leahy & Shirk, 1985; Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993; Rogers & Dymond, 1954). This literature not only speaks to developmental differences in the construction of discrepancies between the real and the ideal self, but identifies the correlates and consequences of such discrepancies. Thus, a concern with whether one is meeting

10

Self-Perception Issues

personal aspirations in domains of importance would appear to be a phenomenological reality that profoundly affects one’s sense of self. To ignore these processes is, we feel, a mistake, because an appreciation for how they operate is critical to our understanding of the self-system, with implications for intervention, a topic to which we shall return. Adolescence is a particularly interesting period in which to examine these processes given the budding awareness of the bases on which individuals are making global evaluations of self, in part through an evaluation of their perceived adequacy in relation to the importance of success. Moreover, this awareness can potentially lead adolescents to become allies in insightoriented interventions designed to improve negative evaluations of self-esteem. ALTERNATIVE STATISTICAL PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGIES We suggest that there are more appropriate statistical procedures and methodologies that will meaningfully demonstrate the importance of importance ratings in understanding the process of self-esteem formation. Comparing the correlations of competence/adequacy judgments in domains of importance and global selfesteem or self-worth with the correlations of competence/adequacy judgments alone and global evaluations of self (demonstrating that the values are not that different) would not appear to be a sensitive test of the contribution of importance. Why might these two correlations be comparable in value—that is, why isn’t the correlation higher when importance ratings are taken into account? The answer lies in the fact that because the vast majority (75 percent to 80 percent in our data) of older children and adolescents rate the domains included in multidimensional self-concept measures as important, the two sets of correlations are based upon virtually the same group of participants. Only a small subset of individuals (20 percent to 25 percent) will be lost in the correlations that take importance into account. This pattern, of course, stems from the fact that constructors of such self-concept measures—for example, Marsh, as well as our own group—purposely included age-appropriate domains that we knew or suspected would be important to the majority of individuals. As Marsh (1986) observes, we could have constructed instruments that included numerous domains judged unimportant, which perhaps would provide a stronger test of James’s contentions. However, he cogently concludes that “an instrument composed of many diverse, generally unimportant facets would probably make a poor self-concept instrument” (p. 1235). There are, however, subsets of individuals who do judge certain domains as unimportant. We contend, therefore, that a more appropriate statistical test of the value of the Jamesian hypothesis lies in a comparison of the correlation between global self-esteem and competence/adequacy in domains judged important with the correlation between self-esteem and competence or adequacy in domains rated as unimportant. In our own data with adolescents, the correlations involving domains rated as important are higher (r’s from .60 to .70) than are the correlations involving domains rated as unimportant (r’s in the range of .30). These differences (all p’s < .001, across samples) are quite convincing, suggesting that the impor-

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

11

tance construct does contribute to our understanding of the level of one’s selfesteem. Marsh (1986) presents comparable data from a slightly different perspective. He reports that for the two domains most likely to be judged unimportant by many of his participants, namely, physical ability and spirituality, the findings provided support for the Jamesian position emphasizing the contribution of importance ratings. We also question whether an examination of the interaction term (competence × importance) in multiple regression approaches to predicting global evaluations of self represents an appropriate test of James’s position. In certain procedures, a constant weighting of importance is employed, wherein the average importance of a given domain for a given group of participants is calculated. However, these procedures fail to appreciate the idiographic nature of these processes, in that certain individuals can evaluate the importance of domains quite differently than would a group average. From this perspective, a more appropriate procedure would be to individually weight the importance attached to success (see Marsh & Hattie, 1996, for a detailed discussion of these approaches). However, given that the domains most scale constructors have collected are relatively important to most individuals, even an individually weighted approach may fail to yield a significant interaction; the small number of individuals endorsing a given domain as unimportant limits the statistical power needed to document a significant interaction. Moreover, if importance ratings do not explicitly specify that one is to judge importance to one’s self-esteem, mere ratings of importance may well not contribute to perceptions of overall worth. That is, there could be other reasons success might be important (e.g., it will allow you to move to the next academic rung; it will improve your social standing or acceptance; it will augment your cash flow, etc.). The Discounting Process An even more direct test of the role of importance, including the discounting processes, involves a comparison of the importance attached to domains in which individuals feel incompetent or inadequate, among high and low self-worth groups. According to James, one does not have to be a superstar in the Olympics of Life in order to have high self-esteem. High self-esteem individuals may and do have domains in which they feel inadequate, however they should be able to discount the importance of these domains. In contrast, low self-esteem individuals appear to be unable to discount areas of inadequacy. Thus, they should assign greater importance, compared to high self-esteem individuals, to domains in which they evaluate themselves negatively. To evaluate this hypothesis, derived from James, we examined the importance ratings for only those arenas in which both low and high self-esteem adolescents reported that they felt incompetent or inadequate. (Levels of inadequacy were comparable across the self-esteem groups.) Furthermore, to examine the generality of the discounting principle, we included three groups: normally achieving, learning disabled, and behaviorally disordered adolescents (Harter, Whitesell, &

12

Self-Perception Issues

Figure 1.3. Mean importance ratings of domains of incompetence/inadequacy for high and low self-esteem adolescents within three different educational groups.

Junkin, 1999). We first identified high and low self-esteem individuals within each group. We then selected only those domains in which individuals with high and low self-esteem indicated that they felt incompetent or inadequate and examined the importance ratings attached to just those domains. Our findings directly supported the Jamesian hypothesis. As can be seen in Figure 1.3, high self-esteem adolescents were better able to discount the importance of domains in which they felt they had weaknesses. That is, their importance scores were significantly (p’s < .0001) lower than the importance scores of the low self-esteem adolescents. Moreover, this pattern was observed across all three types of students, attesting to the generality of these processes among samples of primarily Caucasian, middle class adolescents. Thus, these findings provide further confirmation for James’s contention that the inability to discount the importance of areas in which one reports personal limitations is a characteristic of low self-worth individuals, including adolescents with learning disabilities and conduct problems. In contrast, those with high self-esteem are able to more adaptively minimize the importance of areas in which they perceive that they have weaknesses. Of further interest is whether perceived inadequacy in some domains is easier to discount than in others. In the Harter, Whitesell, and Junkin (1999) sample, there were not enough participants to examine this issue at the domain-specific level. However, in a much larger normative sample of middle class, primarily Caucasian, adolescents, we were able to identify sufficient numbers of high and low self-esteem participants who felt that they had deficiencies in each of the five primary domains: scholastic competence, athletic competence, social acceptance, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct.

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

13

Figure 1.4. Mean importance ratings associated with incompetence/inadequacy in each doman for high and low self-esteem normally achieving adolescents.

Thus, within each of these domains, we examined the perceived importance of success as reported by those high and low self-esteem adolescents who indicated that they felt inadequate or incompetent in a given domain. Figure 1.4 presents these findings. The pattern reveals that across the five domains, low self-esteem adolescents reported higher important ratings than did the high self-esteem adolescents. This pattern reveals that low self-esteem adolescents are less able to discount the importance of domains in which they feel they have limitations, as would be predicted from James’s formulation. Figure 1.4 also reveals that certain domains are easier to discount than others, for both self-worth groups. Athletic competence is the easiest to discount, followed by social acceptance. In these domains, the difference between the importance ratings of the low and high self-esteem groups is greater than in the other three domains, where the importance ratings are considerably (and significantly) higher for both groups. Thus, although the pattern is the same, in that low self-esteem adolescents consistently report higher importance ratings in areas of weakness, both self-esteem groups have greater difficulty discounting the domains of behavioral conduct, scholastic competence, and physical appearance (compared to athletic competence and social acceptance). Parents and educators place considerable emphasis on behaving appropriately and on achieving scholastically, values that many adolescents come to adopt. Moreover, peers and the broader culture tout the importance of meeting societal standards of attractiveness, as portrayed in media (e.g., magazines, movies, television). In fact, our past research has revealed that perceived physical appearance is the domain that, at every age level, correlates most highly with global self-esteem (Harter, 1999). Thus, adolescents who

14

Self-Perception Issues

feel that they are not successfully meeting the unrealistic standards of attractiveness continue to view physical appearance as important, including even high selfesteem individuals who find it difficult to discount this domain. Adolescents’ Awareness of the Discounting Process From the pattern presented above, we concluded that adolescents in the high and low self-esteem groups differed in their ability to discount the importance of areas in which they do not feel that they are very competent. However, we were curious about whether adolescents were consciously aware of how importance and the discounting process contribute to overall feelings of worth. Our cognitivedevelopmental perspective led us to the expectation that they would understand these mechanisms. That is, the ability to reason more abstractly and completely about the causes of self-esteem, as well as the preoccupation with self-processes that emerges in adolescence, should equip individuals at this age with skills to appreciate how the relationship between competence or adequacy and the importance attached to success should impact the evaluation of one’s worth as a person. We sought to address this question in a different sample of high, medium, and low self-esteem middle school students. For these young adolescents we had competence/adequacy judgments and importance ratings for the domains of scholastic competence, athletic competence, likability, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct, as well as their overall self-worth scores. In order to examine their awareness of these processes, vignettes were constructed for each of the five domains. Each participant was presented with one vignette, the content of which paralleled the domain in which he/she had previously reported feeling the least adequate, in order to make the vignettes credible and more personally meaningful. In each vignette, the story child (same gender as the participant) initially feels that being skillful at activities in this domain is very important; however, the child later comes to learn that he/she lacks competence or is inadequate at these activities. For example, the vignette in the scholastic domain read: “Shannon wanted to be a good student, that was very IMPORTANT to her. So she tried hard to do well at her schoolwork. But she kept getting grades that were not very good, and she didn’t do well on tests and assignments. It didn’t seem like there was any way that she could improve her grades. If you were Shannon, how important do you think schoolwork and grades would be now?” To take a second example, the vignette in the physical appearance domain read: “Randy thought it was very IMPORTANT to be good looking, even though he didn’t want to admit it sometimes. So he did what he could to be as good looking as possible. But he began to realize that no matter what he did, he really wasn’t that good looking, and there wasn’t much else he could do about it. If you were Randy, how important do you think being good looking would be now?” After reading the vignette, participants were asked to indicate which of two decisions the story character makes regarding the importance of the domain: (a) that the domain is not that important after all (which would indicate that the child

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

15

Figure 1.5. Percent of adolescents in three self-esteem groups giving each response concerning the story character’s decision about the importance of his/her least competent domain.

could discount the importance of a domain in which he/she had limitations), or (b) that the domain is still very important even though he/she isn’t very good at it (demonstrating that the child is unable to discount a domain of weakness but rather continues to maintain its importance). We then examined the percentage of adolescents in the three self-esteem groups—high, moderate, and low—who were able to discount, versus maintain, the importance of success in the domain that represented their weakest area in real life. The findings clearly indicated that there is a direct relationship between the percentage of those who discounted and participants’ level of self-esteem, as can be seen in Figure 1.5. We found that 80 percent of the high self-esteem group indicated that the story character would decide that the domain was no longer important. Among those with moderate levels of self-esteem, 45 percent supported the discounting decision whereas the remaining 55 percent indicated that the story character would continue to feel that the activity was important. Among the low self-esteem group only 30 percent felt that the story character would discount the importance of the domain, whereas the majority of these participants (70 percent) reported that the story child would continue to feel that the activity was important, despite the fact that his or her inadequacies had been demonstrated. Moreover, the actual importance ratings that participants gave for their own least competent domain was consistent with this pattern. The high self-esteem group reported that their least competent domain was of moderately low importance (M = 2.6 on the four-point scale), the moderate self-esteem group reported that their least competent domain was somewhat more important (M = 3.3), and

16

Self-Perception Issues

the low self-esteem group reported that their least competent domain was even more important (M = 3.6), compared to the other two groups. This is precisely the pattern that would be expected according to the Jamesian position, namely that high self-esteem individuals are better able to discount their weaknesses than are those with lower levels of self-esteem. Summary Taken together, the pattern of findings across the different studies and data sets provides strong support for James’s contentions regarding the contribution of judgments of importance to an understanding of global evaluations of worth as a person. It was demonstrated that perceived competence or adequacy in domains of importance is more highly correlated with global self-esteem than is competence/adequacy in domains judged unimportant, a prediction that follows directly from James’s formulation. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that within three different groups—normally achieving, learning-disabled, and conduct-disordered adolescents—high self-esteem individuals were better able to discount the importance of domains in which they felt they had weaknesses, compared to low self-worth individuals whose importance ratings were significantly higher. A separate study with normally achieving adolescents revealed that although the pattern was the same across all domains, differences between self-esteem groups were greatest for the areas of athletic competence and social acceptance, which were easier for both groups to discount compared to the domains of behavioral conduct, scholastic competence, and physical appearance. Finally, in another study—in which we examined adolescents’ conscious endorsement of the discounting process through the use of responses to vignettes—we found that high self-esteem individuals were much more likely to indicate that story characters would lower their ratings of the importance of a domain in which they came to learn that they had weaknesses that they could not overcome. In contrast, low self-esteem individuals reported that story characters would continue to maintain the importance of domains in which they were revealed to have inadequacies. Participants’ own importance ratings of domains in which they felt inadequate mirrored this pattern. IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTIONS TO ENHANCE SELF-ESTEEM Considerable attention by mental health workers and educators has been devoted to interventions designed to enhance the self-esteem of those children and adolescents who report negative global evaluations of their worth as a person (see Harter, 1999). Many different intervention strategies have been offered. We feel that the findings of the research we have presented suggest one type of approach to be considered, particularly for the subsample of adolescents with discrepancies between their importance ratings and their judgments of competence or adequacy. From a clinical or applied perspective, we feel that a comparison of the profiles of competence/adequacy evaluations and importance ratings across age-appropriate

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

17

Figure 1.6. Profile of competence/adequacy evaluations and importance judgments for one adolescent to illustrate the implications for enhancing self-esteem.

domains may be valuable in planning intervention strategies to bolster or maintain adolescents’ self-esteem or self-worth. Such an approach can be contrasted to an approach, based on arguments of parsimony, in which only competence/adequacy evaluations are considered, ignoring judgments of importance. By way of illustration, elsewhere (Harter, 1999) we have considered the domain-specific profile of a male adolescent with low self-worth who had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), resulting in a history of poor academic performance and conduct problems (see Figure 1.6). This youth had highly educated parents who placed a premium on scholastic achievement, a value that they tried to instill in their children. The domains depicted in the figure are those that are tapped on our Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (Harter, 1988). This adolescent reports relatively negative competence/adequacy evaluations (below the midpoint of 2.5) in four domains, namely, Cognitive Competence, Athletic Competence, Behavioral Conduct, and Romantic Appeal). Scores for the remaining four domains are quite a bit higher (3.0 or above), namely, in the areas of Appearance, Job Competence, Likability, and Close Friendship. If one were to consider competence/adequacy judgments only, ignoring the potential contribution of importance, then a likely intervention strategy would logically be targeted at improving competence/adequacy in this individual’s four lowest domains. (Those domains in which he is scoring at 3 or better would not be targets for treatment.) The emphasis, in dealing with domains in which he displays inadequacies, would be consistent with those skill-oriented programs designed to enhance abilities and performance in discrete domains (see reviews by Harter,

18

Self-Perception Issues

1999; Hattie, 1992). If these skills improved, corresponding increases in levels of perceived competence or adequacy would be expected to translate into gains in global self-esteem or self-worth, given that competence or adequacy evaluations are considered to be the primary predictors of overall evaluations of worth. From this more parsimonious perspective, importance judgments would not be considered relevant, because they do not add to the prediction of global self-esteem. In contrast, a focus on the relationship between competence/adequacy evaluations and importance ratings in the understanding of self-esteem formation would dictate a different strategy with this adolescent. As a general principle, one would want to build upon James’s contentions that the reduction of discrepancies, by either enhancing competence or adequacy evaluations or by lowering importance judgments, represent two pathways to increasing an individual’s level of self-esteem. Thus, in the cognitive domain, where he demonstrates the largest discrepancy given a high level of importance and low level of perceived scholastic competence, both approaches may be useful. This is an adolescent whose attention deficit problems contribute to his lack of academic success. Interventions sensitive to the learning problems that his symptomatology provokes may improve his actual skill level, which, in turn, should enhance his evaluations of his scholastic competence. However, given that his high aspirations in this domain are unlikely to be achieved, due to his learning problems, a Jamesian approach would also include reduction in the importance attached to academic success, a value that he has adopted from his parents. Work with the family may be beneficial in encouraging parents to appreciate the fact that realistically he does have limitations and therefore one may want to focus on strengths in other areas, as well as discount the extreme importance of scholastic success. Each of these strategies, in tandem, should conspire to reduce the discrepancy between the importance of academic success and his perceived level of success, which in turn should enhance his level of self-esteem. With regard to the domain of athletic competence, an approach focusing primarily on level of perceived success (ignoring importance) may target this domain as a logical arena in which to intervene given his negative perceptions. However, from a Jamesian perspective, intervention in this domain would not have a high priority. It is true that this adolescent does not feel athletically competent, but he is able to discount the importance of this domain, in part because he attends a middle school that does not have an active sports program. Because there is no discrepancy, and the discounting of athletic prowess is likely to be adaptive, this domain would not be a focus for intervention. (As described earlier, our own findings reveal that athletic competence is a domain that is more readily discounted, relative to the others, consistent with Marsh’s data.) In the conduct domain, where both competence/adequacy and importance ratings are also low, a different strategy would be suggested, despite the similarity of these scores to those in the athletic domain. The reality is that parents, educators,

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

19

mental health workers, and society as a whole, value appropriate conduct as a highly desirable characteristic. However, this adolescent does not share these values, in part because he became associated with a deviant peer group who has supported his antiestablishment conduct. He has had brushes with the law because of some minor delinquent activity, however the gang with whom he is associated views these as “cool.” An intervention with this adolescent, taking the importance of conduct into account, would begin with a somewhat counterintuitive approach. We suggest that with such youth, interventions may first be directed toward creating a discrepancy by raising the value or importance attached to more conventional social conduct. To the extent that this is successful, in that this adolescent comes to alter his perceptions of the importance of behaving more appropriately, such a discrepancy should initially affect self-esteem negatively. However, the intent of an intervention would be to then reduce this discrepancy by helping him to alter his actual conduct, bringing it in line with these new values. In practice, it may be desirable to work on both of these goals simultaneously, if possible, in order to prevent even more negative global evaluations of worth that could emerge as a result of creating such a discrepancy. Logically, however, an adolescent with this profile would not be motivated to change his behavior unless the value placed upon more conventional conduct was first instilled. Differences in intervention approaches between those focusing primarily on perceived level of adequacy versus those also taking the level of importance into account would emerge for the domain of physical appearance, as well. Because the absolute level of perceived attractiveness is not that low (3 on a 4-point scale), those ignoring the importance of domains would probably opt not to intervene in this domain given his rather favorable evaluation. However, from a Jamesian perspective, one would focus on the relatively large discrepancy between the importance he attaches to appearance and his lower self-evaluation of his attractiveness, as this discrepancy probably contributes to his low self-worth. Reducing the discrepancy by attempting to lower the importance attached to appearance would seem to be the more plausible strategy of choice. For example, one could point out that the standards of appearance that most adolescents adopt are unrealistic, observing that many teen idols have had cosmetic surgery, that certain magazine models are actually computer composites of features rather than real people, and so forth. Convincing adolescents that qualities other than one’s outer self should be critical to one’s sense of worth as a person (e.g., being a loyal friend, being responsible, being kind to others, working hard, conducting oneself appropriately) should serve to shift the focus, although this is admittedly a difficult task given the power of media messages. Such an approach may also serve to reduce the large discrepancy in the domain of romance appeal, as well. It is important to reiterate that, for James, discrepancies in which importance ratings exceed competence/adequacy judgments are the primary targets for intervention, because discrepancies in that direction erode self-esteem. However, dis-

20

Self-Perception Issues

crepancies in the opposite direction, where competence/adequate judgments exceed importance ratings, as is the case for the domain of job competence for this adolescent, would not be a focus because this type of discrepancy does not negatively (or positively) affect global evaluations of self. (For many adolescents, in menial jobs that demand little skill, job performance may be important to their cash-flow needs but not that critical to their sense of worth as a person.) Finally, for the remaining two domains, Likability and Close Friendship, the Jamesian perspective would dictate that no intervention was necessary given negligible discrepancies and relatively favorable evaluations. Those ignoring importance ratings would also not be inclined to intervene given the positive adequacy ratings in these three domains. Thus, neither of these two approaches would dictate interventions in these areas. The purpose of this illustrative example is to point out that the relationship between self-evaluations and the importance of corresponding domains can provide critical insights into precisely where and how one should intervene to enhance the self-esteem of adolescents lacking a sense of personal worth. However, it should also be noted that there is no intervention research documenting the efficacy of such a strategy compared to one in which ratings of importance are ignored. Rather, claims for the utility of a Jamesian approach are inferred from the findings discussed previously, where the pattern suggests that processes involving a consideration of importance are vital to an understanding of global self-worth. However, there is clearly a need for intervention researchers to directly examine the effectiveness of strategies based upon both approaches. Finally, it should be noted that this discussion applies to only one potential source of low self-esteem, namely, perceived competence or adequacy in domains deemed important. There are other contributing factors that have been identified in our own work and that of many others that need to be considered as part of a comprehensive approach to more adaptive self-evaluations (see Harter, 1999). CONCLUSION Clearly, for many, the Jamesian contention that global evaluations of worth derive from a consideration of perceived successes in relation to the importance of success in corresponding domains has considerable appeal. We have challenged the statistical procedures employed by those who claim that there is no empirical evidence for this position. We acknowledge that merely employing competence/ adequacy evaluations will statistically predict global self-esteem just as well as will procedures that take importance into account. However, the former procedures implicitly consider importance because the vast majority of adolescents view the domains that we, and others, have selected as important. These domains were purposely selected as the most appropriate for multidimensional self-concept instruments precisely because they are important to most adolescents. However, certain adolescents do discount the importance of these domains providing for a more direct test in which one can compare the correlations, with global self-es-

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

21

teem, of competence/adequacy evaluations in domains deemed important with those evaluations in domains rated as unimportant. Findings consistently show that the former correlations are significantly higher than the latter, as would be predicted by James’s formulation. The role of importance judgments was also demonstrated by findings revealing that adolescents with high self-esteem were better able to discount the importance of domains in which they felt they had limitations than were low self-esteem adolescents, who continued to tout the importance of domains in which they identified themselves as inadequate. This same pattern emerged in an independent study in which young adolescents responded to vignettes in which story characters demonstrated limitations in domains that they viewed as important. Based upon this pattern of findings, we explored the implications of the Jamesian conceptualization for interventions to improve global evaluations of perceived worth as a person, within educational or clinical settings. We concur with others that if one is simply interested in statistically predicting global self-esteem or self-worth, then merely utilizing competence/adequacy judgments will indeed be the most parsimonious strategy. However, in our zeal for parsimony we must not ignore the phenomenological experiences associated with crafting a global sense of self. Our own findings and review of the literature (see Harter, 1990b, 1999) reveal that the construction of a sense of self-esteem is not a psychologically parsimonious process, particularly beginning in adolescence. At this developmental juncture, cognitive advances allow adolescents to construct more complex abstractions, to both create and compare competence and importance hierarchies, and to craft metatheories about the causes and correlates of their own sense of worth (see also Harter & Jackson, 1993; Harter & Marold, 1993). The role of both competence and importance can be documented in adolescents’ metatheories about the antecedents of global evaluations of self. Thus, these are the processes to which we feel it is important to attend, if we truly want to understand the determinants of self-worth and to intervene in the lives of youth in order to improve their overall evaluations of self. REFERENCES Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts. In L. W. Porter & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297–325. Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 547–579. Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Selfesteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 55–81). New York: Plenum. Clever, A., Bear, G., & Juvonen, J. (1992). Discrepancies between competence and importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 672–680. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

22

Self-Perception Issues

Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477–531. French, J. R. P., & Kahn, R. L. (1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial and mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 47. Glick, M., & Zigler, E. (1985). Self-image: A cognitive-developmental approach. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 1–54). New York: Academic. Harter, S. (1988). The Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Unpublished manual, University of Denver, Denver, CO. Harter, S. (1990a). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global self-worth: A lifespan perspective. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr., (Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life span (pp. 67–98). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Harter, S. (1990b). Adolescent self and identity development. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352–387). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: Developmental Perspectives. New York: Guilford. Harter, S., & Jackson, B. K. (1993). Young adolescents’ perceptions of the link between low self-worth and depressed affect. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 383–407. Harter, S., & Marold, D. B. (1993). The directionality of the link between self-esteem and affect: Beyond causal modeling. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology: Disorder and dysfunctions of the self (Vol. 5, pp. 333–370). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Harter, S., & Monsour, A. (1992). Developmental analysis of conflict caused by opposing attributes in the adolescent self-portrait. Developmental Psychology, 28(2), 251– 260. Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Junkin, L. J. (1999). Similarities and differences in domainspecific and global self-evaluations of learning-disabled, behaviorally disordered, and normally achieving adolescents. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 653–680. Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Higgins, E. T. (1991). Development of self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: Costs, benefits, and tradeoffs. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Development (Vol. 23, pp. 125– 166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Leahy, R. L., & Shirk, S. R. (1985). Social cognition and the development of the self. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 123–150). New York: Academic. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. In M. R. Rosenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1224–1236. Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 59–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Importance Ratings and Self-Esteem

23

Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the structure of self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 38–90). New York: Wiley. Oosterwegel, A., & Oppenheimer, L. (1993). The self-system: Developmental changes between and within self-concepts. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pelham, B. W. (1995). Self-investment and self-esteem: Evidence for a Jamesian model of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1141–1150. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672–680. Piaget, J. (1960). The psychology of intelligence. Patterson, NJ: Littleton-Adams. Rogers, C., & Dymond, R. (1954). Psychotherapy and personality change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 77–91. Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1983). Self-definition and self-evaluation maintenance. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 1–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

2 ASPECTS OF THE SELF AS LEARNER: PERCEPTION, CONCEPT, AND ESTEEM Stephen G. Rayner

INTRODUCTION The aim of this chapter is to present a critique of the self as learner. An idea of self as learner embodies constructs such as self-concept, self-esteem, self-attribution or self-perception as they relate to the individual as a learner. This approach to the self is developed in a description of self-knowledge as a referencing system, that is, a superordinate construct integrating a number of separate but related aspects of self-conception. Such a construct offers opportunity to synthesize a number of different approaches to self-theory while further developing the notion of the self as a learner. The intention in this chapter is therefore to present • a critical appraisal of self-concept theory; • a clarification of the construct of the self-referencing system; • an understanding of the self as learner.

The critical review of self-concept theory is not intended to be exhaustive—given the proliferation of models or labels describing constructs of the self this would be impractical, even if it were desirable or helpful. Nonetheless, it is proposed, in agreement with Byrne (1996), Andrews (1998), and Mruk (1999) that there is a compelling case for a synthesis of psychological theory of the self. Such a view is not new and is reflected in Wells and Marwell’s (1976) assertion that The future development of self-esteem research will depend on two key factors—consensus and accumulation. The task is to combat the disparateness of the literature, where much of the research is carried on in analytical and empirical isolation from the remainder, and cross-comparisons are difficult. (p. 251)

26

Self-Perception Issues

It is therefore appropriate in this discussion to identify key developments in the theory of self-conception and attempt an integration of relevant models in a new explanation of the self as learner. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-CONCEPT THEORY An early interest in self-perception or self-concept featured in different disciplines but was primarily located in philosophy. Hattie (1992) traced the origin of the idea of self or self-concept as far back as classical philosophy. A sense of self was related by Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle to identity, individuality, and the knowledge of self. Further debate among Renaissance philosophers continued to promote a sense of “self” and “knowing self” as a basis for existence. A departure from the intellectual mainstream was presented by Hume (1711–1776), who rejected the idea of a distinct stable self-concept, preferring instead to emphasize the fluidity of “knowing self” and the primacy of experience as a well-spring for a constantly changing perception of reality. James (1890), in a seminal text, addressed the psychological aspects of self, including references to identity, style, and self-knowledge. He divided the self into three parts: its “constituents,” the feelings and emotions they arouse, and the actions they prompt (James 1890, p. 292). The self was described as the “self-asknower,” and James theorized that the self and self-concept were core constructs within the person. This reflected the “self” as known, and was labeled the “I,” in contrast to a sense of self related to experience and the environment, which was labeled the “ME.” James also hypothesized that self-feeling was inherently linked to the process that generated both the “I” and the “ME.” A second important contribution to the theory of self-concept provided by James was the notion of hierarchy. The objective self or “ME” was seen to comprise four levels or domains, organized in a hierarchical structure. These were a “bodily self,” a “social self,” a “material self” and a “spiritual self.” A continuing preoccupation of researchers with a definition and hierarchical structure for the self-concept is probably attributable to James and is reflected in its historical development as a psychological construct. This, initially, led to models of selfconcept being developed in the earlier part of the twentieth century that described an aggregated hierarchy. This was more recently refined by researchers who advocated a multifaceted, hierarchical structure to self-concept (see Byrne, 1996). The contemporary theory of self-concept appears to have been shaped historically by the confluence of four distinct sources. These are 1. developmental psychology (Erikson); 2. symbolic interactionism (Cooley, Mead); 3. phenomenological psychology (Rogers); 4. experimental psychology (Shavelson, Marsh).

Each of these areas will be briefly considered in turn to begin to rationalize the theory of self-concept.

Aspects of the Self as Learner

27

Developmental Psychology The psychoanalytic theory of personality development influenced several models of self-conception. Indeed, Freud (1957) himself referred to the importance of self-regard, and the theories of psychodynamic development provided a deliberate foundation for understanding self-conception. The theory represented the platform on which Erikson (1950) subsequently built his own model of emotional development and identity formation. His interest in “ego” development described the self as knower in terms that were far more unstable than other psychologists describing the self-concept. Erikson argued that the self or personal identity was a fluid, plastic construct. He believed it to be subject to subconscious processes, very susceptible to the environment, and prone to change. Burns (1982) described workers in this perspective as the school of ego-psychologists and identified it as rejecting the specific notion of self-concept as a static or unitary construct. The theory also discounted the relevance or validity of terms such as self-esteem or self-image. A related theory of self-esteem, however, developed by White (1959) also drew on psychoanalytic theory and argued that a person’s developing mastery of the environment was linked to ego strength. A person who developed a competence in dealing with anxiety and the demands of his/her environment would also build a corresponding level of self-esteem. White argued that self-esteem has its “taproot in efficacy,” and that the developmental process eventually resulted in the individual’s exhibiting personal behavior that reflects a global level of self-esteem. Symbolic Interactionism A significant explanation for self-concept has consistently been one that described self-conception as a development of social meaning, that is, the belief that human beings respond to the environment on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to elements of that same environment. This sociological theory was the source for the “mirror” or “reflection” theory of self-concept. The self was perceived as the product of the reflected appraisals of others, especially significant others, who might for example be parents, teachers, or peers. Baldwin, an advocate of this theory, suggested that the “self” was a product of a “dialectical relationship” between the individual and the environment, which permitted the person to incorporate elements into the self that were earlier those of “others” (Baldwin, 1973, p. 9). This theory of self described a tension between the person and his/her environment in which the conceptions of “self-as-knower” and the “self-as-known” are produced. Mead described self as a construct arising in social experience. It was argued that self can only be experienced “indirectly, from the particular standpoints of other individual members of the same social group” (Mead, 1972, p. 140). Self, in this perspective, is regarded as the product of socialization, during which the person “appropriates” attitudes of others as part of a “role-taking” process. Mead’s theory of “symbolic interactionism” argued a pervading influence of the social en-

28

Self-Perception Issues

vironment on the individual person. Further elaboration of this perspective included Cooley’s (1968) definition of “the looking glass self,” to help explain his contention that self-concept represented personal inferences about how others perceive them. Mead (1972) placed even greater emphasis on the impact of the social milieu, perceiving the “self” as taking on the role of the “generalized other” rather than “individual others.” Further work in this tradition, but focusing exclusively on self-esteem, was carried out by Rosenberg (1965). Self-esteem and self-regard were interpreted as attitudinal formations created by social and cultural influences surrounding the individual. His research therefore looked at the social factors that were thought to affect self-esteem. His work was responsible for reinforcing the notion that selfesteem was the product of distance between the “ideal self” and a contemporary “actual” or “real self.” How a person measures up to the social expectation and desired status as he/she perceived this position in relation to his/her present position would therefore determine self-esteem. Cognitive Behaviorism A behavioral perspective adopted by Coopersmith (1967) explained self-esteem as the product of “learning principles,” and identified “antecedents” that shaped a person’s self-esteem. He argued that children develop self-esteem as a result of parents providing warmth, boundaries for expected behavior, and respectful treatment. Important processes identified in this developmental model of self-esteem were modeling, reinforcement, and experiences of learning. The behavior of a “significant other” was perceived as a primary modeling influence in the emergence of an individual’s self-esteem. Mruk (1999) pointed to the considerable significance of Coopersmith’s contribution to the field of self-esteem, arguing that empirical studies supporting his work carry high levels of credibility. An obvious limitation of Coopersmith’s research, however, was, as Mruk commented, its narrow focus on childhood and adolescence. Closely related to these conceptions of self generated by the social world was the “cognitive-behaviorist” or “modeling” theory of self-efficacy, developed by Bandura (1977, 1997). Social learning theory represents self-concept as the product of behaviors and attitudes acquired by a process of imitating or modeling significant others in the social environment. A self-concept is progressively developed through an action of self-reinforcement. The further development of this idea of social learning impacting on the self-concept led to Bandura’s making a distinction between self-concept and “subjective public-esteem” (SPE). The latter has been reported to be greatly influenced by levels of anxiety experienced by the individual (Miller, 1963). An alternative explanation for self-esteem adopting a cognitive perspective was developed by Epstein (1980), who argued that individuals organize personal theories of reality incorporating information about the self, others, and the world. The accumulation of this information is laid down in an increasingly complex set of

Aspects of the Self as Learner

29

cognitive maps, which are used to represent an understanding of the world and the relationship of the self with this world. The process of self-esteem, not unlike that described by other workers, is seen to involve contradictory forces of consistency and change. Epstein stated that As a fundamental preconscious postulate, self-esteem has profound effects on behavior and emotions. Accordingly, the regulation of self-esteem is of critical importance to the individual. However, a person’s reaction to events that have the potential to influence self-esteem is determined not only by the person’s need for enhancement but also by the person’s need to maintain the stability of his or her conceptual system. (Epstein, 1993, p. 303)

Epstein’s model of self-esteem is hierarchical. It describes an interaction between, (1) a stable foundation of “basic self-esteem,” (2) an intermediate level of self-esteem linked to specific areas of skill or competence, and (3) a surface level self-esteem, which is very fluid, situation-specific, and weak in its effect on the other two levels of a person’s self-esteem. Phenomenological Psychology Rogers elaborated a phenomenological theory of self, positing that “man lives essentially in his own personal and subjective world” (Rogers, 1951, p. 191). He believed that the self-concept becomes differentiated as a product of a self-actualizing tendency in the individual interacting with the environment and particularly with the social environment. The self-concept was regarded as the organization of layers of self-percepts. Rogers described this mechanism itself as a self-concept, and distinguished it from a “real self,” as the latter was described as a philosophical construct that could not be directly observed. The self-concept, in Roger’s theory, was deemed to be the most significant determinant of response to the environment, principally through its governance of perception of meaning as attributed to the environment. Further, related to the well-being of an individual was the centrality of the selfconcept and the need for positive regard (acceptance, respect, warmth). Each of these conditions emerged with the healthy growth of the self-concept. A need for self-regard or self-esteem was thought to be learned from an internalization of positive regard from others or the impulse for self-actualization. Psychological maladjustment was seen to occur when a discrepancy existed between the need of the individual for positive self-regard and experience of the environment. The effort to preserve the self-concept and protect it from experiences that threatened its consistency would lead to selective perception, distortion, or denial of experience. Rogers argued that the individual, as an organism, should be understood as an integrated whole, which is influenced by one basic drive—self-actualization. The development of self-concept, as part of this impulse for development, was regarded as more than the mere accretion of experiences, conditionings, and learned definitions of self. It was described as a configuration that could be dramatically altered by one aspect affecting the whole and reflecting how the person saw the self. It was described as a continuous process that reflected the self as known and

30

Self-Perception Issues

the self as knower. Behavior, ultimately, was viewed as “the goal-directed attempt of the organism to satisfy its needs as experienced in the field as perceived” (Rogers, 1951, p. 491). Rogers also distinguished between the self-concept and “ideal self.” He did not interpret any difference between the two as a potential source of disturbance but saw such disturbance rather as the result of perceptions of the environment and the need for consistency between these perceptions and the self-concept (realism). Person-centered therapy was aimed at building congruency between the environment and the self in an effort to close the gap between self-concept, the environment, and the ideal self. Experimental Psychology Psychologists interested in self-concept carried out a great deal of independent experimental research during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, characterized by onetime experiments, which were often predicated on a “global” or “unitary” model of self-concept. Examples can be found in the work of Piers and Harris (1969), Burns (1979), or Lawrence (1996). This approach, however, failed to reveal any positive evidence to support the construct. Instead, researchers progressively moved towards a realization that the phenomenon they were seeking to validate was a multidimensional and dynamic system in which several context- or domainrelated self-concepts might be distinguished. Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) were the first researchers to propose that self-concept should be understood as a complex set of self-perceptions. They argued that the key features of this construct were • a multifaceted structure reflecting category groups existing in the social environment; • a hierarchical structure comprising four sets of perceptions that were behavioral, academic, nonacademic, and general; • a stability that lessens according to the level within the structure of the self-concept; • a progressive tendency toward “differentiation” and a multidimensional structure as the individual ages; • a descriptive and an evaluative dimension; • independence from other constructs such as academic performance.

As Byrne (1996) noted, this approach expected to correlate facets of the general self-concept with academic self-concept, academic self-concept with subjectspecific self-concepts, and finally with individual behavior. Markus and Wurf (1987) developed this notion further by arguing that “working self-concepts” are not “simultaneously conscious” and the working self-concept is that part of the person’s self-concept that is most apparent in a given context. Byrne and Shavelson (1986), in a revision of the original Shavelson/Marsh model of self-concept (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985), incorporated social self-perception as a component in a general academic self-concept.

Aspects of the Self as Learner

31

Two points need to be emphasized at this juncture: (1) that this conceptualization of a self-system pointed to the realization of an increasingly complex and dynamic structure of the self-concept, and (2) that self-esteem as a feature of the self-concept within this model posits a sense of general self-esteem existing at the “peak” of a hierarchically structured system. Work by Marsh and colleagues, however, also reported little evidence of a well-established hierarchical structure for self-concept among older people, inferring a development toward greater levels of domain specificity and a “balkanization” of the global self-concept (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985). This view may conflict with the traditionally held understanding that self-conception is held together by a need to achieve consistency, continuity, and alignment between the “self” and “ideal self.” Marsh and colleagues have reported numerous studies aimed at establishing the validity of this model (see Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988). A particularly interesting conclusion reached by these workers, which perhaps may be criticized for more than a hint of tautology, was the need to separate academic and nonacademic components of self-concept in experimental design. Experimental approaches to investigating self-conception were also conducted by clinical researchers interested in the association and effect of self-conception for personality and other areas of mental health. A particularly good example of this work has been a range of studies focusing on the relationship between self-esteem and poor mental health associated with poor self-regard (Baumeister, 1993). Tennen and Affleck (1993), for example, presented a useful account of a clinical perspective on what they described as the “puzzle of low self-esteem” and its relationship to well-being. What is obviously significant in this work for the present discussion is an understanding of relevance of self-esteem for the learner. An individual who is functioning healthily is clearly more ready to learn effectively than a person suffering from poor mental health or insecure well-being. In a seminal review of self-esteem, Wells and Marwell (1976) concluded that empirical studies invariably involved the use of pre-post test designs utilizing psychometric tools constructed to measure self-esteem. The experimental context enabled researchers to observe or record changes in behavior that were linked to levels of self-esteem. Problems, however, with the psychometric properties of tools used to measure self-reference in many of these approaches has led some writers to conclude that self-conception is not a phenomenon capable of statistical analysis or psychological measurement and a quantitative approach (Smelser, 1989). With the question of the self-concept as a psychological construct in mind, Byrne (1984, 1996) reviewed empirical research that focused on studies reported by Marsh and colleagues. Byrne suggested that although the research had been instrumental in both validating a multifaceted structure to the self-concept and moving the field toward consensus, its findings relating to the developmental changes in the hierarchical nature of self-concept were “mixed.” It is arguable that, as suggested in this historical overview, the notion of self-concept was initially con-

32

Self-Perception Issues

strained by the hypothetical nature of the construct, but that it has more recently seen an advancement toward a better developed and more valid definition. Further, it is reasonable to argue that the notion of a networked structure of the self-conception, as proposed by Hattie (1992), should be conceptualized as a process or processes that form a self-referential system. This system is understood to be composed of sets of self-perceptions. It is also likely that this model may ultimately offer greater levels of utility for the educational practitioner, as it reflects a self-concept that is less fixed and presumably more susceptible to positive intervention. The next section will more fully consider this proposal. THEORIES OF SELF: CONFUSION OR CONSENSUS? Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) reported that up to 17 different conceptual dimensions were to be found in contemporary definitions of self-concept. This uncertainty had been further reinforced, they argued, by researchers casually and interchangeably using terms such as self-esteem, self-image, self-perception, self-worth, self-regard, self-respect, self-confidence, self-efficacy, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-evaluation, and self-concept. Byrne (1996) succinctly described this as a result of an “assumed synonymity of self terms,” which has led to an absence of a “universally accepted definition” of the construct (p. 2). Further confusion has been created by separate theories of human attribution that refer to self-perception as a mechanism for controlling an individual’s perceptions and behavior, based on his/her interpretations of events and experience (Bem, 1967, 1972). The theory of self-perception Bem proposed argued that our beliefs are drawn from our behavior rather than the reverse, as is generally assumed. Individuals perceive their actions as an outsider and reach conclusions about themselves based on their actions. It has, furthermore, been evident that during the past two to three decades, the nature and even existence of self-concept has been questioned by psychologists and educators. This doubt reflects a popular reaction to too much emphasis on positive approaches to nurturing high self-esteem, bringing into question any relevance self-esteem might have for teaching and learning (see Mruk, 1999). A part of the reason for uncertainty in the area of self-concept theory is ironically a lack of definition or perhaps complexity in the actual nature of the phenomenon. Andrews (1998), for example, in a recent overview of the research investigating self-esteem, commented that controversies surrounding the definition and measurement of self-esteem are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. She concluded, sensibly, that there is a far greater level of integration required in the psychological and social approaches to the constructs of self. It may be reasonable, then, to reject the construct validity and verifiability of studies positing a global or unilinear model of self-concept and/or self-esteem. It is also apparent that difficulty in reconciling alternative definitions and separate theories of self-conceptualization has resulted in the absence of a consensual model of self-reference. Although it is true, as pointed out by Marsh and Parker

Aspects of the Self as Learner

33

(1984), that the self-concept is ultimately a hypothetical construct, it is also true that any practical application of the construct rests on the development of a more clearly validated definition (see Byrne, 1996, p. 2). As argued by Hattie (1992), Byrne (1996), and Mruk (1999), it is both timely and important to gather together theories in order that a fundamental structure of both self-concept or self-esteem may be developed. To do this in isolation, however, for any aspect of self-conceptualization is a considerable limitation, as there is need for a model that integrates existing theories in a more meaningful construct. Such an approach should, as Mruk (1999) argued, first, recognize that the field requires a “greater degree of scientific consensus at the research, theoretical and practical levels” as well as “a method that is capable of integrating both qualitative and quantitative data (p. 67). It is also important, as Mruk (1999) rightly pointed out, that any generalized construct is supported by a comprehensive theory based on “a concise definition of self-esteem that is used consistently from theory to practice . . . that leads to specific techniques for enhancing self-esteem” (p. 133). A good theory works in practice, and the need for clarification and integration of various aspects of the self, as identified by a number of researchers, is created by the intention to inform and support effective practice. The conclusion reached, therefore, must be, that growing evidence exists for the integration of self-referencing constructs already in existence in the field. The notion of a self-system existing, which reflects an array of constructs forming a dynamic process of self-reference, is also compelling. There is a case too, for considering the self as learner as a useful starting point for investigating the effects of such a system of self-conceptualization in the individual. A THEORY OF SELF-REFERENCING A process model of self-conceptualization or reference may be helpfully understood by considering several aspects of a complex system contributing to the production of an array of self-percepts and self-conceptualization. These include the structure and organization of the self-referential system, the effect of the environment, the active role of the individual, and the qualities that reflect the nature of the self-system. A conceptual framework for this approach to the self is provided by the two key dimensions originally described by James (1890), that is, the “I” and the “ME” structuring the self-concept. Four characteristics of the “I” were further identified by Damon and Hart (1988) and comprised continuity, distinctness, volition, and self-reflectivity. These were subsequently reduced to three—agency, continuity, and distinctness—and were seen to structure the construction of an individual self-concept (Damon & Hart, 1988). Harter (1983) presented a similar model for the self-system, in which she described a developmental differentiation and integration affecting structural changes to the “I” and the “ME.” The model identified four developmental stages:

34

Self-Perception Issues

simple descriptions, trait labels, single abstractions, and higher-order abstractions. Each stage involved two levels of processing: an organizing of higher order integrations and a differentiating of these items, which led to the need for further integration. Both models were derived from research studies dependent on selfdescriptions and regarded as methodological constraints of the “I.” They were also closely related to conceptualizations of self-esteem and implicitly acknowledged the desire for self-regard and its effect on personal motivation or personal performance (see Harter, 1987, 1993). A second important aspect of this self-referencing model involves the description of “domains” first proposed by James (1890) as the “immediate and actual” and the “remote and potential.” A useful model of the self-system for helping to understand the self as a dynamic process was presented by Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993). They suggested that self-reference should be seen as divided between actual or real self-concepts and an ideal self made up of ought-to-be selfconcepts. An evaluative dimension is subsequently identified as a product of the distance existing within the self-concept between the self and the ideal self, which continuously generates levels of self-esteem (see Lawrence, 1996, p. 2, for a simple illustration of this structure). Researchers have argued that the presence of multiple possible selves make identification and assessment extremely difficult and account for noted discrepancies between self-evaluation and evaluation by others (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). Markus and Nurius, however, reemphasized the centrality of this structure in an understanding of the self-concept. They claimed that development of the self-system is driven in part by the attempt to move from an array of self-concepts toward an array of possible self-concepts. This process was thought to involve a progression toward greater levels of differentiation in the self-system. Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993, p. 12) stated that there were three types of characteristics affecting formation and maintenance of the dynamic in a selfreferencing system: • The “significant” other person • The characteristics of the individual • The characteristics of the situation

Further, they argued that when various social contexts and related significant others play a relevant role for the person, there is an undoubted effect on the selfconcept. The notion of significant others affecting self-perception recurs in the literature and clearly infers great importance for parents, caregivers and teachers, who by definition, are central to the learning process and the self as a learner. The process of the “active, regulating role of the individual” is also apparent in the structure of the self-concept. The process of self-concept is understood to be the result of a reciprocal interaction between the person and the environment and changes as a result of that interaction. Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer reported that little is known about the development of the active role in the individual. They

Aspects of the Self as Learner

35

concluded that although the evidence is “thin,” it is reasonable to presume that development of the active role is influenced by the drive for self-enhancement (raising self-esteem) and self-consistency (strengthening self-concept). Recent empirical work looking at the relationship between low self-regard and a number of related psychological problems in individuals offers further support for these processes occurring but also alerts workers to their considerable complexity (Baumeister, 1993, pp. 201–218). Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993) speculated that the real self-concept and the possible selves emerge from one global and undifferentiated self-concept. This corresponds with Harter’s work in the area of self-esteem (Harter, 1983, 1993). Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer argued that possible selves exist as nonintegrated entities during childhood and early adolescence but reintegrate during adolescence. This is in accord with other writers’ views of a developmental self-concept, albeit with a slightly different interpretation of its internal structure in later life (Burns, 1982; Byrne, 1996; Hattie, 1992). Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993) concluded that the development of the self-system was determined by a concomitant growth of cognitive abilities, which would enable psychological differentiation, integration, and increasingly complex role-taking. They argued that the self-concept is seen as an increasingly complex, multidimensional system that develops in reciprocal interaction with the environment and influences and is influenced by an individual’s functioning. (p. 34)

There is a persuasive logic to accepting this multidimensional structure of the self-concept and, even with single facets of the self-concept such as academic self-concept, the existence of further levels of domain-specific percepts. However, it is important to reconcile some of the principles established by earlier workers in the field to the idea of a “self-referential system” and the notion of a generalized self-concept. The following discussion is aimed at providing a basis for incorporating into the construct of a self-referencing system various elements of self-concept theory identified in the literature. An attempt at defining the self-referencing system is made, linking this to the self as learner, and is followed by a more detailed scrutiny of the processes comprising the self-referencing system. Defining a Self-Referencing System The notion of a self-system is summed up by Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993), who argued that self-concept is a multidimensional and dynamic self-system that refers to both the product of Self-conception as well as the active process of perception and organization of information about the self. (p. 1)

The term self-system is therefore used to refer to a structural organization of selfknowledge. The self, as related to this structure, can be best understood as a “mul-

36

Self-Perception Issues

tidimensional construct,” which is most usefully approached in a domain-specific manner for different purposes in a wide range of perspectives (see Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993, pp. xi-xii). A refinement of this term might usefully involve describing the “self-system” as the “self-referencing system.” This integrates the definition of self, as reflected in the previous discussion, but reemphasizes the agency of self-conception in concert with other aspects of the self as learner. The latter may very well have an increasingly important part to play in the research as psychologists and educators begin to investigate the interrelationships between self-perception and motivation. This is likely to result in a greater need to elaborate a theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) as well as incorporate related studies of motivation and orientation to learning, such as those reported by Galloway and colleages (1996). Theories of self-efficacy are likely to have considerable relevance for attitude formation, attribution, and expectancy effects, and the question of their interrelationship with individual differences such as cognitive style merit further research but lie beyond the scope of this discussion. It should be noted, however, that these aspects of individual difference reflect higher-order functions that may be expected to have relevance in any explanation of an individual’s learning performance. What should be guarded against, however, is a casual and superficial combination of the self-referencing constructs in a general definition of the self as a learner. Their source, meaning, and measurement reflect differing perspectives and origin, making their theoretical integration and the estimation of their effect on learning performance a complex rather than simple operation (Moriarty, Douglas, Punch, & Hattie, 1995; Wood & Locke, 1987). It is my view, for example, that the self-referencing systems found in the individual are not primary functions impacting on learning performance in a direct sense, but secondary functions that are closely related to the motivational processes identified by Ryan, Connell, and Grolnick (1992). These, as well as other aspects, such as instructional preference and social interaction, are likely to form aspects of an individual’s approach to learning and affect learning performance. Generally, it may be agreed, that the term “self-concept” or “self-perception” refers to a sense of self that, although it is distinguishable as a general or global construct, is nevertheless inherently unstable. It is highly susceptible to environmental factors and, in essence, reflects a continuing process of reappraisal and self-definition. Further, owing to its hypothetical nature, a complete definition of self-concept has not yet been realized. Indeed, as with other constructs that contribute to a description of the self as learner, such as cognitive and learning styles, there are those who would question such on the grounds of validity or usefulness (see Hattie, 1992; Riding, 2000). Conceptualizing the Processes of a Self-Referencing System The question of how self-conception works as a process is far from clear. It is likely that the self-system functions to structure self-relevant information and in-

Aspects of the Self as Learner

37

fluences personal functioning in the form of affect, behavior, and cognition. Characteristics and requirements for describing this self-system as a construct are variously made by several researchers: Epstein (1980), for example, argued that such a construct needed to be expansive, efficient, empirically valid, internally consistent, testable, and useful. Bailey (1970) described five factors existing in the selfsystem: harmony versus discord, growth and elaboration versus constriction, social integration and self-differentiation versus social isolation and self-diffusion, cognitive simplicity versus complexity, and concrete realism versus abstract realism. Fitts (1981) further argued that as an ideal, a “desirable’ self-system is positive, realistic or valid” (p. 271). More recently, several key characteristics found in the actual organization of the self-system were reported as affecting the agency and shape of the self-system (Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer 1993, p. 19). These characteristics included • complexity, that is, cognitive complexity; • clearness, that is, the degree to which self-descriptions are defined and differentiated; • internal consistency, that is, principally the degree of differentiation between the real and possible selves, and the same “distance” between the person’s own self-concept and that as the perceived perspective of others—a lack of internal consistency is generally felt to result in serious emotional consequences for the person (Fitts, 1981; Higgins, 1987); • distinctness, that is, the mismatch between ideas about the self and perceived ideas of others about the self; • validity, that is, the degree to which perceptions of the person are in agreement with the perceptions of others (“fit”) and the degree to which the perceptions of the person are in agreement with their behavior (“predictability of behavior”); • flexibility, that is, the degree to which the self-system can reorganize self-conceptual elements in the light of new experiences; • stability/continuity, that is, the degree to which a feeling of continuity is reflected in the self-concept, which relates to the levels of consistency that exist within the self-system; • positiveness in self-description refers to the “evaluative affective perspective on the whole self-system” (Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993, p. 19) although no direct effect is drawn between positiveness and self-esteem unless this is related to the ideal self; • abstractness in self-description, that is, the accuracy and effect of degrees of abstraction on the self-system; • personal relevance in self-description, that is, the extent to which self-descriptions are important to the individual and influence the “effect” of other interacting characteristics or variables within the self-system.

Implicit in Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer’s argument is the view that people are influenced by a need to achieve self-consistency and self-enhancement. Individuals will therefore organize their self-system in such a way as to enable growth as well as to achieve positive affect, through a sense of distinctness, clearness, and consistency between real and possible selves (Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993, p. 34). They argued that a temporary state of organization exists at all times within the self-system and that levels of discrepancy can be measured by the distance be-

38

Self-Perception Issues

tween several intraindividual concepts of self; for example, the fit between the person’s own real and actual selves and the perceived real and possible concepts of others. The difference between intraindividual self-concepts and self-descriptions is described as this same distance interpreted in terms of cognitive development. Additional concepts within this model of the self-system identified by Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993, p. 38) included the following labels or terms describing features within the entire system: • Self-concepts—comprising domain-related concepts that exist within the self-system • Self-descriptions—described as self-reporting accounts of the content of the self-concept • Own self-concepts—described as intraindividual self-concepts generated from the individual’s own perspective • Perceived self-concepts—described as intraindividual self-concepts generated from the perspective of others • Actual concepts—identified as the actual concepts, ideas, or expectancies of others about the individual that are thought to influence the self-concept

Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993) have reported research that is closely focused on investigating and understanding the relationships that may exist among intra- and interindividual self-concepts. They argued that the self-system operates as the organizational principle for the global notion of a self-concept. They concluded that their studies support the notion that a self-system develops as a product of reciprocal interaction between the individual and their social environment. Developmental aspects of the dynamic of the self-system are described by Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer (1993) as reflecting movement from one global selfconcept to an increasingly differentiated self-concept throughout preadulthood, both in terms of real and actual selves, as well as a personal and perceived perspective of others, combining to impact on the self. The movement throughout this process is one of increasing abstraction, complexity, and self-regulation, governed by desire for continuity, and then consistency, and then both of these as well as a sense of distinctness. In this respect, the work of Oosterwegel and Oppenheimer contributes significantly to the elaboration of a construct of a self-system that is dynamic yet coherent and offers opportunity for greater levels of theoretical consensus, incorporating many of the elements identified by workers within humanistic as well as experimental psychology. THE SELF, TEACHING, AND LEARNING Self-esteem and self-concept, but perhaps less frequently self-perception, are referred to time and again by practitioners as key factors in the achievement of effective training, teaching, and learning. Indeed, teachers involved with pupils experiencing learning difficulties, or emotional and behavior difficulties, consistently identify low self-esteem and an insecure self-concept in an explanation of the problem (Robinson & Maines, 1988; Weare, 2000). The same opinion is also found in the literature, as writers repeat a widely shared conviction about the significance of self-concept or self-esteem in educa-

Aspects of the Self as Learner

39

tional disaffection and the importance of enhancing a sense of self as learner (Burns, 1982; Charlton and David, 1993; Lawrence, 1996; Margerison, 1996; Robinson and Maines, 1988; Traxson, 1994). Indeed, Weare (2000) argued that a construction of self represented the “most basic task for our mental, emotional, and social health” (pp. 62–63). This argument was further developed and the process of constructing a sense of self identified as central to learning, and so much so, that Weare concluded that “people will only learn if they feel that the learning helps to construct or maintain their sense of self” (p. 63). The centrality of self-concept in teaching, learning, and behavior is nicely illustrated in McKay and Fanning’s (1992) assertion that self-esteem and self-worth, as aspects of the self-system, represent “an emotional sine qua non”; that is, they are aspects of the self essential for psychological survival, and one of the main characteristics differentiating human beings from other animals. It is, therefore, all the more surprising to find relatively little work on the relationship between learning, behavior, and self-concept. Lund (1986), while reflecting on this same issue, more particularly lamented the paucity of research being carried out into the link between low self-esteem and problem behavior. It is tempting, given the consensus that there is a link between low self-esteem and problem behavior, to conclude that self-reference—in the form of any number of constructs such as self-perception, self-concept, self-attribution, or self-esteem—is a key factor in learning achievement. Burns, for example, forcefully argued that Psychologists and educationalists are becoming more aware of the fact that an individual’s self-concept, or his attitudes to and perception of himself, are intimately related to how he learns and behaves. (Burns, 1982, p. v)

Accepting this view, it might then be argued that the self as learner, understood to be an aspect of the self-referencing system, plays a crucial part in shaping an individual’s behavior and determining his/her approach to learning. A conclusion reached by those sharing this perspective, unsurprisingly, was that self-concept or self-perception directly impacted on levels of educational achievement (see Burns, 1982; Byrne, 1996; Hattie, 1992; Purkey, 1970; Weare, 2000; Wylie, 1961). Burns (1982) argued that in an approach to teaching and learning it is as well to remember that Individual experiences, expectancies, responses to instructional style and interpretation of educational context all complement the cognitive aspects of learning performance. Education is the educating of the total person not just his cognitive dimension. (p. vii)

The list of factors present in the process of learning provided by Burns is not definitive but does reemphasize the question of significant effect of aspects of the self as a learner. It is surely necessary to return to this question, time and again, in any discussion of teaching, learning, or pedagogy. It is, for instance, no coincidence that any school or college prospectus, within the first few pages, will invari-

40

Self-Perception Issues

ably refer to meeting the needs and maximizing the potential of the individual as a learner. This fundamental issue, matching teaching to the learner and the learner to the learning activity, is central to effectiveness in academic achievement and learning behavior. This same issue represents the key question for the remaining discussion in this chapter; that is, understanding and elaborating the relationship between aspects of the self as learner, academic achievement, and learning behavior. SELF-CONCEPTION, LEARNING, AND BEHAVIOR The mainstay of research looking at the self-concept and learning, generally, has focused on achievement and academic concept. There are, however, three distinct groups of workers who have investigated relationships between behavior and the self-concept. The first is looking at self-esteem. The second group is interested in self-efficacy, motivation, attribution, attitude formation, and behavior. The third are educators who have employed self-concept constructs to investigate academic performance. Self-Esteem and Behavior The first group has investigated the relationship between self-concept and behavior, tending to use the construct of self-esteem as a basis for defining the self. The core development within this group is associated with Harter and colleagues (Harter, 1979, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990). They argued that self-esteem should be measured separately from self-concept and attempted to measure self-esteem as a global construct. Furthermore, Harter’s work reflected the contention that in any accurate measure of self-concept, attention should be given to self-evaluative ratings of the “ideal/actual discrepancy” and therefore were reflected in any scoring of the self-concept. This approach to self-esteem reflected an interest in tapping the self-perceptions of competence related to particular content domains. For example, in a study investigating social comparisons in the developing self-perceptions of learningdisabled students, Renick and Harter (1989) discovered that social comparisons played an important role in the formation of learning-disabled pupil’s perceived academic competence. Underpinning Harter’s model of self-esteem is a rejection of a hierarchical structure, in favor of a developmental sequence that comprises physical attributes, behavioral descriptions, emotional descriptions, motivational descriptions, and cognitions. A basis for measurement of self-esteem is therefore salience, that is, the congruence between estimates of adequacy and importance. The greater the congruence, the stronger a person’s sense of self-worth. Clearly, this definition of self-esteem moves Harter’s work more closely toward areas of self-efficacy and attribution. Self-Efficacy, Motivation, and Behavior Self-efficacy, as previously explained, refers to judgments by the individual about their own behavior, task completion, or performance. According to Bandura

Aspects of the Self as Learner

41

(1977, 1997), self-efficacy is different from the self-concept in so far as it is concerned about judgments of performance rather than with skills, qualities, or abilities perceived by the self. As defined by Skaalvik (1997), self-efficacy is concerned specifically with personal expectation of one’s own effectiveness and competence. Bandura’s theory contends that self-efficacy is affected by authentic mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Skaalvik (1997) has made the point that the two constructs have not been rigorously compared but cited work that supports their separateness (Marsh, Walker, & Debus, 1991; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1995). Bandolos, Yates, and Thorndike-Christ (1995) reported that the two constructs are factorially distinct but related components affecting mathematical achievement. An interesting implication of self-efficacy is the extent to which ability judgments and self-expectation might influence behaviors associated with learning. For example, does the nature of self-concept and self-efficacy directly affect activities such as completing a task, or an instruction, or a particular course? At a deeper level, do self-perception, self-efficacy, and motivation interact to impact on the formation and development of learning strategies and instructional preference? Skaalvik (1997) reported on the interaction between ability judgments and expectation within mathematics, concluding that the constructs were separate but closely related. Skaalvik’s view was that the main distinction between different mathematics self-perceptions had to do with the level of generality in those measurements. It further reported that correlations and the effect of the “nested factor models” in the research questionnaire suggested a very strong second-order common math self-perception factor underlying both self-concept and self-efficacy. The researchers concluded that this evidence supported the case for further research looking at the traditional distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy. Perhaps the more important implications of self-efficacy theory, as suggested earlier in this section, have to do with individual motivation. As Skaalvik (1997) has explained, self-efficacy theory asserts that an individual’s levels of motivation and perseverance will be determined by the quality of their self-efficacy. Skaalvik reported that classroom behavior, such as engagement and persistence with the task, have correlated with pupils’ self-efficacy. Similarly, Skaalvik and Rankin (1995) reported that pupils’ ratings of effort correlated with self-efficacy. Skaalvik (1997) has provided further details of related empirical work supporting this effect, including an interaction with pupils’ help-seeking behavior, intrinsic motivation, goal orientation, and task orientation. Further development of this approach has involved a focus on ego orientation, attribution, and levels of self-worth (Skaalvik, 1997). Clearly, all of these facets of self-efficacy will in every likelihood inter-act with self-concept to influence learning and behavior. It is also the case that these same aspects will probably interact with other psychological aspects of the self as learner, including style differences and personality factors, to influence an individual’s approach to learning.

42

Self-Perception Issues

Self-Concept and Academic Achievement Researchers in an empirical paradigm and interested in the relationship between academic achievement and self-concept have consistently reported high levels of correlation between academic achievement and self-concept (Burns, 1979; Eshel and Kurmann 1990; Maruyama, Rubin, & Kingsbury 1981; Wylie, 1979). Further studies corroborated this correlation for academic self-concept and academic achievement, with West, Fish, and Stevens (1980) publishing results reporting correlations ranging from .27 to .70; Skaalvik and Hagtvet (1990) reported correlations ranging from .48 to .65; and Hoge, Smit, and Crist (1995), correlations of .40. Orr and Dinur (1995) in related work reported a correlation of .45 in an analysis of the relationship between school achievement and self-concept. It is true that much of the later research has been predicated on a specific construct—the Marsh/Shavelson academic self-concept. Skaalvik (1997) and Alloughani (1998) reported that workers consistently discovered that academic selfconcept was more significantly correlated with achievement than with a general self-concept. Marsh and colleagues reported that specific academic achievements were most highly correlated with a matched academic self-concept of a subject area or domain and would generally correlate poorly with facets of nonacademic self-concept (Marsh, 1986, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1992; Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988). On the basis of this work, Marsh further developed a theory of internal/external frames of reference influencing a contemporary generation of self-concept research. He predicted that although math and reading achievements showed a high correlation, self-concepts of math and reading would have poor levels of correlation but that matched domain achievement with domain self-concept would show a significant and positive effect. The conclusion drawn was that the relationship between academic self-concept and achievement is strong and content-specific. Furthermore, Marsh (1990a) reviewed a substantial body of literature that provided support for his view that academic self-concept is distinct from the general self-concept. An extension of this approach was reported by Marsh (1992), in which he investigated the specificity of the correlation between self-concept and academic achievement. The evidence included a range of correlations (.45 to .70), providing further support for the relationship and, by implication, the relative structure of the self-concept. Correlation does not reveal information about the causal nature of the interaction between two variables, but, as suggested by Burns (1982), there is an indication of a causal relationship between self-concept and achievement. There are, nonetheless, obvious difficulties in identifying the factors involved in this complex arrangement. Kruger and Wandle (1992) took this view, suggesting that the relationship might in fact be reciprocal in its causal structure. Shavelson and Bolus (1982) reported research that took school grades to infer academic achievement and established that prior academic self-concept influenced subsequent school grades.

Aspects of the Self as Learner

43

The issue of a causal ordering of the self-concept and related factors in learning is very important. Many practitioners presume that the enhancement of learning may be achieved by an improvement in the self-concept. There is, however, continuing uncertainty about the exact nature of the relationship. Caslyn and Kenny (1977), for example, suggested that a skills-development model of the relationship between self-concept and achievement reflected the effects of academic success on the academic self-concept. They therefore argued that skills development would enhance self-concept. As Alloughani (1998) concluded, it is very likely that any relationship between academic self-concept and achievement is reciprocal. It is therefore reasonable to expect both the self-enhancement and academic skills-development model will have relevance for the learner’s self-perception as a learner. The interesting question, however, remains one of gauging the extent to which this self-perception of self as a learner impacts on learning. Furthermore, is it the case that self-perception has an immediate or longer-term impact on a learning performance? Additional studies investigating specific aspects of the relationship between selfconcept and other variables affecting academic achievement also have some relevance for a reappraisal of self-concept as a learner. For example, Chapman and Lambourne (1990) studied the influence of cognitive ability, academic achievement, and family background. They reported an effect of achievement on academic self-concept. Hansford and Hattie (1982) reported the existence of a very strong relationship between self-concept and academic performance. Staines (1954), Purkey (1970), and Weinstein (1983) found that the self-concept of ability and self-expectations were associated with academic achievement among students in school. Implications of self-expectancy and self-concept for academic endeavor are yet to be fully explored, but the evidence across a range of empirical studies is such that it is reasonable to suggest a very strong relationship exists between academic self-concept and achievement (see Skaalvik, 1997). The evidence of causality within this relationship, however, is inconclusive. There is also little empirical work available that supports the construct of a more general self-perception as learner. It is very likely that academic self-concept or self-concept as a learner is grounded in domain-specific structures that reflect the general arrangement of the self-concept and process of self-concept as a learner. Finally, with the implications of academic self-concept in mind, it is argued that an individual’s self-conception of ability is significantly and positively correlated with what the individual perceives is the regard significant others hold of their ability. It is therefore central to any development of the student-teacher relationship. Within the parameters of self-concept studies, there is a need for further work focusing on the relationship between expectancy, self-concept, self-attribution, and motivation. Indeed, much of the latter will undoubtedly have relevance for further developing a structure and definition for a personal learning-style construct. It will also have implications for the practical application of style differences and self-awareness within pedagogical practice.

44

Self-Perception Issues

THE SELF AS LEARNER: IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES A limited number of educators in the United Kingdom have reported interventions influenced by a mix of early empirical work on self-concept (for example, Burns 1979; Piers & Harris, 1969; Purkey, 1970) and phenomenological psychology (for example, Combs & Snygg, 1959; Hamachek, 1978, 1990; Rogers, 1951). There has been little educational research, however, providing empirical evidence to support the significant impact of self-conceptualization on outcomes in teaching, learning, or pupil behavior. Examples of some approaches are considered in the following section. Self-Referencing: Interventions and Evidence of Success Lawrence (1996) described earlier research and subsequent application of selfconcept theory in attempts to resolve learning difficulties (LDs) and emotional and behavioral difficulties (EBDs). Subsequent research using Lawrence’s measure, the Lawrence’s Self-Esteem Questionnaire (LAWSEQ), also explored the effect of self-esteem within the population of three EBD special schools (Lund, 1986). Lawrence (1996) identified various presenting difficulties associated with either, first disruptive behavior or second defense mechanisms triggered to preserve self-worth. Examples of the former include overt aggressiveness, bullying, or mischeviousness; the latter, belittling others, boastfulness, and daydreaming. He then presented suggested strategies aimed at enhancing self-esteem as part of a pedagogical approach to the learner. Lawrence (1996) claimed that the need to maintain childrens’ self-esteem is self-evident. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence to support this approach is outdated and scant. Some reservation is justified, therefore, when considering Lund’s research using the LAWSEQ, as well as consideration for the size and special nature of the sample. Lund’s data, however, did show consistently low levels of self-esteem for pupils in special school (EBD) when contrasted with a population in mainstream school, inferring a possible relationship between academic failure and poor selfesteem. Further attempts to apply self-esteem theory in the classroom were presented by Robinson and Maines (1988) and Gurney (1988). Based on the assumption that pupils with EBD or SEN will invariably present with low self-esteem, these writers developed a series of teaching strategies aimed at the enhancement of selfesteem. This author has found no reports of empirical research to support either their model of self-concept and self-esteem (which, like Lawrence’s model, is influenced by the “discrepancy” theory of self-esteem [see Higgins, 1987]) or their approach to self-esteem enhancement. Examples of more recently developed interventions have included accounts of particular strategies aimed at the enhancement of self-esteem (see Bernard, 1997; Long, 1999; Mosley, 1996; Quayle and Holsworth, 1997; White, 1993). There is, again, little empirical evidence to support any or all of these approaches, which tend to reflect a value position heavily influenced by various theories associated

Aspects of the Self as Learner

45

with human relations and self-regard. In many respects, it seems that theories of self-reference require an act of faith, on the part of the teacher, in the agency of self-conceptualization as a key factor in teaching and learning. Generally, then, the position remains the same—that is, little evidence to support the view that behavior and self-concept are closely linked. Indeed, Hattie (1992) has argued for the utmost caution in presuming that self-concept plays any significant part in directly regulating individual behavior. He conceded that the self-concept may affect behavior (indeed, it is difficult to see why research should continue if it did not), but he is insistent that the self-concept “does not govern our behaviour” (p. 99). He draws a distinction between higher-level executive functioning of the self-concept and other lower-level processes directly affecting individual behavior. Hattie, citing Bandura’s work on self-efficacy, speculated further about the likelihood that the self-concept would play a greater role in guiding behavior when individuals are challenged or find themselves in a socially disruptive situation. Hattie (1992), in summary, argued that it is misleading to claim that there is a substantial correlation between self-concept and behavior. Such is the nature of this relationship, he argued, that it is regarded as susceptible to change, extremely sensitive to contextual influence, and resistant to investigation aimed at establishing any causal relationship with behavior. It is significant that Hattie, too, makes few references to empirical work aimed at the investigation of the relationship between self-perception, self-concept, and behavior. It is therefore suggested that any firm conclusion about self-concept and individual behavior is unwise. It is also self-evident that more work is required to further develop a neglected aspect of the self as learner and individual behavior as it is featured within a learning performance. It is suggested here that the latter will impinge on the formation and development of learning strategies and motivation. The Self as Learner: Principles and Practice It is far from proven that self-concept is a key factor in learning, or major product of education, nor that it exerts an all-pervading influence in human behavior. Furthermore, the causal relationship between learning and the self-concept remains hypothetical rather than clearly established. Similarly, the internalized features of the self-referencing system—that is, interaction between self-concept, self-perception, self-efficacy, or self-esteem and learning or behavior—has not been satisfactorily framed, investigated, or proven. The idea that self-conception remains an important determinant in personal development and in learning nevertheless remains a powerful conviction. Burns (1982), for example, reflected this position, when he stated that The construct of the self-concept is now considered to be a major outcome of education, childhood socialization, and child-rearing practices as well as influencing consequent responses to those influences. (p. v)

46

Self-Perception Issues

If this is the case, then the implications for the development of pedagogy are considerable and the need to further develop theory and practice an imperative. If it is not the case, then again, the need to prove this and dispel the chimera of self-reference is equally important, ending what some will argue a misguided pursuit of an educational mirage. A good example of recent work that reflects this direction for research, together with a concern for application, is provided by Simpson, Licht, Stader, and Wagner (1996). They examined how ability-related academic self-perceptions were organized in the self-systems of pupils in two elementary schools in Florida. The theory of self-concept adopted by these workers, in the first instance, was the multidimensional model (Marsh, 1990c; Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson; 1988). As well, they sought to incorporate a distinction between this self-perception of academic ability and subject-related self-efficacy as described by Licht and Dweck (1983) and Pajeres and Miller (1994). The questionnaire constructed by the researchers reflected the previously described model of the self-system. It separately assessed the pupils’ self-perceptions of math, reading, and school in general for perceived ability, near-future expectancies for imminent grading assessments, and causal attributions for success and failure. The data was collected utilizing this questionnaire in two settings, with the intention of examining the variability in questionnaire responses. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that pupils not only differentiated their academic ability-related self-perceptions but also differentiated between self-perceptions of ability between the academic domains. Simpson and colleagues (1996) concluded that these findings support and extend contemporary theories of self-concept. They argued that the research provided support for (1) the hypothesis that academic domain would be the primary organizational variable influencing self-perception, (2) that the structure revealed within the self-system was one of specific self-perceptions of academic domain, and (3) that the theory of self-concept should be extended by the realization that age-related levels of differentiation occur in the self-concept of pupils at elementary school. They further argued that the implications of this research were, first, that further integration of concept theories with attribution theories was indicated. Second, further research focused on ability-related self-perceptions might help reveal why some pupils develop unrealistically low or high self-concepts, which, as the researchers argued, reflect denial on the part of the pupil of positive or negative experiences and social feedback. In conclusion, it is possible to confidently argue that the self-concept of domainbased academic subjects is highly correlated with performance. It also seems likely that the self-concept is grounded in a series of self-perceptions or self-percepts of specific “domains of knowledge” or “learning contexts.” More difficult to elaborate or prove is the notion that a self-concept or self-perception of ability is a causal influence in the process of learning performance. Indeed, as argued by Riding and Staley (1998), it is far more likely that self-perception as a learner has

Aspects of the Self as Learner

47

“some influence on performance, but it is not the only influence, and also interacts with other variables in its effects on behaviour” (p. 47). In this way, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that self-perception as a learner will play a continuous role in the regulation of learning. Furthermore, it is suggested that the notion of a unidimensional self-concept is more or less discredited, although it is important to remember James’s original contention, supported by Hattie (1992) that there exists an enduring and relatively stable core at the heart of an individual’s self-concept. It is worthwhile, too, remembering that recent discussion on the self-concept reflects a new interest in this very same aspect of the self-concept (see Andrews, 1998; Byrne, 1996; Helmke, 1993; Helmke & van Arken, 1995; Skaalvik, 1997). As part of this perspective, the model of a dynamic self-referencing system forming the structure of selfconceptualization is proposed, with a specific application for this model being reflected in the notion of the self as learner. The immediate concern here, however, is for the notion of self-conception as a learner. There is little work specifically on the notion that individuals develop a generic perception of themselves as a learner or student. Similarly, little work is reported linking learning strategies, or learning how to learn, to self-perception, although related studies completed by Biggs (1985) and Schmeck, Geisler-Brenstein, and Cercy (1991) present early attempts at extending work on the notion of style as an orientation to study. It is necessary, arguably, in order to further develop this notion, to give wider consideration to the relationships between personality, self-perception, cognitive style, learning, and behavior (see, for example, Chapter 3 in this volume on shyness, self-perception, and reticence, or discussion about the profiling of cognitive and learning styles in Rayner, 2000). Furthermore, work should aim to explore the formation and structure of learning strategies as well as the interrelationship between a developing approach to learning, aspects of self as a learner, and pedagogical practice. The expectation is that a consideration of these issues and related principles will help inform educational practice. Such an expectation presumes that awareness of self as a learner is central to enhancing an individual’s learning and or teaching performance.

REFERENCES Alloughani, A. E. (1998). The relationship between students’ cognitive style and selfassessment in Kuwaiti secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK. Andrews, B. (1998, July). Self-esteem: State of the art. The Psychologist, 339–342. Bailey, S. T. (1970). Independence and factor structure of self-concept meta-dimensions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 425–430. Baldwin, J. M. (1973). Social and ethical interpretations in mental development. New York: Arno Press. (Original work published 1897)

48

Self-Perception Issues

Bandalos, D. L., Yates, K., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (1995). Effects of math self-concept, perceived self-efficacy and attributions for failure and success on test anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 611–623. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Baumeister, R. (Ed). (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self regard. New York: Plenum. Bem, D. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative explanation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200. Bem, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic. Bernard, M. E. (1997). You can do it!: How to boost your child’s achievement in school. New York: Warner Books. Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of meta-learning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185–212. Burns, R. B. (1979). The self-concept in theory, measurement, development, and behaviour. London: Longman. Burns, R. B. (1982). Self-concept development and education. London: Longman. Byrne, B. (1984). The general/academic self-concept numological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427–456. Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1986). On the structure of self-social concept for pre-, early, and late adolescents: A test of the Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 599–613. Caslyn, R., & Kenny, D. (1977). Self-concept of ability and perceived evaluations by others: Cause or effect of academic achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 136–145. Chapman, J., & Lambourne, R. (1990). Some antecedents of academic self-concept: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 142–152. Charlton, T., & David, K. (1993). Reflections and practices. In T. Charlton & K. David (Eds.), Managing misbehaviour (pp. 207–236). London: Routledge. Combs, A. W., & Snygg, D. (1959). Individual behavior: A perceptual approach. New York: Harper. Cooley, C. H. (1968). The social self: On the meanings of “I.” In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction. Vol 1. Classic and contemporary perspectives (pp. 87–91). New York: Wiley. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Epstein, S. (1980). The self-concept: A review and the proposal of an integrated theory of personality. In E. Straub (Ed.), Personality: Basic aspects and current research (pp. 83–131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Eshel, Y., & Kurman, J. (1990). Academic self-concept, accuracy of perceived ability, and academic attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 187–196.

Aspects of the Self as Learner

49

Fitts, W. H. (1981). Issues regarding self-concept change. In M. D. Lynch, A. A. NoremHebeisen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self-concept: Advances in theory and research (pp. 261–272). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Freud, S. (1957). On narcissism: An introduction. London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1914) Galloway, D., Rogers, C., Armstrong, D., Leo, E.L., & Jackson, C. (1996). Motivating the difficult to teach. London: Longman. Gurney, P. W. (1988). Self-esteem in children with special educational needs. London: Routledge. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Encounters with the self. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Hamachek, D. E. (1990). Psychology in teaching, learning and growth (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Hansford, B., & Hattie, J. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52, 123–142. Harter, S. (1979). Perceived competence scale for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press. Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives in the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4: Socialisation, personality. and social development (pp. 275–385). New York: Wiley. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the support scale for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press. Harter, S. (1987). The determinants and mediational role of global self-worth in children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary topics in developmental psychology (pp. 219– 242). New York: Wiley. Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global self-worth: A lifespan perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67–97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 87–116). New York: Plenum. Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Helmke, A. (1993). Development of the self-concept. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenum. Helmke, A., & van Arken, M. A. G. (1995). The causal ordering of academic achievement and self-concept of ability during elementary school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 624–637. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 93, 319–340. Hoge, D., Smit, E., & Crist, J. (1995). Cognitive system-principles of levelling and sharpening: Individual differences in visual time error assimilation effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 295–314. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Kruger, L., & Wandle, C. (1992). A preliminary investigation of special needs students’ global and mathematics self-concepts. Psychology in the School, 29, 281–290. Lawrence, D. (1996). Enhancing self-esteem in the classroom (2nd ed.). London: Chapman.

50

Self-Perception Issues

Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1983). Sex differences in achievement orientations: Consequences for academic choices and attainments. In M. Marland (Ed.), Sex differentiation and schools (pp, 72–97). London: Heinemann Educational Books. Long, R. (1999). Developing self-esteem through positive entrapment for pupils facing emotional and behavioural difficulties. Lichfield: NASEN. Lund, R. (1986). The self-esteem of children with EBD. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 5(1), 26–33. Margerison, A. (1996). Self-esteem: Its effect on the development and learning of children with EBD. Support for Learning, 11(4), 176–180. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. Marsh, H. W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172. Marsh, H. W. (1990b). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 646–656. Marsh, H. W. (1990c). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623–636. Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35–42. Marsh, H., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213–231. Marsh, H., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multi-faceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107–125. Marsh, H., Byrne, B., & Shavelson, R. (1988). A multi-faceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366–380. Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., & Debus, R. (1991). Subject specific components of academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 331–345. Maruyama, G., Rubin, R., & Kingsbury, G. (1981). Self-esteem and educational achievement: Independent constructs with a common cause. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 962–975. McKay, M., & Fanning, P. (1992). Self-esteem (2nd ed.). New York: MJF Books. Mead, G. H. (1972). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviourist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934) Moriarty, B., Douglas, G., Punch, K., & Hattie, J. (1995). The importance of self-efficacy as a mediating variable between learning, environments and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 73–84. Miller, D. R. (1963). The study of social relationships. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol 5). New York: McGraw-Hill. Mosley, J. (1996). Quality circle time in the primary classroom. Wisbech, UK: Learning Development Aids. Mruk, C. (1999). Self-esteem: Research, theory and practice. London: Free Association Books.

Aspects of the Self as Learner

51

Oosterwegel, A., & Oppenheimer, L. (1993). The self-system: Developmental changes between and with-in self-concepts. London: Erlbaum. Orr, E., & Dinur, B. (1995). Social setting differences in self-esteem: Kibbutz and urban adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 205–229. Pajeres, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203. Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1969). The Piers-Harris children’s self-concept scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Purkey, W. (1970). Self-concept and school achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Quayle, W., & Holsworth, J. (1997). Self-esteem groups at the Eleanor Smith School and Primary Support Service. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 2(2), 21–24. Rayner, S. G. (2000). Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: Profiling learning performance. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences: Cognitive styles (Vol. 1, pp. 115–177). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing selfperceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 631–638. Riding, R. J. (2000). Cognitive style: A review. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences: Cognitive styles (Vol. 1, pp. 315– 344). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Riding, R. J., & Staley, A. (1998). Self-concept as learner, cognitive style and business studies students’ course performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(1), 43–58. Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1988). A bag of tricks. Bristol, UK: Lame Duck Pubs. Rogers, C. (1951). Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pitman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 167–188). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmeck, R. R., Geisler-Brenstein, E., & Cercy, S. P. (1991). Self-concept and learning: The revised inventory of learning processes. Educational Psychology, 11, 343–362. Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The inter-play of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 3–17. Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549–573. Simpson, S. M., Licht, B. G., Stader, S. R., & Wagner, R. K. (1996). Organisation of children’s academic ability-related self-perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 387–396. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich. Advances in motivation and achievement. London: JAI Press.

52

Self-Perception Issues

Skaalvik, E. M., & Hagtvet, K. (1990). Academic achievement and self-concept: An analysis of causal predominance in developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 292–307. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model at different levels of math and verbal self-perception. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 161–184. Smelser, N. J. (1989). Self-esteem and social problems: An introduction. In A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser, & J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), The social importance of self-esteem (pp. 294–326). Berkeley: University of California Press. Staines, J. W. (1954). A psychological and sociological investigation of the self as a significant factor in education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of London. Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1993). The puzzles of self-esteem: A clinical perspective. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self regard (pp. 241–263). New York: Plenum. Traxson, D. (1994). Helping children to become more self-directing in their behaviour. In P. Gray, A, Miller, & J. Noakes (Eds.), Challenging behaviour in schools (pp. 223– 240). London: Routledge. Weare, K. (2000). Mental, emotional & social health: A whole-school approach. London: Routledge. Weinstein, R. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. Elementary School Journal, 83, 151–188. Wells, R. A., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. West, C. K., Fish, J. A., & Stevens, R. J. (1980). General self-concept, self-concept of academic ability and school achievement: Implications for “causes” of self-concept. Australian Journal of Education, 24, 194–213. White, M. (1993). Developing self-esteem. In K. Bovair & C. McGloughlin (Eds.), Counselling in Schools—A Reader. London: David Fulton. White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013–1024. Wylie, R. C. (1961). The self concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self concept. Vol 2: Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

3 SHYNESS, SELF-PERCEPTION, AND RETICENCE W. Ray Crozier

INTRODUCTION A parent or teacher who thinks of a child as shy typically has in mind that he or she is quiet in company, reluctant to engage in social activities, and wary of novel situations. The label can be either descriptive (the child tends to be quiet and withdrawn rather than sociable or boisterous) or explanatory (the speaker attributes the reticence to some qualities of the child rather than to properties of the situation in which the child finds him or herself, such as joining a new class, meeting new people or speaking up in public). When individuals describe their own experience of shyness they go beyond this account of reticence and social withdrawal. They report that they are self-conscious and feel awkward and ill at ease. They cannot think of what to say in conversation, and their reticence is accompanied by intense mental activity, where they rehearse but are inhibited from making contributions, and where they typically think how inadequate they are and fear that they are creating a negative impression in others. The term “shyness” has currency in everyday life; for example, children as young as 5 years are able to provide a meaningful definition of it (Yuill, 1992). Although some early contributors to the science of human development were prepared to offer accounts of shyness (Baldwin, 1894; Darwin, 1872/1965), psychologists have been slow to identify it as an individual difference variable worthy of study. Only in recent years has the topic attracted a significant body of research. In part, this lack of interest is due to reluctance to adopt a term that is common in everyday discourse and hence lacks precision: Different people may use the term in different ways or it may refer to a constellation of factors that are difficult to disentangle. In part, the neglect of shyness owes much to the dominance in research into individual differences of theories that emphasize two broad personal-

54

Self-Perception Issues

ity factors or dimensions, extraversion-introversion and anxiety (or neuroticism). H. J. Eysenck’s theory of personality types is the best-known example of this emphasis, but the two traits are present in most accounts that have relied on the application of factor analytical techniques to the sphere of personality, a trend most recently evident in the “Big Five” theory, which proposes five fundamental personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (e.g., Costa and McCrae, 1995). A substantial amount of research into personality and education has involved these two dimensions. Significant, albeit modest, correlations have been found between extraversion-introversion and measures of educational outcomes in school and university (Eysenck, 1978). Research into anxiety has been highly productive, the more so if one takes into account investigations of related constructs such as test anxiety, learned helplessness, and (low) self-esteem. In the context of this dominance, it is not surprising that a trait such as shyness will be obscured, particularly as it seems to share features with both introversion (quietness, lack of sociability) and anxiety (selffocused attention that interferes with task performance, preoccupation with failure, and physiological symptoms such as increased heart rate). Nevertheless research has now demonstrated that shyness can be considered a distinct personality trait in both childhood and adulthood, and there is emerging evidence that it has an impact upon behavior in educational settings. In this chapter, I aim to provide an overview of this emerging research. First, I briefly consider evidence that shyness is a distinct trait that can be measured and that predicts behavior in a nontrivial way. Second, I discuss explanations of individual differences in shyness, giving particular attention to self-perception processes. Third, I outline research into reticence in school settings and evaluate explanations of children’s quietness in terms of the influence of shyness on the development of language skills. Finally, I briefly examine the impact of reticence on students’ experience of higher education, focusing on individual differences in perceptions of seminars in university courses. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SHYNESS Shyness as a Personality Trait There have been several attempts to devise self-report questionnaire measures of shyness. Studies have shown that the various scales that have been produced are intercorrelated to a substantial degree and seem to be measuring a common factor. Thus, Briggs and Smith (1986) carried out an analysis of five scales and reported correlations between them ranging from .70 to .86, with a mean correlation of .77. One of the measures included in their study, the Cheek-Buss scale, has been widely used in shyness research. It was originally published by Cheek and Buss (1981) but has subsequently undergone several minor revisions (e.g., Cheek & Krasnoperova, 1999). Cheek and Buss (1981) initially assembled a number of items to assess shyness and sociability. Factor analysis of the set of items confirmed the presence of two factors. One factor had highest loadings on items refer-

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

55

ring to feeling tense with unfamiliar people and to feeling inhibited in social situations; this was labeled as “shyness.” The “sociability” factor had highest loadings on items referring to liking to be with people and welcoming the opportunity to mix with them. The correlation between the two sets of items was only moderate (r = –.30). Although other researchers (Bruch, Gorsky, Collins, & Berger, 1989) have reported higher correlations between shyness and sociability factors, the distinction between shyness and lack of sociability seems well established. Briggs (1988) also produced evidence in support of this distinction. He administered the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) together with a set of 74 items drawn from four shyness scales to a large sample of students. The majority of items (56 out of 74) correlated moderately and equally highly with both the EPI extraversion and neuroticism factors. Briggs (1988) concluded that In a hierarchical model of personality, shyness might best be represented as a primary factor situated between and contributing to both introversion and neuroticism. . . . To be precise, shyness should be located between the sociability component of introversion on one side and the low self-confidence aspect of neuroticism on the other side. (p. 305)

There is evidence of the predictive validity of the Cheek-Buss scale. A sample of women students who obtained different patterns of scores on the shyness and sociability factors were systematically observed during the course of a (surreptitiously) videotaped conversation with a stranger (Cheek & Buss, 1981). It was found that the shy women talked significantly less than non-shy women. The shy women also rated themselves as more tense and inhibited. However, there were also differences within the sample of shy women, between those who were both shy and sociable and those who obtained high scores on the shyness scale but low scores on the sociability scale. Those who obtained high scores on both the shyness and sociable scales made more self-manipulative movements (touching the face or body with the hands). They also spent less time looking at their partner relative to those who were not shy; they were rated by observers as more tense and inhibited than both the shy and less-sociable women and the non-shy women. Similar results were reported by Schmidt and Fox (1994) who found that participants in their study who were high on both shyness and sociability measures had a significantly higher and more stable heart rate in anticipation of a novel social encounter than had participants who were shy and less sociable or who were not shy. There is also evidence that shyness can be reliably assessed in childhood. Crozier (1995) constructed a self-report measure for the age range 9 to 12 years. The measure had satisfactory psychometric properties, and the statistically significant negative correlation between scores on the scale and a measure of self-esteem replicated the relationship that has consistently been identified among adults. Parent and teacher checklists (Boer & Westenberg, 1994; Eisenberg, Shepard, Fabes, Murphy, & Guthrie, 1998) and measures based on systematic observations of children in novel play situations or in the classroom (Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987) have also been shown to have temporal stability and to have considerable predictive validity.

56

Self-Perception Issues

The most consistent differences in observed behavior between shy and less shy individuals concern measures of verbal communication, more specifically the timing and frequency of speech acts. In comparison with their less shy peers, shy adults take longer to produce their first utterance in conversation with an unfamiliar person, they are slower to break a silence in conversation, and they speak for a smaller proportion of the time (Bruch, Gorsky, Collins, & Berger, 1989; Cheek & Buss, 1981; Pilkonis, 1977). Similar trends emerge in studies of children. For example, Kagan, Reznick, Snidman, Gibbons, and Johnson (1988) reported that 7year-old children who had been identified as inhibited when they were 21 months old took significantly longer to produce their first spontaneous comment during a test session with an adult experimenter than did noninhibited children. Rezendes, Snidman, Kagan, and Gibbons (1993) also found longer latency to first spontaneous comment and fewer comments overall among inhibited children when tested at 5.5 years. Eisenberg and colleagues (1998) reported a similar delay in reaching a criterion number of spontaneous utterances among a sample of children who were rated by their parents as shy. These differences are apparent in studies where social interactions are contrived between participants and unfamiliar others, situations that are most difficult for the shy and hence where differences in behaviour would be most likely to be found. These settings, and hence these differences, may be unrepresentative of the social situations routinely encountered by shy individuals. Meetings with strangers are rare events in everyday life: Asendorpf and Meier (1993) found that the average proportion of children’s free time spent interacting with strangers was only 3 percent. Furthermore, given the opportunity, people will choose the situations that they find most congenial, and self-report studies indicate that shy people prefer to avoid meeting strangers, unfamiliar situations, or large groups at parties and other social occasions. Also, shy people may be less reticent with people with whom they are familiar or are confident in dealing with. Shy respondents to the Stanford Shyness Survey (Pilkonis & Zimbardo, 1979) reported that they were less shy when they were in the company of family or friends. Asendorpf and Meier (1993) have provided evidence complementing these selfreport data. In their study, the spontaneous speech of a sample of second-grade children was recorded over a period of one school week. The children wore a small portable microcomputer with a condenser microphone attached to the throat with adhesive tape. These were distributed at the beginning of each day and collected in the evening, for a period of seven school days. Speech was recorded for different time periods—before school started, lessons, break times, and while leaving school at the end of the day. Records were also made during time out of school in the afternoons, and parents of the children kept diaries of the kinds of situations encountered by their child. There were few differences between children rated as shy and those rated as sociable in familiar out-of-school situations, but shy children were more reticent in less familiar situations. They spoke less than the non-shy across a range of school settings, with the differences most

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

57

marked in social situations rather than in lessons, particularly during the 10 minutes before the start of the first lesson. During this period the average participation rate (the proportion of time intervals in which the child was speaking) of shy children was approximately 25 percent relative to 32 to 35 percent for non-shy children. Therefore, differences between shy and less shy individuals in speech rates are not restricted to meetings with strangers but are also evident in interactions with the moderately unfamiliar people whom they routinely encounter. This chapter considers the relevance of reticence for school settings but first considers two influential theoretical accounts of individual differences in shyness that emphasize the role of apprehension about the social evaluative consequences of behavior. Explanations of Shyness The finding that shyness shares features of both sociability, the motivation to interact with other people, and anxiety implies that it may reflect a conflict about social interactions, where the shy individual both seeks association with others but fears that he or she will be unable to contribute effectively to the social encounter. The notion of conflict is central to two influential explanations of shyness. Social anxiety theory (e.g., Leary & Kowalski, 1995) draws on notions of self-presentation and impression management. A person will be shy whenever he or she is motivated to create a desired impression in others but has a low subjective probability of being able to do so. Both of these conditions are necessary. A motivated person who has confidence in his or her social skills will not be shy according to this theory, nor will someone who is not at all concerned with the view that others may take. It should be recognized that a desired impression is not equivalent to a positive impression; for example, an individual might seek to avoid criticism, rejection, or the attention of others such that being innocuous might be the desired goal. A student may be reluctant to express an opinion in a group discussion because he wishes to avoid seeming poorly prepared or giving the impression that he does not understand the material. A student may decline her teacher’s request to play a role in a drama lesson and be willing to forego pleasing the teacher rather than risk the embarrassment of performing in front of her peers. A child may endure bullying in silence because he or she does not wish to be thought weak or a “tattle-tale.” A predisposition to shyness can foster defensive ploys that are counterproductive in the longer term. Shy students may fail to develop communication skills or they may deny themselves opportunities to learn that their opinions or social performance are valued by others. A child’s assertiveness might lead not only to an escape from bullying but also help to prevent it from happening to others. The shy person’s behavior can also lead to unwanted evaluations by others. Lord and Zimbardo (1985) asked students to describe themselves and their roommates in a university dormitory using the California Q-Set. A separate sample used the same set of items to describe hypothetical students who failed in social relationships because of lack of effort and those who failed because of lack of

58

Self-Perception Issues

ability. Students who rated themselves as shy saw themselves, and were rated by their fellow students, as more anxious, more likely to keep people at a distance, less talkative, less assertive, and less socially skilled. However, there were discrepancies in explanations of these social difficulties. These were attributed by shy students themselves to their lack of ability but were attributed by their roommates to the shy person’s lack of effort. Whereas a shy person may be quiet because he cannot find anything to say, others often think that he simply cannot be bothered to speak. An attribution to lack of effort is a much less sympathetic interpretation of someone’s actions than an attribution to lack of social skills, as effort is under the control of the shy person and its absence implies that the individual is selfcentered and lacks interest in other people. Furthermore, there are social conventions about the exchange of greetings, enquiring after another’s health, acknowledging remarks, and responding appropriately to questions. People who break these conventions can be perceived as rude or boorish even though they might have done so because they were tongue-tied or embarrassed. Paulhus and Morgan (1997) also found that shy students can make poor impressions on their fellows. Shy participants in a discussion group were rated by other group members as less intelligent, particularly in the early stages of the group’s activities, although this perception altered with increasing familiarity. The main reasons for these ratings of less intelligence, as provided by the group members themselves, were quietness (36 percent) and the poor quality of the contributions to discussion made by shy participants (35 percent). When amount of talk was controlled statistically, the relationship between shyness and judgments of intelligence was no longer evident. The emphasis of the social anxiety model is on the individual’s self-evaluation of the capacities or attributes necessary to bring about desired outcomes. Although shyness may be due to deficiencies in social skills, there is evidence that many shy or socially anxious individuals underestimate their capacities (Clark, 1999). In the study by Bruch and colleagues (1989) mentioned above, shy participants believed that they exhibited more signs of nervousness than were actually perceived by their partner in the conversation. An alternative explanation (Asendorpf, 1989) proposes that shyness is associated with two kinds of concerns—fear of the unfamiliar and fear of being negatively evaluated by others—and these concerns are triggered by two kinds of situations. The first kind involves interacting with strangers and adjusting to unfamiliar settings and novel situations. The second class of events involves situations that have the potential for negative evaluation. It includes those where evaluation is salient, such as speaking up in front of others, giving a speech, or attending interviews or oral examinations, but also routine or less public encounters, such as interacting with authority figures or experts. This account differs from the social anxiety position in two respects. First, it proposes that novelty is an eliciting factor in its own right, whereas the alternative theory holds that novelty produces shyness to the extent that it creates impression management concerns. Second, social

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

59

anxiety theory does not require that the shy person fear negative evaluation, only that they believe that their impression management goals might not be met. A distinction between the two kinds of situations provides one possible answer to a question about the origins and development of shyness, given that infants and young children show signs of shyness, coyness, or wariness to strangers before it seems reasonable to attribute to them an awareness of whether or how they are being evaluated by other people. Kagan postulated the concept of behavioral inhibition to account for the pattern of wariness to novel situations, including the presence of unfamiliar adults, which could be reliably identified in samples of infants from the age of 21 months. There seems to be a degree of continuity between early inhibition and childhood shyness. Inhibited children, like shy adults, are reticent and show signs of greater physiological arousal in the presence of strangers. Although there is evidence of behavioral differences between shy and less shy individuals, the extent of these differences and indeed the implications of shyness for personal adjustment are influenced by cultural norms and values about the expression of emotions. For example, Stevenson-Hinde and Glover (1996) found that shyness was regarded by mothers as less acceptable in sons than in daughters. Kerr, Lambert, Stattin, and Klackenberg-Larsson (1994) found that inhibition was more stable over a period of 6 years in girls than in boys, implying that boys were socialized into hiding or controlling the signs of inhibition. Nevertheless, research has shown that there are consistent differences between shy and less shy children and adults in verbal communication. We now provide an overview of research into the possible impact of these differences upon behavior in educational settings. SHYNESS AND RETICENCE IN THE CLASSROOM Factors Contributing to Reticence There is considerable variation within classrooms in the rates of participation of different individuals. For example, Jones (1990) found that up to one in three secondary school students were virtually silent in the science classes she observed. Brophy and Evertson (1981) studied a sample of students (grade 2 to grade 5) whom they had identified and labeled as “invisible” on the basis of teacher nominations of being the children least noticeable in class. Systematic observations revealed very low rates of social interactions in classroom; these students only contributed when directly called on by the teacher, and when they did they responded in ways that would discourage further interactions. They did not offer spontaneous contributions to the class nor did they reinforce attempts by the teacher to involve them. It is recognized that trait shyness is not the only reason for a student being reticent in school. A number of factors have the potential to affect the contributions that are made in the classroom, some to do with dispositional characteristics of the student and others to do with external factors such as characteristics of the teacher, the subject matter, the lesson, the other students, the seating arrangements, and so on. We consider some of the most salient influences.

60

Self-Perception Issues

Low Academic Self-Esteem Students might be reluctant to contribute to discussion or to answer teacher questions because they have little confidence in themselves, possibly due to a history of unsuccessful contributions. They might fear the embarrassment of making mistakes in front of others. Their reticence might be part of a strategy for selfworth maintenance. As Covington (1992) has argued, an attribution of failure to lack of ability is more damaging to an individual’s sense of self-worth than an attribution to lack of effort, in that failure can be explained in terms of not trying (with the implication that the student could succeed if he or she did try). Likewise, it might be less threatening to be thought of as “quiet” than “stupid.” These students are sensitive to failure and reserved in school, but they might be socially confident in games or more practical subjects, or outside school. Quietness A student might be introverted (in Eysenck’s sense), quiet and reserved with a preference for working on his or her own. This individual is not sensitive about failure or apprehensive of negative evaluation and might be confident in the ability to make a contribution if he or she wished to do so. Learning Style Students have different learning styles, and these are related to the individual’s learning goals and also to preferred ways of working. Some students’ styles involve other people: they prefer group activities and opportunities to work jointly with their peers, or they enjoy frequent interaction with the teacher. Other students are less comfortable with this approach; they like to set and work toward their own goals and only approach others when help or input is needed. Disengagement The student is disengaged and adopts a “mimimalist” strategy. This might be the case of a student who prefers daydreaming or the pursuit of his or her own interests to the activities of the class. Pye (1989) has, like Brophy and Evertson, drawn on the notion of “invisible” children to describe those students who have adjusted to the demands of school and to the attitudes of teachers by adopting a strategy of passive withdrawal. These students try to avoid attracting the teacher’s attention and do the minimum amount of work to make this possible. They never volunteer their participation in any activities and respond to any approach or question by the teacher in ways that are intended to discourage any further interaction. Like anyone who maintains a defensive or protective strategy for any length of time, these students adopt a means of coping that seems to be effective in the short term but eventually isolates them from the potential benefits of education. Pye argued that the typical organization of schools and the ways in which teachers behave toward students are instrumental in creating the conditions for the adoption of this strategy. He arrived at this conclusion partly on observations of classroom practice and interviews with the students, partly on reflection on his own teaching experiences, and partly on the recognition that “invisible” children

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

61

often behaved in very different ways outside school or when they were pursuing extracurricular interests. Outside the constraints of school, these children could be active, interested, and engaged. Alternatively, reticence might be the behavior of a student who is disaffected, who has no interest in school, perhaps resenting having to attend, but who keeps a “low profile” rather than be assertive or disruptive. Because teachers have more pressing discipline problems to attend to, in addition to their curricular responsibilities, this reticence may go unchallenged. Group Processes in the Classroom Classmates can also influence the rate of participation in discussion. It is important to bear in mind that talk is a social activity and what, and how much, is said is influenced by group processes of many kinds such as conformity or “social loafing” (Meyers, 1997). There might be pressures not to comply with the teacher or the demands of school; it is not “cool” to study, or the cooperative child might be labeled a “teacher’s pet.” Some children might try to hide the fact that they are bright because of the teasing or bullying that would ensue. Individuals can be overcome by transient shyness, a constraint that is perhaps influenced by the norms and values of the group and by the history of its activities or by the personality or attitudes of specific individuals such as a domineering or sarcastic teacher or an assertive class member or clique. For example, Bianchini (1997) found a significant correlation between sixth-grade children’s sociometric status and a measure of the frequency of on-task speech acts in the classroom. Conversely, some cohorts of students seem to be lively and talkative and can bring out contributions from even the quietest children. More generally, some classes are talkative and others quiet. Teacher-Student Interaction Effects Although the responses of a class might be influenced by characteristics of its teacher, to the extent that the same group of students will behave differently depending on who takes the class, there can be interaction effects where teachers have differential influences on individual students. Teachers have expectations about particular students, encouraging and reinforcing contributions from some but rarely calling on others. Their own personalities and teaching styles are also factors. An extravert teacher might elicit a lively response from some students but be found intimidating by others. A sensitive teacher might increase the rate of participation of shy students but have little effect on other members of the class. A teaching style that involves direct questioning of individuals might produce more participation among shy students than a style based on questions posed to the whole class where the shy person will be reluctant to speak up. For example, Jones and Gerig (1994) found that differences between silent and nonsilent school students (see below) in the frequencies of social interactions were statistically significant in student-initiated interactions and in responses to open questions but not in responses to teachers’ direct questions.

62

Self-Perception Issues

Evans and Bienert (1992) suggested that teachers found the silences and minimal responses of shy children uncomfortable and coped with their discomfort by producing further questions; however, this had the effect of producing yet more minimal responding as the teacher began to control the conversation rather than create the conditions for dialogue. In general, children were less fluent when the teacher asked direct questions (those that could be answered with a yes or no, and those prefaced with “how,” “who,” “why,” “where,” “when,” or “what”). They were more fluent when the teacher adopted a more conversational style, elaborating on the child’s contributions and introducing his or her own observations. Nevertheless, shyness and a sensitivity to being evaluated by others does contribute to reticence in class. Jones and Gerig (1994) interviewed a sample of 30 American sixth-grade students who had been identified as “silent” on the basis of systematic observations of their behavior in class. These students were interviewed about their reasons for being silent. A majority (72 percent) described themselves as shy and half of them (50 percent) lacked self-confidence. They expressed fears about making mistakes in front of their peers, about being the center of attention, and about being laughed at or embarrassed. They liked working alone or in small groups and preferred classes in which it would be unlikely that they would be asked questions or otherwise be the focus of attention. Mary Ann Evans of the University of Guelph has examined the contributions to classroom discussion of children who have been identified as reticent, typically on the basis of teachers’ ratings or rank ordering of children. Evans (1987) recorded the language of children during “sharing time” sessions in kindergarten classrooms, where individual students take turns to tell the teacher and classmates about things they have done or seen. Reticent children introduced fewer topics, spoke fewer words about each topic, and the mean length of utterance was shorter. Their contributions were simpler and tied to objects that they had brought with them, and they were less likely to develop a story about the object. They volunteered less information. They were more likely to offer no response or only a minimal answer to teachers’ questions and this tended to elicit further teacher questions and a stilted conversation. The research undertaken by Evans shows that individual differences in reticence are associated with measures of frequencies and kinds of participation in classroom discussions. Clearly there are several possible reasons why these children are reluctant to participate, and this chapter has emphasized lack of self-confidence and apprehension about the reactions of others. One factor that has been proposed by Evans is that reticent children “may be less mature in the expressive and pragmatic domains of language development” (1987, p. 179). We now turn to consider evidence for this explanation in terms of language delays. Performance on Language Tests Evans (1993) has provided a thorough review of research that seems to show that shy or reticent children within the age range of 3 to 11 years perform more

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

63

poorly than their non-shy or less reticent peers on formal language assessments. Her review classifies three groups of studies: standardized assessments of language performance, psycholinguistic measures in recorded social interactions, and tests of “hypothetical-reflective performance” where children are prompted to tell the researcher how they think they would behave in vignettes describing specific social situations. Here, we concentrate on standardized tests. Table 3.1 summarizes features of studies of performance on these tests. It includes those published studies cited by Evans that have acceptable sample sizes to enable statistical comparisons between groups of children and adds further research that she did not include or that has subsequently been published. Several points can be made about this set of studies. First, researchers have investigated a range of constructs—affect-extraversion, approach-avoidance, inhibition, reticence, shyness, sociability, and social apprehension. Whereas reticence or lack of talkativeness are empirically defined—that is, in terms of observations of behavior or ratings of typical behavior—and are specifically related to the children’s language, other constructs are regarded as temperaments, early-appearing consistencies in behavior that are not restricted to language. An appeal to the construct of temperament implies the direction of the causal relationship—reticence is a consequence of temperament—whereas the direction is open in the case of the other measures. Language delay might explain reticence, be a correlate of it, or be produced by it, for example in cases where reluctance to speak has delayed the development of communicative skills. Although there are apparent similarities between these temperament constructs, only in the case of shyness and inhibition has this relationship been empirically demonstrated. Thus, the set of studies relates language to a range of different constructs rather than replicating findings within a common framework. This does lead to problems in accounting for some inconsistencies in findings, for example, significant between-group differences on the CELF processing measure reported by Slomkowski, Nelson, Dunn, and Plomin (1997) but not obtained by Evans (1996), or the various findings reported for the PPVT (Evans, 1996; Rubin, 1982; Rubin & Krasnor, 1986). Nevertheless, the trend is for there to be statistically significant differences on language tests between the selected groups, however defined. These differences are not found on all tests, and inspection of the pattern of differences is suggestive. Shy or reticent children tend to perform more poorly on tests of production but the differences are less marked on tests of language reception. If assessments of vocabulary are considered, Evans (1996) administered both a test of expressive vocabulary (EOWPVT), where the child responds to the test items by uttering the names of pictures, and a test of receptive vocabulary (PPVT), where the child hears a word and simply points to which of four pictures depicts the word. The reticent group obtained significantly lower scores than the verbal group on the expressive test, but there was no significant difference on the test of receptive vocabulary. Vriniotis and Evans (cited by Evans, 1993) reported that reticent children obtained lower scores than did verbal children on the verbal fluency subscale

64

Observation of free play Observation of free play Observer ratings of child at home Observer ratings of child at home Teacher rank-order of pupils

Socially isolated Socially isolated Sociability Shyness Reticence

Temperament Inhibition Temperament Approachwithdrawal

Rubin (1982) Rubin & Krasnor (1986) Broberg et al. (1990) Engfer (1993)

Evans (1996)

Broberg et al. (1997)

Paul & Kellogg (1997)

Mother & teacher ratings on Q-sort; observers’ ratings of behavior Parent and clinician ratings, standardized instrument

Social Teacher ratings, apprehensiveness standardized instrument (Fels Child Behavior Scales)

Gewirtz (1948)

Measure

Construct

Author

146

51

6 years Longitudinal, language difficulties identified at 2 years

128

6.5 years– 8 years

6 years

39

140

110 72

38

EOWPVT* PPVT-R CELF Processing CELF Production* School readiness test Verbal ability score at 6.5 years Reading tests at age 8 years Mean length of utterance in sample of spontaneous speech* Quantitative measure of speech intelligibility

Griffiths Developmental Scales, scale C* WISC Vocabulary*[b]

Test of word fluency (rhymes, alliterations, sentence completion, generation of names of children, adults and “things,” sentence arrangement)* Word output, total number of words produced in 2 minutes talk on familiar topic* PPVT *[a] PPVT

Sample Language Test Size

Longitudinal

Longitudinal

Longitudinal

Longitudinal

58–65 months Kindergarten & first grade 28 months–40 months 6.8 years

68 months

Cross-sectional

Cross-sectional Cross-sectional

Age at which Language Tested

Design

Table 3.1. Studies of Children’s Performance on Formal Language Tests

65

Temperament Affectextraversion

Tester ratings, standardized instrument

Longitudinal

2 years 3 years 7 years

229 212 164

[a] Isolated children scored lower than average and sociable groups. [b] Children who were not shy at 33 months but shy at 6.3 years scored lower than those who remained not shy at 6.3 years. [c] SICD administered at 2 and 3 years; remaining tests administered at 7 years.

*Statistically significant difference or relationship

CELF Clinical Evaluation of Language Functioning DSS Developmental Sentence Score EOWPVT Expressive One Word Vocabulary Test PIAT Peabody Individual Achievement Test Reading Recognition Test PPVT-R Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test SICD Sequenced Inventory of Communicative Development TOLD Test of Language Development WISC Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

Slomkowski et al. (1997)

Researcher rating of intelligibility of speech sample DSS TOLD Receptive TOLD Expressive SICD Expressive [c]* SICD Receptive [c]* CELF Processing* CELF Producing* Token Test for Children Touch, color, and shape* Touch, color, size, and shape* Match color and shape* PIAT Reading Recognition Test WISC Vocabulary* WISC Comprehension

66

Self-Perception Issues

of the CELF test although there was no difference between groups on the Vocabulary scale of the WISC intelligence test. Evans (1996) also reported differences on the production subtests of the CELF but not on the processing subtests. Differences are reliably found when measures of oral fluency are involved. Gewirtz (1948) found that children rated as socially apprehensive obtained significantly lower scores on a range of measures of verbal fluency, including total word output in spontaneous speech and indices of the ability to generate rhymes and alliterations and the names of people and objects. Paul and Kellogg (1997) found that withdrawn children produced a smaller mean length of utterance in a sample of spontaneous speech. Evans (1987) also reported significantly lower scores on this measure of fluency among children rated as quiet, relative to their talkative peers, in a “sharing time” session in the classroom. We have also found similar differences between children rated as shy and not shy by their teachers (Crozier & Perkins, in press). Two age groups were tested, 5 to 6 years and 8 to 9 years. The children were presented with a set of five jumbled cartoon drawings which were to be rearranged to depict a story (for example, a kitten running out of the house into the road and being rescued). Children were then asked to tell the story in words to the interviewer and these descriptions were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed and coded using the SALT computer program (Miller & Chapman, 1998; this program was also used in the Paul and Kellogg, 1997, study). The interviewer, scribe, and coders of the transcripts were blind to the child’s shyness group membership. The verbal descriptions provided by shy children were shorter and had a less varied vocabulary; these children had significantly smaller mean length of utterance in words and also lower scores on an index of type-token ratios in their speech. Other studies report mixed findings with tests of receptive vocabulary, such as the PPVT. They either find no significant differences (Rubin & Krasnor, 1986) or, where withdrawn children do obtain significantly lower scores than average children, their scores are nevertheless in line with age norms (Rubin, 1982). The trend here seems to be for sociable or more talkative children to obtain vocabulary scores that are significantly higher than their age norms, rather than withdrawn children performing more poorly than the norm. Two studies have reported differences on the WISC Vocabulary scale (Slomkowski et al., 1997; Engfer, 1993) but these findings were not replicated by Vriniotis and Evans (cited by Evans, 1993). Slomkowski and colleagues (1997) found group differences at ages 2 and 3 years on receptive items of the SICD and, at age 7 years, on the Token Test, which is also a test of receptive skills. To summarize, tests of verbal fluency, verbal production, and expressive vocabulary present a more consistent picture of differences between shy/reticent and non-shy/talkative children than do tests of receptive vocabulary. The study reported by Evans (1996) is particularly suggestive in that two tests used presented the same children with pictures: Reticent children performed more poorly when uttering the name of the pictures but not when responding by pointing to the ap-

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

67

propriate picture. Nevertheless, some studies do report differences between groups of children on measures of receptive language skills, and further research is needed to determine the contribution to these findings of the categories of children’s temperament or personality characteristics and the kinds of test items involved. This pattern of findings suggests that the differences between shy and less-shy children cannot simply be a matter of testing in itself; it is what the child has to do that may be important. Evans’s interpretation of the poorer performance of shy children is that they lack communicative competence; that is, she assumes that these tests make valid assessments of shy children’s abilities. She suggests that they lack competence relative to their peers because their reticence has impeded the development of communicative skills. It is possible that reticence, in turn, is linked to characteristics of the shy person’s home that are less conducive to the development of vocabulary, for example, less social stimulation, less conversation, or a smaller social network of friends and acquaintances. There is little direct evidence on this although there is evidence of a relationship between delayed language development and shyness. For example, Caulfield, Fischel, DeBaryshe, and Whitehurst (1989) found that children who were assessed at the age of 2 years as delayed in expressive language development were rated by mothers as more shy and fearful than a matched sample of peers with normal development. In a longitudinal study, Paul and Kellogg (1997) found that children with delayed expressive development at age 2 years were, at age 7 years, rated as more shy than their peers by parents and psychologists. When interpreting differences on language tests it is essential to distinguish between competence and performance. An alternative explanation to the view that shy children lack competence is that shyness is triggered by the assessment process. Most of the studies assess linguistic performance through face-to-face testing. It is evident that encounters with strangers and situations where they are being assessed are the most common causes of shyness in childhood. It is not clear whether variation in test performance reflects relative differences in competence in expressive and receptive vocabulary, or whether the first kind of test is more susceptible to the influence of shyness in that the test subject is required to make spoken responses. This effect might be examined by comparing performance under different test conditions, contrasting face-to-face with group or written forms of the tests. We are currently conducting an investigation along these lines. Suggestive evidence comes from studies carried out by Broberg and colleagues where differences that were evident in face-to-face testing at ages 28 and 40 months were not evident on written tests at 6 and 8 years. Broberg, Wessels, Lamb, and Hwang (1997) propose that “shyness affects vocal and verbal productions but not the written measures of linguistic ability” (p. 68), but this needs further empirical examination. There are also several possible mechanisms by which shyness could influence vocal and verbal production. This might be through attention processes. Crozier

68

Self-Perception Issues

(1990) argued that shyness produces anxious self-preoccupation, which, in parallel with well established findings in the field of test anxiety, results in attention being self-focused rather than task focused. This could interfere, for example, with the generation of responses in vocabulary tests. Alternatively, shy children might set themselves a more rigouros criterion for response selection because they fear the embarrassment of giving a wrong answer. Here shyness would produce hesitation or reluctance to respond at all, a phenomenon that is frequently encountered when testing children. These alternative hypotheses imply that the tests underestimate children’s abilities. Evans (1993) has explicitly rejected this interpretation, arguing that shy children’s deficits are also evident in tests that require no or minimal verbal responses and are not apparent in assessments on nonverbal tasks. These alternative hypotheses should not be interpreted as a denial of the importance of the influence of shyness on assessment or of its educational implications. Formal assessment of language has come to occupy a pivotal role in the education of even quite young children. Less formally, effective classroom teaching depends on successful evaluation of children’s strengths and limitations. These are typically assessed through interaction between teacher and student, where the teacher asks questions of individuals, invites participation from the whole class, sets group tasks, and so on, and where the student seeks help from teacher or classmates, volunteers information, and works in shared activities. Teachers ought to be aware of temperamental characteristics of children that may be influencing these appraisals. Helping Shy Students in the Classroom Recognition that a student might be silent in class because of his or her shyness rather than, say, lack of interest in or understanding of the topic, is an important step toward encouraging greater participation. Teachers can be insensitive to shyness. For example, a large-scale survey of Canadian high school students’ perceptions of embarrassing incidents in school undertaken by Martin (1987) showed that students’ sense of their teachers’ failure to understand the student’s perspective was a common cause of embarrassment. Two quotations can serve to illustrate this point: “Teachers do not understand that a person can be shy”; [they] “continue to embarrass students in front of the class about their shyness” (p. 283). Nevertheless, encouragement is not a straightforward issue. A child’s shyness may be long established, maintained by a set of beliefs about his or her capabilities, and associated with anxiety. Being put “on the spot” by even a well-intentioned teacher can simply result in greater self-consciousness, inhibition, and anxiety. Evans and Bienert (1992) have shown how teachers and shy students can become embroiled in an unproductive, and presumably eventually exasperating, sequence of direct questions and terse answers. Furthermore, the student’s anxious self-preoccupation may make it difficult to produce the requested response, thereby intensifying his or her anxiety. On the other hand, participation that is reinforced by the teacher and/or peers and that is rewarding for the student does provide a vehicle for help-

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

69

ing the individual to challenge his or her self-perceptions and to learn coping skills. As with every skill, the individual might require the support of some “scaffolding” before he or she can effectively take responsibility for self-regulation, and this too implies a role for sensitive and responsive teaching. Although there is an extensive clinical literature on therapeutic approaches to social anxiety, there is little work on dealing with shyness within the classroom. Brophy and Bohrkemper (1989) took an empirical approach to this question, conducting interviews and presenting vignettes about shy, withdrawn students to a sample of experienced elementary school teachers who had been nominated as either outstanding or satisfactory in their strategies for coping with children with difficulties. One vignette described a shy child and one an inattentive child who is prone to daydreaming, and participating teachers were asked to say how they would deal with the events described in the vignettes. We concentrate here on the interviews that were conducted two weeks after the presentation of the vignettes and when the teachers had had an opportunity to reflect further on their approaches. Three general strategies were mentioned by the majority of teachers interviewed: some form of modeling or instruction to encourage greater participation (72 percent); attempts to support the child and boost self-esteem (49 percent); and the application of shaping strategies, for example reinforcing participation in a systematic way through the use of incentives (31 percent). There were very few references in the interview transcripts to strategies that were regarded as appropriate for other kinds of problems in the classroom, such as controlling or suppressing behavior, helping the student to achieve insight into the problem or teaching strategies to cope with the problem (without eliminating it entirely). Teachers believed that the withdrawn behavior reflected stable characteristics of the child and that it would take a long time before the shy students would participate freely, that change should be attempted gradually and indirectly, and that the problem required delicate handling (adopting “kids glove treatment,” that is, making allowances and not pressuring shy students). A range of more specific strategies was advocated by the teachers. Among the most frequent were: changing the social environment, encouraging or shaping responsiveness, minimizing the student’s embarrassment, building self-concept, adapting instruction to the student’s needs, and praising. All of these were mentioned by at least 25 percent of the sample. There were frequent references to attempts to draw out the shy student, by involving him or her in a leadership role or in running errands, giving extra attention, and having frequent private conversations with him or her. Peers were also involved, particularly in promoting social support by being assigned as “buddies,” and in facilitating small-group activities. Many teachers recognized that shy people need time to “warm up,” to become familiar with the task and the other members in the group or class, and the teacher should allow for this when making requests for participation. Strategies that were rejected by the teachers included forcing the student to respond or embarrassing or putting him or her on the spot.

70

Self-Perception Issues

There were some differences between the outstanding and satisfactory teachers. Outstanding teachers were more likely to refer to using praise, expressing positive expectations, building self-concept, minimizing the student’s embarrassment, and drawing the student out by increased attention and involving him or her, for example, in a leadership role or running errands. They mentioned more frequently the value of involving peers in small-group activities. They were more likely to see the need for a long-term strategy, to differentiate strategies for different shy students, to seek more information about the problem. They were less likely to refer to ignoring the problem (although this was not often mentioned by any of the teachers). Good teachers did not vary in dramatic ways from their competent peers, but they did seem more aware that intervention strategies had to be tailored to individuals. Content analysis of interview material can miss themes that cut across the categories in the coding scheme. Brophy and Bohrkemper (1989) bring out one such theme in these interviews: the value several teachers placed on taking the student’s own interests as a starting point, using these as a basis for initiating conversation or a classroom activity, for example, encouraging them to work on a project based on these interests with other students, a project that might result in an oral presentation to the class. Nevertheless, this strategy should be planned sensitively taking account of the shy student’s needs, for example, taking things slowly at first and avoiding making the individual the center of everyone’s attention. Several issues identified by this sample of teachers are compatible with what is known about shyness. In many cases, reticence and withdrawn behavior are expressions of an underlying predisposition that is associated with low self-esteem and sensitivity to embarrassment. These are ingrained and cannot be expected to change quickly. Direct pressure or confrontation are inappropriate because they only worsen the immediate problem, intensifying anxiety without achieving the goal of increasing participation, and do nothing to make future participation more likely. Discreet attempts can be made to encourage participation and boost selfesteem, and teachers can be alert to cues that a student is prepared to contribute to a topic. Evans and Bienert (1992) found that shy students were more responsive when the teacher was less direct but made more positive comments about the child and acknowledged and valued his or her contributions. Involving the class in small-group activities, perhaps where the individual is paired with a buddy or a friend, is also likely to be effective. An experimental study by Fantuzzo and colleagues (1988) showed gains in social initiative-taking among withdrawn preschool children who participated in play sessions with peers who had been trained in strategies aimed at promoting social interaction. The vignette that provided the starting point for Brophy and Bohrkemper’s analysis explicitly stated that the hypothetical student was “shy and withdrawn,” and the study was undertaken within the context of teachers’ approaches to problem behavior. Although it is encouraging that the teachers revealed themselves to be sensitive to the nature of shyness and recognized both effective and ineffective

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

71

approaches, there is a risk of regarding shyness simply as a problem. It must be remembered that reticence is not necessarily due to shyness and that students are individuals—those who are comfortable with their shyness or reticence are to be valued as much as someone who is talkative, sociable, or extrovert. There can be cultural factors influencing children’s modesty, lack of assertiveness, or tendency not to speak until spoken to. For many individuals, shyness is indeed a problem, nevertheless many others prefer to avoid being the focus of attention, to observe and reflect on social behavior, to work independently rather than in collaboration, and so on. Teachers should recognize that it is possible to be an effective student in a variety of ways. Approaches to encourage the development of communication skills, including talking and listening skills (“oracy”), and the ability to work in cooperation with others, should also be based on recognition of individual differences in communication styles. Reticence in Higher Education Before reaching a conclusion, this chapter considers the implications of shyness for studying in higher education. This section is necessarily brief. Although there is research into shy students’ adjustment to college or university in terms of the formation of social relationships (Asendorpf and Wilpers, 1998) there is not, to my knowledge, work that examines verbal behavior in the classroom. The seminar has traditionally constituted the principal method for small-group teaching in university. There is evidence of substantial individual differences in rates of participation in these classes. For example, an analysis of the verbal behavior of 33 students in four seminar groups by Seale (1980) found that 4 students contributed nearly half of the discussion, compared to 15 who contributed only 5 percent and 5 who said nothing. There is also some evidence that student personality characteristics are related to rates of participation in seminars, at least where participation is rated by instructors (Furnham & Medhurst, 1995). Some research has investigated students’ accounts of the reasons for their reticence. Rudduck (1978) interviewed a sample of undergraduates about their participation in seminars. Several expressed anxiety about appearing foolish in front of others. One of our projects (Crozier & Garbert-Jones, 1996) interviewed a sample of mature students about their understanding of shyness, their experience of it both at present and in the past, and the kinds of situations that tended to elicit it. The situation that had the greatest potential for shyness was the seminar. One respondent described seminars as “some of the most horrific social situations you’ll ever come across.” For some, simply anticipating a seminar was sufficient to induce unpleasant emotions: “I think perhaps that’s one of the reasons why university seemed a daunting thing, the fact that you might have to get up and speak in front of a group of people.” Awareness of being the focus of attention was a central concern: “It’s a case of having 30-odd pairs of eyes staring at you.” The concerns the students expressed reveal the core characteristics of shyness: fear of making a contribution in case they appear foolish in front of others, remaining

72

Self-Perception Issues

quiet and trying to keep in the background. This inactivity is accompanied by intense mental activity including rehearsing possible answers to questions but being inhibited from uttering them, because the students believe their remarks would be inappropriate or of an inadequate standard. They feel self-conscious, very aware of themselves in the situation. We also have been collecting data showing that individual differences in scores on the Cheek-Buss shyness scale are correlated with perceptions of seminars. The scale was completed by a sample of 169 undergraduate students in one faculty of one British university, together with a questionnaire including items about perceptions of seminars and participation in them. Factor analysis showed that three factors could be identified in responses to the questionnaire items, and these were identified as confidence in participation, inhibition (wishing to contribute but remaining silent), and positive attitudes to seminars (regarding them as valuable and useful). The shyness measure was significantly positively correlated with factor scores on inhibition and positive attitudes toward seminar factors, and negatively correlated with scores on confidence in participation, and this remained the case when students’ estimates of their rate of participation relative to other students were statistically controlled. Shy students are not less interested in taking part in seminars and they do recognize their value; rather, they are inhibited about participation. Inspection of individual items showed that differences were greatest on items referring to social evaluative fears, such as being embarrassed, nervous about speaking up in front of others, worry about saying something foolish, and feeling that they have nothing interesting to say. It is accepted that seminars can be an effective means of fostering teaching and learning, but only where they are successful in encouraging active participation in discussion and argument. There is some evidence that students are reticent because they are anxious about creating a desired impression in instructors and fellow students. This is an issue worthy of further research, particularly given the rapid expansion of student numbers in recent years and pressures toward efficient use of teaching resources. Research needs to identify the contribution of shyness to rates of participation and also to develop and assess strategies for encouraging greater involvement. CONCLUSION I have argued that there is evidence for individual differences in a trait of shyness that can be identified in both childhood and adulthood. A considerable amount of research suggests that the origins of shyness can be traced to infancy and it is first evident at an age when the child has little capacity for sophisticated thinking about the self or how he or she is regarded by other people. Nevertheless, from about the age of 4 to 5 years, accounts of shyness are closely linked with self-perception processes. Shy individuals believe that they lack the ability to create a desired impression and they are preoccupied with self-presentation concerns. They believe that they have nothing of interest to contribute to social encounters. They see themselves as lacking in conversational skills. This leads them to be re-

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

73

luctant to contribute, to participate minimally, or even to avoid social situations where they fear they will be evaluated or run the risk of appearing foolish or being embarrassed. They can be confident with familiar people or settings, but this is not sustained when meeting new people or encountering novel situations. Although shyness is associated with lack of poise in social situations, the shy underestimate their abilities relative to observers of their behavior. Shyness often takes the form of reticence. This can be seen in systematic observations of behavior in natural settings, including school classrooms, and in the contrived social situations of the psychological laboratory. A body of research shows that shy children tend to perform more poorly on formal assessments of language development. This trend emerges from an accumulation of diverse studies, involving different conceptualizations of shyness, reticence, or social withdrawal, and a range of language tests. It does seem that deficits are greater when language production rather than reception is assessed. They are reliably found in test situations when measures are made of verbal fluency in spontaneous speech. Clearly, tests are situations that shy children find difficult, in that they are unfamiliar and evaluative. This inevitably affects interpretation of the nature of underperformance in assessments of language, whether this is due to a competence factor—that is, a developmental delay—or a performance factor, where test scores underestimate the abilities of shy children, abilities that are comparable to those of their less shy peers. Confidence in verbal communication is an essential element in development and learning. Oracy should be a goal of education in itself (Lloyd & Peers, 1999). Interaction with peers and teachers provides a basis for an active approach to learning, for self-regulation and the adoption of critical attitudes by means of selfquestioning. Social skills are essential to adult adjustment, and research is currently being directed to enhancing social competence in schools (Warden & Christie, 1997). In this chapter, I have reviewed research and briefly referred to some of our own studies to show that many individuals do have well-entrenched difficulties in approaching and engaging in social interactions. Future research should investigate these differences and consider how people can be helped to change their self-perceptions and overcome their shyness. NOTE The review of research into language test performance was undertaken with the support of the Economic and Social Research Council, London, UK.

REFERENCES Asendorpf, J. B. (1989). Shyness as a final common pathway for two different kinds of inhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 542–549. Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier, G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1072–1083. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.

74

Self-Perception Issues

Baldwin, J. M. (1894). Bashfulness in children. Educational Review, 8, 434–441. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039–1065. Boer, F., & Westenberg, P. M. (1994). The factor structure of the Buss and Plomin EAS temperament survey (parental ratings) in a Dutch sample of elementary school children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 537–551. Briggs, S. R. (1988). Shyness: Introversion or neuroticism? Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 290–307. Briggs, S. R., & Smith, T. G. (1986). The measurement of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 47–60). New York: Plenum. Broberg, A. G., Hwang, C. P., Lamb, M. E., & Bookstein, F. L. (1990). Factors related to verbal abilities in Swedish preschoolers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 335–349. Broberg, A. G., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. (1997). Effects of day care on the development of cognitive abilities in 8-year-olds: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 62–69. Brophy, J., & Bohrkemper, M. (1989). Teachers’ strategies for coping with shy/withdrawn students (Research Series No. 199). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching. Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman. Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability re-examined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 904–915. Caulfield, M., Fischel, J., DeBaryshe, B., & Whitehurst, G. (1989). Behavioral correlates of developmental expressive language disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 187–201. Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339. Cheek, J. M., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1999). Varieties of shyness in adolescence and adulthood. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes (pp. 224–250) New York: Oxford University Press. Clark, D. M. (1999). Anxiety disorders: Why they persist and how to treat them. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, S7–S27. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216–220. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Crozier, W. R. (1990). Social psychological perspectives on shyness, embarrassment, and shame. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness and embarrassment: Perspectives from social psychology (pp. 19–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crozier, W. R. (1995). Shyness and self-esteem in middle childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 85–95. Crozier, W. R., & Garbert-Jones, A. (1996). Finding a voice: Shyness in mature students’ experience of university. Adults Learning, 7, 195–198.

Shyness, Self-Perception, and Reticence

75

Crozier, W. R., & Perkins, P. (In press.). Shyness as a factor when testing children. Cardiff: School of Social Sciences, University of Cardiff. Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Eisenberg, N., Shepard, S. A., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., & Guthrie, I. K. (1998). Shyness and children’s emotionality, regulation, and coping: Contemporaneous, longitudinal, and across-context relations. Child Development, 69, 767–790. Engfer, A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of shyness in boys and girls: A six-year longitudinal study. In K. H. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp. 49–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Evans, M. A. (1987). Discourse characteristics of reticent children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 171–84. Evans, M. A. (1993). Communicative competence as a dimension of shyness. In K. H. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp. 189–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Evans, M. A. (1996). Reticent primary grade children and their more talkative peers: verbal, nonverbal, and self-concept characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 739–749. Evans, M. A., & Beinert, H. (1992). Control and paradox in teacher conversations with shy children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 502–516. Eysenck, H. J. (1978). The development of personality and its relation to learning. In S. Murray-Smith (Ed.), Melbourne studies in education 1978 (pp. 134–181). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Fantuzzo, J. W., Jurecic, L., Stovall, A., Hightower, A. D., Goinc, C., & Schachtel, D. (1988). Effects of adult and peer social initiations on the social behavior of withdrawn, maltreated preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 34–39. Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: A study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 197– 208. Gewirtz, J. L. (1948). Studies in word-fluency: II. Its relation to eleven items of child behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 72, 177–184. Jones, M. G. (1990). Action zone theory and target students in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 651–660. Jones, M. G., & Gerig, T. M. (1994). Silent sixth-grade students: Characteristics, achievement, and teacher expectations. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 169–182. Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1987). The physiology and psychology of behavioral inhibition in children. Child Development, 58, 1459–1473. Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., Snidman, N, Gibbons, J., & Johnson, M. O. (1988). Childhood derivatives of inhibition and lack of inhibition to the unfamiliar. Child Development, 59, 1580–1589. Kerr, M., Lambert, W., Stattin, W., & Klackenberg-Larsson, I. (1994). Stability of inhibition in a Swedish longitudinal sample. Child Development, 65, 138–146. Leary, M., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford. Lloyd, P., & Peers, I. (1999, March 11). Education – Mind their language please. The Independent, CD-ROM article no. 1346.

76

Self-Perception Issues

Lord, C. G., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1985). Actor-observer differences in the perceived stability of shyness. Social Cognition, 3, 250–265. Martin, W. B. W. (1987). Students’ perceptions of causes and consequences of embarrassment in the school. Canadian Journal of Education, 12, 277–293. Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 105–115. Miller, J, & Chapman, R. (1998). SALT: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts. Madison, WI: Language Analysis Laboratory, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Paul, R., & Kellogg, L. (1997). Temperament in late talkers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 803–811. Paulhus, D. L., & Morgan, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of intelligence in leaderless groups: The dynamic effects of shyness and acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 581–591. Pilkonis, P. A. (1977). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of Personality, 45, 596–611. Pilkonis, P. A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). The personal and social dynamics of shyness. In C. Izard (Ed.), Emotions in personality and psychopathology (pp. 133–160). New York: Plenum. Pye, J. (1989). Invisible children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rezendes, M., Snidman, N., Kagan, J., & Gibbons, J. (1993). Features of speech in inhibited and uninhibited children. In K. H. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp. 177–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rubin, K. H. (1982). Social and social-cognitive characteristics of young isolate, normal and sociable children. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 335–374). New York: Springer-Verlag. Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1986). Social cognitive and social perspectives on problem solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposium on Child Development, 18, 1–86. Rudduck, J. (1978). Learning through small group discussion. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia. Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1994). Patterns of cortical electrophysiology and autonomic activity in adults’ shyness and sociability. Biological Psychology, 38, 183–198. Seale, C. (1980). Two views of discussion groups. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 4, 51–59 Slomkowski, C. L., Nelson, K., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1992). Temperament and language: Relations from toddlerhood to middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1090–1095. Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Glover, A. (1996). Shy girls and boys: A new look. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 181–187. Warden, D., & Christie, D. (1997). Teaching social behaviour: Classroom activities to roster interpersonal awareness. London: David Fulton. Yuill, N. (1992). Children’s production and comprehension of trait terms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 131–142.

4 SELF-PERCEPTION IN CONTEXT: TOWARD A MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL PERFORMANCE Richard J. Riding

INTRODUCTION The intention of this chapter is to consider the elements of a model of school performance and to see self-perception within that context. Within the history of psychology and of educational research there has been the tendency for researchers to take a fairly narrow view and for their work to focus on one aspect to the exclusion of others. In the psychology section of a library one is likely to see books and journal articles on the various individual psychology variables of personality, intelligence, gender, cognitive style, environmental effects, self-esteem, locus of control, and so on. This is understandable in the early stages of a discipline. However, it may lead to three problems: • There is the danger that different labels are given to constructs that are in fact the same or very similar. • The relationship between all of the variables is not appreciated. • The ways in which the constructs may act on behaviors in interaction, and the wider context of social influences, is not investigated.

What is needed is to adopt an integrating approach and to see the relative effects of the variables both singly and together. Each of the influencing elements will be fairly briefly considered and a model of school performance described.

78

Self-Perception Issues

OBSERVABLE CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS This consideration will begin from what is generally observable to the teacher in the school. Teachers will notice that some pupils appear more confident than others, that some behave in a cooperative way whereas others are disruptive, that some attend to the learning task and others are lacking in motivation or are poorly organised, and that some do well in assessments whereas others do not. A Cycle of Self-Perception, Emotional Behavior, Conduct Behavior, Learning Behavior, and Attainment School attainment can be seen as part of a cycle in which five elements affect one another. The five elements are self-perception, emotional behavior, conduct behavior, learning behavior, and attainment. Self-perception and coping strategies will affect emotional behavior. Pupils’ success at learning, as shown by their attainment, will influence their self-perception of themselves as learners and will affect their motivation, and this in turn will affect their conduct behavior. The way pupils feel and behave, in turn, will determine the extent to which they attend to their work and hence influence their learning behavior. The learning behavior will then be related to their attainment. The elements of the cycle are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1. The School Behavioral Cycle

Self-Perception in Context

79

Self-Perception How a person feels about him- or herself will affect performance. Self-perception will derive from introspective consideration by the individual pupil of his or her feelings about him- or herself. These feelings will emanate from a sense of the degree of well-being experienced and sense of competence. A limitation on that degree of well-being is that an individual has little internal reference and will only have his or her own experiences by which to gauge feelings. If he or she is always in a situation that causes emotional pain then he or she will tend to think that the inner unhappiness that they experience as a result is the norm and that other people feel similarly. It is rather like the 7-year-old boy who was very nearsighted, but whose visual defect had not been detected. He naturally assumed that the world was blurred for everyone, never having experienced anything different. Similarly, if a child has always felt depressed she will assume that depression is normal and natural. However, although individuals may be limited in the ways in which they see themselves, their self-assurance and attitudes will be more evident to others and particularly so to teachers. The degree of self-attitude is likely to be observable in terms of an assurance in contrast to a loud and boastful front, on the one hand, and an obvious fearfulness on the other. Self-perception is also termed self-concept and self-image, and may be seen as including self-esteem, self-respect, self-efficacy, self-acceptance, and self-confidence. Self-esteem is, as a review by Mruk (1999), has pointed out, a multifaceted construct. It includes an individual’s competence and worthiness, which is recognized in the individual cognitively and effectively, and has both a reluctance to change (stability) and an ability to change (openness to change). As implied above, in assessing self-perception there is the difficulty that introspective self-report measures have inherent weaknesses. These include the person’s (a) possible inability to accurately and objectively report their behaviour, (b) unwillingness to make the necessary effort to respond accurately, and (c) bias due to the pressure of social desirability in making responses (see, for instance, Kline, 1995, p. 512). Emotional Behavior The level of emotional behavior is likely to manifest itself positively in terms of characteristics such as a degree of self-assurance, a quiet self-confidence, an ease in associating with other pupils and adults, not appearing overly anxious or nervous, and not being unduly quiet or withdrawn. The degree of emotional behavior will reflect, on the one hand, the internal sources such as anxiety level and past experience, and on the other, the level of external stress that may come from home, school, and peers. For rating by teachers, a general indication of self-perception of pupils may be obtained using the emotional behavior items on the Emotional and Behavioral Development Scale (QCA, 2000). However, an obvious problem with external assessment is that the observer cannot know exactly how a person feels.

80

Self-Perception Issues

Conduct Behavior Teachers are likely to view conduct disorder as outward manifestations of misbehavior such as verbal interruption, distracting other pupils, inappropriate moving about, and physical aggression to other pupils or the teacher. In the United Kingdom, the Elton Report (DES & Welsh Office, 1989) suggested that teachers generally identify misbehavior in these terms. Conduct disorder will usually result in reduced learning performance not only of the pupil who is misbehaving, but also of other pupils in the group who were distracted; if pupils are not attending they will not be learning. By contrast, passive misbehavior, such as inattention, “daydreaming,” and not completing work, is less likely to be seen as conduct disorder because it is not disruptive, but rather as “learning disorder.” Girls generally display misbehavior more passively in a manner that does not cause disruption (see for instance, Schwartzman, Varlaan, Peters, & Serbin, 1995). Passive misbehavior, such as inattention and not completing work, was not likely to be counted because it was not disruptive. Conduct behavior may be assessed by teachers using the conduct behavior items on the Emotional and Behavioural Development Scale (QCA, 2000). Learning Behavior Learning behavior will include the extent to which an individual is attentive, has interest in learning, is well organized, shows perseverance, communicates effectively, works with others, and seeks help as necessary. Learning behavior may also be assessed using the learning behavior items on the Emotional and Behavioural Development Scale (QCA, 2000). Attainment Attainment will follow from the learning behavior and will be the degree of learning that is usually manifested in terms of tests and examinations, but also in class exchanges and group work. The Operation of the Cycle The behavioral cycle does not operate in isolation, nor in a completely sequential manner in terms of causation. Several more fundamental characteristics and experiences will also affect self-perception and emotional and conduct and learning behavior. Reviews of the possible contributory factors to problem behavior have suggested similarly long lists of variables, including, for instance, impulsivity, low intelligence, family, peer influences, socioeconomic level, and situational influences, (e.g., Charlton & George, 1993). Lists that are likely to affect the behaviors are summarized in Figure 4.2, which groups variables under the headings of home background, quality of schooling, attitudes and value of the peers, and individual characteristics. The variables that contribute to performance on the behavioral cycle will be examined in more detail. The characteristics will be considered from top to bottom and from left to right of Figure 4.2, and for each their individual effect on the ob-

Self-Perception in Context

81

Figure 4.2. A Model of School Performance

servable behaviors will be noted. However, home, school, peers, and the individual will all interact with one another in affecting the behavioral cycle. HOME BACKGROUND Pupils will be influenced by their home background. There are three aspects of the home that are likely to impact on the child, and these are shown in Figure 4.3. The features of an ideal home would include, (a) a loving care and concern by the parents for the child and recognition for achievements, (b) sensibly and lovingly applied control and discipline, and (c) sufficient educational level and ability on the part of the parents and their having the willingness to provide an interesting, stimulating environment and learning resources in the home/family.

Figure 4.3. Features of the Home Background

82

Self-Perception Issues

The opposite characteristics to the ideal would be parental neglect, giving a feeling in the child of rejection, lack of control or repressive control, and educational impoverishment. Home Background and Emotional Behavior Love and recognition by the parents for the child are essential for the child’s well-being. At the most basic level such care will result in the child’s being adequately fed and clothed. Just as important for the child’s happiness is the higher level of the love and recognition necessary to produce a feeling of security and self-worth in the child that will lead to self-assurance. Parental Love and Recognition There is evidence that lack of love and recognition in childhood result in a feeling of insecurity, low self-worth, and potential difficulty in interpersonal relationships (e.g., Bowlby, 1988). Research on the importance of attachment (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Levy & Davis, 1988; Pistole, 1989) emphasizes the importance of secure attachment for the development of the capacity for intimacy and relationship satisfaction that predisposes the ability to make and keep friends. Avoidant attachment is associated with lower levels of intimacy and emotional intensity, as well as lower levels of commitment and satisfaction. Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986), in considering the results of British, American and Scandinavian studies on family factors and behavior, concluded that the primary influence was neglect of their children by parents, and the consequent lack of an active interest in them and a relationship with them. In a review, Mruk (1999) found evidence that self-esteem is related to parental involvement, warmth, expectation, respect for the child, and consistency of parenting. Home Background and Conduct Behavior Consistent and Reasonable Control It may be argued that control is important because it is necessary if the child is to internalize values and moral boundaries for behavior. Without such values and boundaries, the child will lack self-control and a view of acceptable behavior. Control and discipline will need to be lovingly and sensibly applied by the parents. This is in contrast to harsh, unfeeling discipline on the one hand, and a lack of control allied with spoiling on the other. The consequence of the levels of love and control are shown in Figure 4.4. Although only the extremes are shown, each will be a continuum. Winkley (1996), for instance, has argued that the main underlying cause of conduct disorder in the majority of instances is the lack of a stable and secure family relationship. A child’s behavior is likely to be greatly influenced by the quality of love and the stability of the home environment, and the control received (Charlton & George, 1993).

Self-Perception in Context

83

Figure 4.4. Parental Love and Control Effects

There is probably the need for a clear, consistent system of rules and control to be applied to children as they develop, which is based on a loving relationship. If the control structure is not applied, or if control is applied in an unloving way, then an internalized self-control system will not be developed. Poor parental control has been found to be related to problem behavior (e.g., McCord, 1979; Riley & Shaw, 1985; Wilson, 1980). There is evidence, then, that for a child to feel secure and self-controlled two elements are required: (1) the experience of love and recognition from the parent(s) to foster within the child an adequate level of security, self-esteem, and selfworth; and (2) a reasonable, consistent, and lovingly applied system of discipline and control, so that the child develops an internalized self-control. The absence of either or both of these elements is likely to result in problem behavior being exhibited. Home Background and Learning Behavior and Attainment Two aspects of the parents will affect learning behavior and attainment: their commitment to their children and their learning resources. In terms of commitment, for parents of a given intellectual level, the time and effort they spend encouraging and facilitating their children’s learning activity will affect intellectual development. This will act by the parents helping their children to learn, for instance, language skills such as reading, and also incidentally by the parents sharing their own enthusiasm for learning and exploring new ideas and interests with their children. With respect to learning resources, these will include both the intellectual level of the parents and the provision of learning media such as books and computer equipment and access to educational software and the Internet. Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulos, Ritter, and Dornbusch (1990) found that dropping out of school was associated with parents being less involved in their children’s education. Zimiles and Lee (1991) concluded that students from stepfamilies and single-parent families were almost three times as likely to drop out of school as their counterparts from intact families. Griffin and Morrison (1997) observed that the home literacy environment was a significant predictor of a child’s achievement. Luster and McAdoo (1996) found that the mother’s educational level and involvement in kindergarten was related to academic performance. Pong (1998) showed that family characteristics such as socioeconomic status, having two par-

84

Self-Perception Issues

ents, parents who discuss school matters with their children, all affect achievement. Downey (1995) investigated parental type as a resource and as a mediator between family structure and educational performance. It was found that stepparent households had fewer parental resources than in mother/father households, and resulted in lower educational outcomes. SCHOOL Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, and Olsen (1979) have drawn attention to the differences between schools in their effects on children’s behavior and attainment. There are three aspects of the school, in particular of its teachers, that will affect pupils. The first is the extent to which the teachers show care and concern for the pupils and value them as individuals. The second is the control and discipline exercised by the teachers in setting clear and reasonable rules to provide clear boundaries for behavior. Third, there is the quality of the teaching with regard to producing efficient and effective learning. These elements are shown in Figure 4.5. The School and Emotional Behavior Potentially, the school will have a profound effect on the pupil’s emotional behavior. The ethos of the school will include the way in which pupils are viewed by the staff. When a school values pupils as individuals and treats them with respect, this will affect the way pupils perceive themselves. The school should also avoid undue and unnecessary stress particularly for more sensitive pupils. The School and Conduct Behavior The school will have a significant influence on conduct behavior. The rule system of the school will include the structure of the school rules, their reasonableness and relevance, and their degree of enforcement and the clarity of boundaries they set. A further feature here is the extent to which teachers uniformly and fairly

Figure 4.5. Features of the School

Self-Perception in Context

85

apply the rule system. Ogilvy (1994) pointed out that in a school, particular pupils may be disruptive only with certain teachers and that pupil behavior varies with context. The School and Learning Behavior and Attainment The school’s impact on learning behavior will be the extent to which the learning experience is made interesting and meaningful and real, active learning takes place. The quality of the teaching will be reflected in the degree to which the learning is meaningful and also the type and extent of learning strategy development that is available. Meaningful learning depends on pupils being able to relate the new information presented to what they already know (e.g., Ausubel, 1968), and the teaching needs to structure learning to facilitate this. Strategy development requires a recognition of individual differences and of variation in style and intelligence and that different pupils will learn best in different ways, and thus of the need for pupils to acquire learning strategies that make their learning more efficient. PEER INFLUENCES Pupils are likely to be influenced by the attitudes and values of their peers (e.g., Brown, Eicher, & Petrie, 1986). A particular peer society in a school will often comprise several distinct groups and an individual pupil’s membership in these groups will be influenced by home background. Durbin, Darling, Steinberg, and Brown (1993) found that parenting styles labeled as authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and uninvolved affected adolescents’ orientation toward particular peer groups. Generally, the authoritative style orientated toward well-rounded groups that valued adult- and peer-supported norms. Uninvolved parents tended to result in pupils that did not hold adult values, and indulgent parents led to pupils that wanted a fun culture. The type of influence will depend on the peer culture and the difference between it and the culture of the school. This means that its effects are

Figure 4.6. Peer Features

86

Self-Perception Issues

likely to be complicated. Where the school culture and the peer culture agree, they will tend to reinforce one another. The peer features are shown in Figure 4.6. The Peer Group and Emotional Behavior Peer groups will differ in the extent to which they are supportive. Further, peer recognition and support will derive from what the peer values accept. Pupils wanting support will need to conform to the peer values. The Peer Group and Conduct Behavior The strength of the peer conformity will largely depend on the number of different peer groups available to the pupil. Where there is a uniform peer attitude, its influence will be strong in the direction of the peer values. The extent of the influence is likely to interact with the individual’s cognitive style and level of stability. Wholists are more likely to conform to peer values than Analytics. The Peer Group and Learning Behavior and Attainment In a middle-class school where the pupils accept the value of education and strive to do well on examinations, and the school also holds those values, then the pupils will be highly motivated to succeed. By contrast, in a school where the pupils consider education to be irrelevant then the mismatch with the school’s values will result in some, perhaps most, pupils lacking motivation. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS The individual characteristics are of two types: those that are largely built-in and those that are learned. As can be seen in Figure 4.7, the first category, shown within bold borders, includes gender, intelligence, degree of stability, and cognitive style. The second comprises memories of experiences and prior learning knowledge, learning strategies, degree of self-control, and degree of self-assurance/coping strategies. The experiences include the effects of parenting and peer influences and past learning experiences. The features of the individual are shown in Figure 4.7. The features in the first category are more readily assessed in a general sense than those in the second. Measures exist of intelligence, gender, anxiety-stability, and cognitive style. The features will be considered working from left to right and from top to bottom. Cognitive style is shown in the central position as it is possible that the other variables act through this one. Built-In Features Intelligence In considering intelligence, one is faced with the situation that, although in practical terms the construct is widely accepted, there is considerable difficulty

Self-Perception in Context

87

Figure 4.7. Individual Characteristics

with its definition and scope (see, for instance, Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). The range of opinion is very broad. One position views intelligence as encompassing multiple abilities (Gardner, 1983); another considers it a wide range of behavior (e.g., Sternberg, 1985); yet another conceives a much more narrow conceptualization, with an emphasis on reaction time or inspection time (see, Kline, 1991). At the other extreme, some question whether intelligence even exists at all (e.g., Howe, 1990). The view in this chapter is that, at the least, intelligence comprises information processing and reasoning ability. Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence For work in schools it is necessary to distinguish between fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence, (see Kline, 1991). This could be thought of as a distinction between potential for learning in comparison to attainment. Kline suggested that fluid intelligence is more likely to be assessed by test items such as matrices, nonverbal analogies, digit span and block design; and crystallized intelligence by items involving learned information, the similarity of verbally labeled objects, and vocabulary. Basically, items making the least use of prior learning and practice are most likely to assess fluid intelligence. It is argued that (a) information processing efficiency and (b) reasoning are the two most important for school learning. (a) Information processing efficiency will depend on the effectiveness of working memory in terms of capacity and speed (see, for instance, Baddeley, 1999). Learning requires that pupils should be able to process the presented information

88

Self-Perception Issues

sufficiently quickly in working memory to prevent its being lost by displacement by further incoming information. For instance, when listening to the teacher giving an explanation, if the meaning of the sentences spoken is not processed quickly enough they will be obliterated by the sentences that follow and hence will be lost—for the pupil the meaning of the explanation will not be clear. The efficiency of the working memory executive can be assessed by means of displacement tasks that assess how much processing an individual can do while retaining some presented information (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). This approach has been found to indicate a strong relationship between working memory performance and comprehension (see, for instance, Mackintosh, 1998). A nonverbal displacement method of assessing information processing efficiency is the computerpresented Information Processing Index (Riding, 2000). (b) Ability to deal with schoolwork will also require facility at reasoning. Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1976) and similar tests may be used as a nonverbal method of assessing reasoning. Data from Riding and Pearson (1994) and Riding and Agrell (1997), among others, have shown a clear relationship between reasoning and secondary school performance. Intelligence and Emotional Behavior It is reasonable that higher intelligence will generally be associated with better emotional behavior. If pupils are successful then they will gain teacher approval and recognition. By contrast, where pupils are less intelligent and find learning difficult and unpleasant, and approval and recognition does not come from the teacher, this less-than-ideal educational environment will be perceived as threatening and result in stress and disapproval, which, in turn, will increase undesirable emotional behavior. Intelligence and Conduct Behavior Higher intelligence will generally be associated with better conduct behavior, because it will be related to academic success. If pupils find learning fairly easy and successful then they will find it satisfying. By contrast, pupils who are less intelligent and find learning difficult and fall further and further behind in their work will find the work frustrating, unpleasant, and not rewarding. In turn, approval and recognition does not come from the teacher, which may well produce misbehavior as an alternative means of getting attention. Intelligence and Learning Behavior and Attainment The distinction between fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence, which reflects the difference between potential for learning in comparison to attainment, will be affected for a given level of fluid intelligence by the home and the school. Home background, and particularly the educational level of the parents, is likely to influence crystallized intelligence both though nature and nurture.

Self-Perception in Context

89

Gender Gender differences are often seen as cultural, deriving from the ways in which boys and girls are brought up. Some differences undoubtedly derive from nurture practices, but there is evidence that gender represents a fundamental difference in information processing. Gender and Emotional Behavior Mruk (1999), in reviewing gender and self-esteem, observed that females are more concerned with worthiness (being valued and accepted by others) whereas males emphasise competence (being successful). Gender and Conduct Behavior The conduct behavior of boys is often reported to be worse than that of girls (e.g., MacMillan, Gresham, Lopez, & Bocian, 1996), and this difference transcends ethnic background (Loo & Rapport, 1998). Boys tend to be overrepresented in U.K. schools and units for pupils with educational and behavioral difficulties (Cooper, Upton, & Smith, 1991; Cole, Visser, & Upton, 1998). Related to the different manifestations of misbehavior— outward versus inward—Earls (1995) asserted that in females, conduct disorder predicted a predisposition to depression and anxiety disorder rather than antisocial behavior typical of males. This would indicate an interaction between gender and the anxietystability dimension in affecting the manner in which misbehavior is manifested. Gender and Learning Behavior and Attainment Younger and Warrington (1996), with secondary school pupils, studied approach to work, degree of concentration, level of organization, and motivation and found females superior to males. There is the generally observed pattern in academic achievement of females outperforming males in most subjects but less so in mathematics and science (see, for instance, Skaalvik & Rankin, 1994). Emotional Stability The two major personality paradigms are the “Big Three” of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991), and the “Big Five” of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992). There appears to be general agreement about Extraversion and Neuroticism. Psychoticism is seen either as a single factor or as encompassing Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (see Bouchard, 1995). Both the “Big Three” and the “Big Five” schemes feature Neuroticism, which probably represents an anxiety-stability continuum, which is here termed emotional stability. For simplicity, Introversion-Extroversion will not be included in this discussion or in the model. The assumption here is that the level of anxiety-stability is determined by the physiological makeup of the individual in terms of biochemical response to a given level of stress. Those with high stability will have a lower response than those who are anxious.

90

Self-Perception Issues

Emotional stability is usually assessed by means of self-report questionnaires, for instance, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1991) and the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1977). Stability and Emotional Behavior The view taken here is that the resting level of stability will affect self-assurance and for a given level of stress will affect the type of emotional behavior. Deary and Matthews (1993) contended that Neuroticism is associated with poor mental health and stress. Stability and Conduct Behavior Deary and Matthews (1993) also argued that Neuroticism is also associated with disturbed behavior. Stability and Learning Behavior and Attainment Neuroticism has been found to be negatively associated with the academic attainment of pupils from the 11 to 15 years age range (Child, 1964) and has been linked with impaired performance on a variety of tasks, particularly those that make high demands on attention and short-term memory, (Eysenck, 1996). Williams (1996) with 14-year-old students found a relationship between anxiety and basic skills performance with those reporting higher anxiety having lower scores. Further, females showed significantly higher overall levels of anxiety than did males. Leith and Davies (1972) found that Neuroticism is related to scholastic achievement, such that with younger children there is a positive correlation, older children there is little correlation, and college students show a negative correlation. Eysenck (1996) proposed that a possible reason for such fluctuations may lie in the increases in stress experienced as education becomes more strict and formalized in that highly emotional children may react negatively to such stress. In this perspective, it seems likely that Neuroticism in young children might have a positive effect because of its motivational effect. There may also be an interaction between Neuroticism and ability in that more able children would be able to benefit from the drive properties of Neuroticism without suffering the effects of anxiety whereas less able children would experience anxiety because of the constant threat of failure. Eysenck (1996) stated that Neuroticism is likely to be a disadvantage as far as scholastic achievement is concerned because the neurotic student worries about work, suffers from examination anxiety, and allows “nerves” to interfere with studies. Leith (1974) found that nonanxious students were better learners than anxious students. However, Leith’s results may well have been influenced by the teaching methods employed as there was a highly significant interaction between personality and method. Trown and Leith (1975) found that children’s anxiety levels distinguished those who were able to profit greatly from a learner-centered approach and those who were clearly handicapped by it. (Anxious students are less likely to be able to make learner-centered choices and select appropriate learning

Self-Perception in Context

91

strategies.) The teacher-supportive approach, on the other hand, was almost equally effective at each level of anxiety. Leith (1974) observed that with the Neuroticism dimension in a learning situation, pairs of students with similar behavior performed poorly compared to unlike pairs. Presumably, the nonanxious members of the unlike pairs were able to influence the anxious student’s perceptions and behavior, such that the anxious student became more attentive to the study activities than would normally be the case. All of the “Big Three” have relevance for educational attainment, and in interaction with one another and with gender, they have an even greater effect (e.g., Crozier, 1997). De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996) have pointed to the need to integrate personality work into approaches to education. Cognitive Style Cognitive style is seen as an individual’s preferred and habitual approach to both organizing and representing information (Riding & Rayner, 1998). The background to cognitive style has been extensively reviewed by Riding and Cheema (1991) and Riding and Rayner (1998), who concluded that the various style labels could be accommodated within two fundamental style dimensions, the WholistAnalytic and the Verbal-Imagery. The dimensions may be summarized as follows: 1. The Wholist-Analytic dimension of whether an individual tends to organize information in wholes or parts. 2. The Verbal-Imagery dimension of whether an individual is inclined to represent information during thinking verbally or in mental pictures.

Each dimension represents a continuum, but for descriptive convenience may be divided into groupings, such as Wholists and Analytics. The two basic dimensions may be assessed using the computer-presented Cognitive Styles Analysis (Riding, 1991). The background to the development of the Cognitive Styles Analysis is provided in Riding and Cheema (1991), and a description of its construction is given in Riding and Rayner (1998). Style and Other Individual Difference Variables Style appears to be distinctly different in nature from intelligence, personality, and gender. Intelligence Cognitive style appears to be independent of intelligence (Riding & Pearson, 1994; Riding & Agrell, 1997). Personality Riding and Wigley (1997) in a study of College of Further Education students aged 17 to 18 years used a range of questionnaire measures of personality and attitude, for comparison with cognitive style, and these included (a) EPQ-R Short

92

Self-Perception Issues

Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism; (b) IVE Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness, and Empathy; and (c) State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1977). A factor analysis gave four factors—Anxiety, Impulsiveness, Empathy, and Style. No personality measure loaded beyond ±.33 on Style. Gender There do not appear to be overall gender differences with respect to cognitive style. Differences are usually small and nonsignificant on both dimensions (P < .05; e.g., Riding, Burton, Rees, & Sharratt, 1995). The Style Dimensions in Combination To facilitate a consideration of the interaction between the style dimensions and learning, their possible effects in combination will be outlined. The style dimensions may complement one another, on the one hand, or intensify one another, on the other, depending on the combination of the dimensions. Individuals will from time to time encounter tasks for which their style is not appropriate. In such cases, a strategy that appears to be employed by individuals is to use, where possible, the other dimension as an alternative (e.g., Riding & Sadler-Smith, 1992). For instance, if someone were an Analytic-Imager and the analytic aspect of their style will not provide an overview of a situation, they could attempt to use the whole-view aspect of imagery to supply it. If another person were a Wholist-Verbalizer, and the analytic facility is missing, then they might use the “analytic” property of verbalization as a substitute. It is possible to group the style types in terms of the degree to which an individual’s position on the two dimensions complement one another or are unitary and consolidate one another. The style groups may be clustered on the basis of a combination of style dimensions offering complementary facilities in contrast to those that offer similar facilities. The Wholist-Verbalizers and the Analytic-Imagers have a complementary combination, such that the facilities of one dimension may supplement those of the other. By contrast, the Wholist-Imagers and AnalyticVerbalizers have a unitary combination, because neither of these has the opportunity to use the other style dimensions to supply the missing facility but rather duplicates the facilities available. (An extended consideration of the style dimensions in combination is given in Riding and Rayner, 1998.) Style and Emotional Behavior Because cognitive style involves the ways in which an individual thinks about and internally represents situations in the external world, it is reasonable to expect that it might also be related to aspects of social behavior. Riding and Wigley (1997) in their study of College of Further Education students considered the interactive effect of Wholist-Analytic style and Verbal-Imagery style on personality measures. They found significant effects such that with Neuroticism, Wholist-

Self-Perception in Context

93

Verbalizers and Analytic-Imagers were more anxious than Analytic-Verbalizers and Wholist-Imagers. With Impulsiveness, Wholist-Verbalizers and Analytic-Imagers were more impulsive/decisive than Analytic-Verbalizers and Wholist-Imagers. Style and Conduct Behavior Studies of children in primary and secondary schools shows that cognitive style is related to their classroom behavior. Further studies with pupils referred to special schools (EBD) confirm this view. Finally, a study with Further Education students indicated a relationship between psychoticism and style. Riding and Fairhurst (2001) asked the class teachers of 9- to 11-year-old primary school pupils in a socially deprived area to rate the conduct behavior of their pupils on a 5-point scale from very poor through to very good. They found that females were rated higher than males. Over both sexes, Wholists were rated less well behaved than the Intermediates and Analytics. Riding and Burton (1998) undertook the same type of study with secondary school pupils and found very similar results. Riding and Craig (1998) studied the style characteristics of boys aged 10 to 18 years referred to two residential special schools (EBD) because of behavior problems. They found that their style on the Wholist-Analytic dimension was skewed to the Wholist end of the continuum relative to a comparison sample of male pupils in ordinary secondary schools. The percentages of each style grouping in the special schools was Wholist 46 percent, Intermediate 34 percent, and Analytics 20 percent. A similar further study by Riding and Craig (1999), with eight special schools (EBD) and boys aged 11 to 16 years, found almost identical results (Wholist 47 percent, Intermediate 29 percent, and Analytics 24 percent). They suggested that part of the reason for this is that Wholists have a weaker natural internal structure than have Analytics. Further, almost all of these pupils had had home problems, and this could result in even lower self-control, because the pupils had had insufficient or inappropriate control as children so that adequate self-control structures had not been internalized. Both studies also found that misbehavior decreased from Verbalizers to Imagers, although the effect for this dimension was less strong. Rayner and Riding (1996) studied pupils aged 15 to 17 years attending a Truancy Unit because of their previous failure to attend school. The percentage of pupils in the Wholist-Analytic dimension style groupings as defined by a comparison sample of pupils attending mainstream secondary schools, was Wholists 41 percent, Intermediates 53 percent, and Analytics 6 percent. Riding and Wigley (1997) in a study of 17- to 18-year-old College of Further Education students, found that males were more psychotic than females, and that with the males, Wholists were significantly more psychotic than the Analytics, although all scores were modest. Cook (1993) observed that the psychoticism scale probably measures a tendency for social deviance. Taken together, these studies indicate that problem behavior is more common among males than females. Among the males it is the Wholists, and Wholist-

94

Self-Perception Issues

Verbalizers in particular, who are likely to experience emotional or behavioral difficulties and present challenging behavior. In conclusion, research studies indicate that pupils whose cognitive style is Wholist show significantly more disruptive behavior than those who are Analytic, and this effect is in addition to that of the other factors that may influence behavior such as intelligence and gender. In the Riding and Craig (1999) study, there were seven times as many Wholist-Verbalizers as Analytic-Imagers in the special schools (EBD). Style and Learning Behavior and Attainment The extensive research into the relationship between cognitive style, student learning performance, learning preferences, and subject preferences has been reviewed by Riding and Rayner (1998). Basically this has shown that pupils learn best when the structure (Riding & Sadler-Smith, 1992), the content (Riding & Calvey, 1981), and the mode of presentation of the material (Riding & Ashmore, 1980; Riding & Douglas, 1993) suits their style. With respect to the structure of material, Wholists form the “big picture,” whereas Analytics focus on the detail. In terms of mode of presentation, Verbalizers can cope with abstract semantic material that is verbally presented, whereas Imagers are best when the material is concrete and presented as pictures or diagrams. LEARNED AND DEVELOPED FEATURES Four features will be learned and developed in contrast to being built-in. Prior Learning Experiences since birth will result in learning, and this will be important for new learning, which will be in terms of what the individual already knows (e.g., Ausubel, 1968). This will in turn influence learning behavior. The structure and extent of prior learning will be important for new learning. Further, for a given quality of parenting and teaching, learning will be affected by both intelligence and cognitive style and will feed through style to contribute to learning strategies, self-control, and coping strategies. Learning Strategies Learning strategies may be seen as learning to learn skills. Learning strategies will generally be ways that are developed by the individual to facilitate learning and particularly to overcome the limitations of the individual’s cognitive style (see Riding & Sadler-Smith, 1997). Learning strategies will also impact on learning behavior within the behavior cycle. Self-Control The standards of conduct behavior that have been internalized during upbringing will represent the level of self-control of the individual. This will affect the conduct behavior observed in the behavioral cycle.

Self-Perception in Context

95

Self-Assurance and Coping Strategies The level of self-assurance will be largely determined by the level of anxietystability, the feeling of self-worth due to parenting, and the stress experienced. Coping strategies will be developed to deal will stressful situations. These together with the level of assurance will influence the emotional behavior of the individual in the behavior cycle.

TOWARD A MODEL OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE The Variables in Relation and in Interaction It is argued that educational behavior is likely to be affected by an interaction of several variables including those associated with the home, the school, the peer group, and the individual. This approach gives a more balanced view. In the past there has been a tendency to focus on one source of variation to the exclusion of others. For instance with conduct behavior there have been changes of fashion— the cause has been considered to be the individual, and then the focus was on the home, and then the emphasis moved to the school. In reality all three will contribute to some degree. A similar problem has occurred with the use of the term selfesteem. A pupil’s failure has been attributed to lower self-esteem with the implication that if self-esteem could be raised then performance would dramatically improve. Such a view is obviously an oversimplification. It would be more accurate to say that if the various factors that affect self-esteem could be improved then there would be a substantive change in the behaviors and self-esteem. Taking interaction with cognitive style and learning as an example, there are several instances where school behaviors have been found to result from an interaction of several variables. Interactions between various combinations of style, gender, personality, and intelligence have been found in their effects on learning performance: style, gender, and mode of presentation (Riding & Grimley, 1999); style, gender, and structure (Riding & Al-Sanabani, 1998); style, gender, and predictability (Riding & Read, 1996); style, gender, and attainment (Riding & Pearson, 1994); style and intelligence (Riding & Agrell, 1997). Interaction effects are important because although a particular variable may not have an effect by itself, there can nevertheless be an influence in interaction with another variable. An understanding of the interaction of variables in their effect on attainment could significantly inform decisions in managing education. An outline model of the variables affecting emotional behavior, school conduct behavior, learning behavior, and attainment is shown in Figure 4.8. For clarity not all interconnections between the variables have been shown. It may be objected that such a model is complicated and that the effects on behavior will be due to fairly complex interactions between variables. However, if this is true then little is gained by taking a more simplistic approach. Although for particular individuals not all variables will necessarily play a significant part, so that in specific cases the degree of complication will be more limited.

96

Self-Perception Issues

Figure 4.8. A Model of School Performance

CONCLUSION In conclusion, an important implication of the argument of the chapter is that improvement in school attainment will best result from attention to a range of variables and not exclusive attention to one. For instance, to focus just on selfperception to the exclusion of other factors is not likely to be successful. REFERENCES Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Bouchard, T. J. (1995). Longitudinal studies of personality and intelligence: A behavior genetic and evolutionary psychology perspective. In D. H. Saklofske and M. Zeidner

Self-Perception in Context

97

(Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 81–106). New York: Plenum. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Routledge. Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group (“crowd”) affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 73–96. Charlton, T., & George, J. (1993). The development of behaviour problems. In T. Charlton & K. David (Eds.), Managing misbehaviour in schools. London: Routledge. Child, D. (1964). The relationship between introversion-extroversion, neuroticism, and performance in school examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 178–196. Cole, T., Visser, J., & Upton, G. (1998). Effective schooling for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. London: David Fulton Publishers. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644– 663. Cook, M. (1993). Levels of personality. London: Cassell. Cooper, P., Upton, G., & Smith, C. (1991). Ethnic minority and gender distribution among staff and pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in England and Wales. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12, 77–94. Crozier, W. R. (1997). Individual learners: Personality differences in education. London: Routledge. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. Deary, I. J., & Matthews, G. (1993). Personality traits are alive and well. The Psychologist, 6, 299–311. De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303–336. DES & Welsh Office. (1989). Discipline in schools: Report of the committee of enquiry chaired by Lord Elton. London: HMSO. Downey, D. (1995). Understanding academic achievement among children in stephouseholds: The role of parental resources, sex of stepparent, and sex of child. Social Forces, 73, 875–894. Durbin, D., Darling, N., Steinberg L., & Brown, B. B. (1993). Parenting style and peer group membership among European-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 87–100. Earls, F. (1995). Oppositional-defiant and conduct disorders. In M. Rutter, E. Taylor, & L. Hersov (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychiatry. London: Blackwell. Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and experimental education. European Journal of Personality, 10, 427–439. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Eysenck Personality Scales. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Griffin, E., & Morrison, F. (1997). The unique contribution of home literacy environment to differences in early literacy skills. Early Child Development and Care, 127, 233– 243. Howe, M. J. A. (1990). Does intelligence exist? The Psychologist, 11, 490–493.

98

Self-Perception Issues

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The psychometric view. London: Routledge. Kline, P. (1995). A critical review of the measurement of personality and intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 505–524). New York: Plenum. Leith, G. (1974). Individual differences in learning: Interaction of personality and teaching methods. In Personality and academic progress. London: Association of Educational Psychologists. Leith, G., & Davies, T. (1972). Age changes in the relationship between neuroticism and achievement. Research in Education, 8, 61–69. Levy, M .B., & Davis, K. E. (1988) Love styles and attachment styles compared: Their relationships to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439–471. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice (Vol 7.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loo, S. K., & Rapport, M. D. (1998). Ethnic variations in children’s problem behaviors: A cross-sectional development study of Hawaii school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 567–575. Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and children influences on educational attainment: A secondary analysis of the high-scope pre-school data. Developmental Psychology, 32, 26–39. Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. G., Lopez, M. F., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Comparison of students nominated for prereferral interventions by ethnicity and gender. Journal of Special Education, 30, 133–151. McCord, J. (1979). Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behavior in adult men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1477–1486. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. Mruk, C. (1999). Self-esteem: Research, theory and practice. London: Free Association Books. Ogilvy, C. M. (1994). An evaluative review of approaches to behavior problems in the secondary school. Educational Psychology, 14, 195–206. Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflict resolution and relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 505–510. Pong, S. (1998) The school compositional effect of single parenthood on 10th-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 71, 23–42. QCA. (2000). Personal development for school improvement. London: Author. Raven, J. C. (1976). Standard progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press. Rayner, S., & Riding, R. J. (1996). Cognitive style and school refusal. Educational Psychology, 16, 445–451. Riding, R. J. (1991). Cognitive styles analysis. Birmingham, UK: Learning and Training Technology. Riding, R. J. (2000). Information processing index. Birmingham, UK: Learning and Training Technology.

Self-Perception in Context

99

Riding, R. J., & Agrell, C. (1997). The effect of cognitive style and cognitive skills on school subject performance. Educational Studies, 23, 311–323. Riding, R. J., & Al-Sanabani, S. (1998) The effect of cognitive style, age, gender and structure on the recall of prose passages. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 173–185. Riding R. J., & Ashmore, J. (1980). Verbalizer-Imager learning style and children’s recall of information presented in pictorial versus written form. Educational Psychology, 6, 141–145. Riding, R. J., & Burton, D. (1998). Cognitive style, gender and conduct behavior in secondary school pupils. Research in Education, 59, 38–49. Riding, R., Burton, D., Rees, G., & Sharratt, M. (1995). Cognitive style and personality in 12-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 113–124. Riding, R. J., & Calvey, I. (1981). The assessment of verbal-imagery learning styles and their effect on the recall of concrete and abstract prose passages by eleven year old children. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 59–64. Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193–215. Riding, R. J., & Craig, O. (1998). Cognitive style and problem behavior in boys referred to residential special schools. Educational Studies, 24, 205–222. Riding, R. J., & Craig, O. (1999). Cognitive style and types of problem behaviour in boys special schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 307–322. Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307. Riding, R. J., & Fairhurst, P. (2001). Cognitive style, home background and conduct behaviour in primary school pupils. Educational Psychology, 21, 115–124. Riding, R. J., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and learning from multi-media materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 45–56. Riding, R. J., & Pearson, F. (1994). The relationship between cognitive style and intelligence. Educational Psychology, 4, 413–425. Riding, R. J., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton. Riding, R. J., & Read, G. (1996). Cognitive style and pupil learning preferences. Educational Psychology, 16, 81–106. Riding, R. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1992). Type of instructional material, cognitive style and learning performance. Educational Studies, 18, 323–340. Riding, R. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some implications for training design. International Journal of Training and Development, 1, 199–208. Riding, R. J., & Wigley, S. (1997). The relationship between cognitive style and personality in further education students. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 379–389. Riley, D., & Shaw, M. (1985). Parental supervision and juvenile delinquency. London: HMSO. Rumberger, R., Ghatak, R., Poulos, G., Ritter, P., & Dornbusch, S. (1990). Family influences in dropout behavior in one California high school. Sociology of Education, 63, 83–99. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Olsen, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books.

100

Self-Perception Issues

Schwartzman, A. E., Varlaan, P., Peters, P., & Serbin, L. A. (1995). Sex roles in coercion. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1994). Gender differences in mathematics and verbal achievement, self-perception and motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 419–428. Spielberger C. D. (1977). State and Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-1. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Trown, E., & Leith, G. (1975). Decision rates for teaching strategies in primary school: Personality-treatment interaction. British Journal of Scholastic Psychology, 45, 227– 231. Williams, J. (1996). Gender-related worry and emotionality test anxiety for high achieving students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 159–162. Wilson, H. (1980). Parental supervision: A neglected aspect of delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 20, 203–235. Winkley, L. (1996). Emotional problems in children and young people. London: Cassell. Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (1996). Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: Some observations from the perspective of one school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 299–313. Zimiles, H., & Lee, V. (1991). Adolescent family structure and educational progress. Developmental Psychology, 27, 314–320.

5 SELF-PERCEPTION OF TEAM-ROLES: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT Eugene Sadler-Smith

THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAMS Working in groups is a fundamental aspect of human existence. Intellect and cooperation were key features of our evolutionary past, which allowed our forebears to survive, adapt, and thrive. Our cooperative efforts enabled first the agricultural revolution and later the industrial revolution to take place. In recent history organizational theorists have identified a number of different forms of concerted human action. For example, the early years of the last century saw the rise of “Fordism” (Sabel, 1982) in which unskilled laborers assembled mass products in a system of work governed by rigid measurement. With the advent of the human relations movement, in which there was an increased emphasis on the importance of social factors in the work environment (Fincham & Rhodes, 1999), these mechanistic approaches were to some extent superseded. At the close of the twentieth century there was a growing reliance within organizations on teams (and increasingly self-managed teams) to carry out critical organizational tasks (Levi & Slem, 1995; Edmondson, 1999). Significant changes in this regard took place during the late 1980s in work organization in the United States and elsewhere; for example a survey in 1987 found that 72 percent of Fortune 1,000 companies reported no self-managed work teams, but by 1990 this figure had fallen to 53 percent (Cappelli, 1999). In the globally competitive business environment of the twenty-first century the influence of working in groups shows no signs of waning.

102

Self-Perception Issues

Teams can be a source of competitive advantage because they are more difficult for competitors to imitate than are physical resources (Barney, 1999). A team, as a socially complex resource, provides an opportunity for the collective learning of its members (Hendry, Arthur, & Jones, 1995) and is one way in which organizational learning may be facilitated (Preskill & Torres, 1999). In pursuit of the perceived advantages of collective working and learning many organizations have made the shift toward team organization, often precipitated by the need to reduce manpower levels through obviating the need for supervision and the breaking down of traditional lines of demarcation between jobs (Cappelli, 1999). Teams are seen as a means of enhancing productivity and job satisfaction (Chmiel, 1998), however, this brings with it the challenge to researchers and practitioners of identifying the factors that affect interpersonal functioning and team performance. Central to the effectiveness of group working are the innate characteristics of teams and their members. Forty years ago, Likert (1961) observed that the structural features of a group have an important bearing on its effectiveness. A number of authors have argued that a cohesive group tends to be more effective than a noncohesive group (for example, Keller, 1986), and demography theorists focus on how the compositional characteristics of a team influence its interpersonal dynamics (Wiersema & Bird, 1993). For example, groups made up of individuals of differing backgrounds tend to be better at producing creative decisions than are homogeneous groups (Chmiel, 1998). In summarizing the research in this field, Rollinson, Broadfield, and Edwards (1998) argued that an effective group is one in which task and socioemotive needs are met through individual members occupying highly compatible roles. In the current era of entrepreneurship and selfdirection one may also add leadership and creativity to the task and socioemotive elements. Margerison and McCann (1985) argued that high-performing teams need all-around skills coupled with the ability to be flexible to meet the demands of changing situations. Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993) found that the effectiveness of work groups in the financial services industry was related to the characteristics of job design, interdependence between team members, organizational context, team processes, and team composition. This work was subsequently replicated with professional knowledge worker groups (Campion, Papper, & Medska, 1993). The research points to the conclusion that an important determinant of team effectiveness is the interrelationship or complementarity between the roles occupied by the teams’ members. The notion of compatibility of roles has been the starting point for much applied work on group development and an influential strand of this research relies on individual team members’ self-perception of their task-related and interpersonal attributes in the group context. As Jackson and Schuler (1999) have noted, one of the consequences of the adoption of team-based work designs was the need for new methods of recruiting, selecting, and assessing behavior in teams. Clearly, therefore, from a scientific perspective, those who have the responsibility for the

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

103

management of teams ought to rely on reliable and valid methods of identifying preferred contributions to the managerial, social, and task elements of team processes. A combination of pragmatism and precedent has inevitably meant that methods such as self-report for the identification of an individual’s preferred team role have tended to predominate. A number of models and instruments that purport to assess an individual’s behaviors in a group setting have been developed, and these are readily available (some might argue too readily) to managers and human resource practitioners. TEAM-ROLES, STYLES AND PREFERENCES The purpose of this chapter is to describe a number of models of team behavior, review the research that has attempted to assess their utility, and make some suggestions as to how the field may be advanced. Three models will be examined: Belbin’s team-role model, Parker’s team player style, and Margerison and McCann’s team-role preferences. The Belbin model was developed in the United Kingdom but is now used in many different countries; the Parker model was developed in North America; and Margerison and McCann’s model has its origins in the United Kingdom but has been applied widely especially in the Far East and Australia. Belbin’s Team Roles Fincham and Rhodes (1999) describe Belbin’s model of team roles as the “lingua franca of team work” (p. 191). They attribute its influence over management development and team building as being the result of its accessibility, as it requires no specialist knowledge of group dynamics or group theory to use, and it is readily available. The pioneering work, which Belbin used to establish his model of team behaviors, was carried out at the Industrial Training Research Unit (ITRU) in Cambridge, U.K., and during management development work at Henley Management College in Henley-on-Thames, U.K. The latter employed workshop syndicates during which participants performed a variety of group exercises. Belbin observed that some teams functioned better than others and in order to investigate this further a program of research was initiated in which members of the syndicates were required to complete a battery of psychometric tests. Belbin acknowledged an inherent tension in this work: “trying to conduct worthwhile controlled experiments on the one hand, and on the other, setting up an experience in learning which was useful to the members” (Belbin, 1981, p. 6). Later stages of the Henley work combined experiments in team design and the observation of outcomes of management syndicate exercises. This work was also subsequently performed at the Administrative Staff College at Melbourne, Australia, the results of which were similar to those of the U.K. trials. This led Belbin to assert the universality of the approach: “Team design stood out as a more important determinant of behavior than hemisphere or cultural differences” (p. 8).

104

Self-Perception Issues

At Henley the outcomes of management exercises were compared with the scores from Cattell’s 16PF (16 Personality Factors) questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka, 1970). In trying to identify a member who was common to successful teams, a type of individual appeared who displayed the traits of discipline, conscientiousness, tough-mindedness, pragmatism, trust, tolerance, and conservativeness. These individuals were named Company Workers (CWs). However, further trials revealed that teams with a predominance of CWs (a “pure” CW team) tended to be inflexible and overcommitted to a particular course of action. Belbin used this as evidence that pure teams do well only when the team style matches the demands of the task. Through subsequent work, Belbin and his colleagues were able to isolate another cluster of characteristics that distinguished a creative team member, but to their surprise they found that Cattell had anticipated this finding: We duly isolated a cluster of distinguishing characteristics only to find that the treasure trove had already been discovered by a previous explorer. Our cluster was none other than the pre-existing Cattell formula for creative disposition (CD). From then on the CD formula was to become a valuable tool for identifying creative individuals. (Belbin, 1981, p. 33)

There are now established formulas for calculating team-role preferences using 16PF scores (see Dulewicz, 1994). In addition to the use of the 16PF, Belbin used the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) as a measure of ability and a third inventory, the Personality Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) developed at the ITRU, was also employed. These tests were used to provide a range of assessments across the anticipated behavioral differences and to provide useful predictors of observed behavior on the management exercises for each team role. Belbin (1993) noted that although the researchers were aiming to identify three independent predictors (16PF, CTA, and PPQ), they did in fact observe that personality and ability interacted in their effect on performance (for example, high mental ability overrode personality in some instances). Further research at Henley by Belbin and his colleagues enabled them to identify eight team roles (see Table 5.1). Team role was defined as “a pattern of behavior characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with another” (Belbin, 1981, p. 169). The practical implications of this were that individuals took on preferred roles in the management exercises, and it was the balance of team roles in the syndicate that appeared to have a crucial bearing on the outcome of the exercise. A “good” balance led to a “good” outcome and vice versa (Belbin, 1993). Balance in this context was defined in terms of the strengths and characteristics in the team, which served a useful purpose for the particular task or context: What is needed is not well-balanced individuals but individuals who balance well with one another. In that way, human frailties can be underpinned and strengths used to full advantage. (Belbin, 1981, p. 77)

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

105

Belbin was able to further specify the composition of the teams, which he had observed as being effective in the Henley workshops. This was summarized concisely by Furnham (1992): The leader should have attributes similar to the Chairman (CH) profile; the team should have a spread of mental abilities and include a person who generates creative and original solutions to a problem. The team should include one Completer Finisher (CF) and one Company Worker (CW), and members should occupy the team roles that best suit their personal characteristics; and finally an excellent team can sense its own faults. Senior (1997) explored the hypothesized link between team roles and team performance. Using repertory grid and triad methods to define team performance constructs and a team balance score, she compared predicted team performance with actual team performance, which were then compared by ranking and computing the Spearman correlation coefficients. The correlation was significant at the p < .10 level, which was taken as lending “some support to Belbin’s team-role theories which associate team balance with team performance” (Senior, 1997, p. 255). Belbin (1993) asserted that the “basic language of team roles is well-established amongst management educationists, thinkers, and strategists” (p. 30). If this is the case, and if one accepts the predictive validity of Belbin’s theory, from both pure and action research perspectives, this precipitates a need for valid and reliable measures of preferred team role in order that balanced teams may be designed and their strengths exploited to maximum effect. The Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) was offered by Belbin as a means by which in-company trainers can identify their own and fellow workers’ team roles and “form experimental teams on the training courses” (Belbin, 1981, p. 133). The instrument became widely available in an appendix to Belbin’s book Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail (1981), though it is designed primarily to be used as part of a management development workshop (lasting up to two days). Inevitably its easy availability has led to its widespread use, and it is regularly applied in selecting, counseling, and developing management teams (Furnham, 1992). This view is supported by Balderson and Broderick (1996), who observed that even though Belbin (1993) has argued that the BTRSPI was not designed as a self-standing psychometric test, “this is often how it is used by management consultants and trainers who may have very little understanding of psychometrics” (Balderson & Broderick, 1996, p. 33). The original form of the BTRSPI consisted of seven questions comprising a stem pertaining to a particular aspect of team behavior and eight possible responses (giving a total of 56 items). Respondents are required to distribute 10 points for each question among the responses. (They may be spread evenly or the whole amount given to a single response depending on the respondent’s strength of feeling.) Respondents then transfer their responses to a grid and calculate total scores for each of the eight team roles. The highest score indicates a primary role, the next highest score can denote a “back-up” team role, and the two lowest scores represent areas of possible weakness. Norms based on the 33rd, 66th, and 85th

Table 5.1. Belbin Team Roles, Parker Team-Player Styles, and Margerison-McCann Team Management Roles Source

Role/Style

Belbin (1981; 1993)

Plant (PL)

Parker (1996)

Challenger

Creative, serious, imaginative, and unorthodox Resource Investigator (RI) Extroverted, enthusiastic, curious, and communicative Co-ordinator (CO) Calm, self-confident, mature, and (formerly Chairman, CH) controlled Shaper (SH) Dynamic, highly strung, challenging, and outgoing Monitor Evaluator (ME) Unemotional, strategic, discerning, and judging Teamworker (TW) Mild, cooperative, and diplomatic Disciplined, reliable, conservative, Implementer (IM) and efficient (formerly Company Worker, CW) Completer Finisher (CF) Painstaking, conscientious, orderly, and anxious Specialist (SP) Single-minded, dedicated, and selfstarting

Contributor Communicator Collaborator Margerison & McCann (1985)

Characteristics/Function

Reporter-Adviser Creator-Innovator Explorer-Promoter

Assessor-Developer Thruster-Organizer

Concluder-Producer Controller-Inspector Upholder-Maintainer

Question-oriented, challenge norms, risk-taking Task-oriented, provides good data, dependable Process-oriented, facilitator, consensus builder Goal-oriented, flexible, global perspective Support, collection and dissemination of information and resources Idea generation and experimentation Publicize new ideas, bring in resources, make contacts, and chart pathways Assessing viability of ideas, prototyping, and researching Organizing, setting up systems and procedures, work allocation, and target-setting Following through and finishing-off Monitoring, inspecting, and controlling Upholding established norms, maintaining continuity, giving direction, and reinforcing beliefs and attitudes

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

107

percentiles (delineating low, average, high, and very high preferences) are presented by Belbin derived from a sample of U.K. managers. Belbin subsequently replaced the eight-role BTRSPI with a nine-role version. The nine-role version of the BTRSPI consists of seven sections, each containing 10 items between which respondents are required to distribute 10 points. The nine-role version differed in a number of minor respects from the eight-role version: the Chairman (CH) role was renamed Coordinator (CO); Company Worker (CW) was renamed Implementer (IM); and a ninth role, “Specialist” (SP), was added. The BTRSPI exists in both self-report and observer-assessed forms. Parker’s Team-Player Styles Parker (1996) described a team as “a group of people with a high degree of interdependence geared towards the achievement of a goal or completion of a task” (p. 16). He cited evidence from the work of McGregor (1960), Likert (1961), Argyris (1964), and Blake and Mouton (1964) in support of the view that there are specific factors that determine whether a team will be effective. In synthesizing this and other work, Parker posited 12 characteristics that distinguish effective teams from ineffective ones, including clarity of purpose, informality, participation, and style diversity. He defined the latter as “a broad spectrum of team-player-types including members who emphasise attention to task, goal-setting, focus on process, and questions about how the team is functioning” (Parker, 1996, p. 33). In a further explication of the notion of team-player style, he argued that there are four types or styles of team players, each of which “contributes in different ways to the success of the team, and each style has a downside when carried to an extreme” (Parker, 1996, p. 63). The four team-player styles are summarized in Table 5.1. One important distinction between Parker’s theory and Belbin’s is that the former is a theory of personal style rather than preferred team role. Within this theory of personal style, a given individual may perform a specific team function (Parker gives the example of the “leader”) in a variety of ways. For example a team leader may be called on to perform a number of activities such as planning, communication, and risk-taking. In Parker’s model the function of planning may be performed in a number of different ways: An individual with a Contributor style may adopt a tactical, statistical, specific, measurable, and conservative approach whereas an individual with a Collaborator style may use a strategic, visionary, open, “big picture,” and involving approach (Parker, 1996). Hence the same team role may be executed in different ways but “in the final analysis the style remains constant as the team-roles change” (p. 100). This approach contrasts with Belbin’s, which allows only for individuals to have a particular team role or roles, and less latitude appears to be available for different individuals to perform the same roles (except where Belbin links team roles together such as in the case of Chairman and Shaper, which he considers two types of leader). Belbin’s approach may be seen as part of a Jungian tradition (Jung, 1923). Indeed Parker (1996) argued that a variety of instruments based upon Jung’s theory

108

Self-Perception Issues

have been developed focusing on decision-making styles, leadership, and so on, but “no research-based instruments focus on team-player styles” (p. 63). It should be noted that the Margerison and McCann model described below is also based upon Jungian theory. To rectify this perceived state of affairs, Parker developed the Parker Team-Player Survey (PTPS), which he described thus: Self-understanding can be supplemented by the use of a self-assessment instrument. The Team-Player Survey can give you a reading of your team-player style and potential weaknesses as a team player. The instrument is a form of self-feedback since it measures your perception of yourself. The results can lead to an acknowledgement of yourself and a plan for improvement. (Parker, 1996, p. 96)

Parker acknowledged that an alternative to self-report is to obtain peer-assessment using informal feedback or via a “structured feedback process facilitated by the use of a version of the Team-Player Survey completed by other team members” (Parker, 1996, p. 96). Like the original eight-role form of the BTRSPI, the PTPS is contained as an addendum to a popular management book (Team Players and Teamwork), and the similarities do not end there. Belbin’s description of the version of the BTRSPI used in the 1981 edition of Management Teams as “a quick and useful way of intimating to readers what their own team roles might be” (Belbin, 1993, p. 259) might also be said to apply to the PTPS. The Parker inventory consists of 18 statements consisting of a stem (describing an aspect of team behavior) and four possible responses. Each of the responses pertains to one of the four team-player styles and respondents are required to rank the statements from 4 (most like themselves) to 1 (least like themselves). Like the BTRSPI the scoring system for the PTPS is ipsative. Individuals may self-score their responses by transferring rankings to a columnar grid and summing these to give total scores for each of the four styles (scores are in the range 18 to 72). The highest score “designates your primary team-player style” but, consistent with the Jungian approach, this “does mean that it is the only style you use”; rather it is the style which is used most often (Parker, 1996, p. 163). Parker does not offer any technical data on the PTPS’s properties and it has been left to other researchers (see Kirnan & Woodruff, 1994) to attempt to explore the instrument’s reliability and validity. Margerison-McCann’s Team Management Systems Profiles Margerison and McCann (1985) presented an approach to team management, which adopted as its central precept the combination of the separate notions of required team behavior (for example “exploring” or “controlling”) and team-role preferences (for example “advising” or “organizing”). Although accepting that group behavior is a function of the task, the roles that people play, and the norms and values operating (i.e., the sociological factors), the Team Management Systems (TMS) approach also recognizes that the individual preferences that people bring to teamwork are key psychological factors influencing individual and team performance. It is this sociopsychological approach to teamwork that charac-

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

109

terizes TMS. Margerison and McCann drew an analogy between managing a work team and managing a soccer team: You would find out quickly what skills they [players] had and where they felt they could play best. You would than assign certain players to defensive roles and others to attacking or offence roles. . . . They should pass the ball rather than try to do all the work themselves. They should help and encourage each other particularly when one member is under pressure. (Margerison & McCann, 1985, p. 15)

Implicit in their approach is team self-awareness and the concomitant flexibility that enables a “high-performance team” to adjust the contributions of its members to optimize task performance (Rae, 1990). Like Parker’s model, the MargerisonMcCann Team Management Systems draws on the dimensions of Jungian theory (extravert-introvert; sensing-intuitive; thinking-feeling; and judging-perceiving). It is possible to assess an individual’s preferred team role by means of the Team Management Index (TMI), more latterly referred to as the Team Management Profile (TMP). Like the Belbin and Parker models, the fundamental precept of the TMS approach is that a team should have a balance of required behaviors and role preferences. Through their research and consultancy activities Margerison and McCann identified the nine key types of work (see Figure 5.1) that managers felt were essential to successful performance. The intervening factor in this notion however was the work preferences that individuals had because these play a critical role in personal motivation. Individuals tend to have a number of types of work where they feel really “at home.” The TMS approach is essentially about managing these preferences in relation to the type of work needed to perform effectively.

Figure 5.1. The Margerison-McCann Types of Work Model. Reproduced by kind permission of TMS Development International Ltd.

110

Self-Perception Issues

Figure 5.2. The Four Work Preference Measures. Reproduced by kind permission of TMS Development International Ltd.

The four TMS work preference measures (Extrovert-Introvert; Practical-Creative; Analytical-Beliefs; Structured-Flexbile) measures (see Figure 5.2) can be mapped on to key managerial work areas as depicted in the Margerison-McCann Types of Work Model (see Figure 5.2). This mapping represented in the model is known as the Team Management Wheel (see Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3. The Margerison-McCann Team Management Wheel. Reproduced by kind permission of TMS Development International Ltd.

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

111

Each sector of the wheel has particular preferences associated with it, for example “promoting” behavior has associated extroverted and creative preferences. Hence each sector describes not only the work function enjoyed by an individual (for example, “organizer”) but also the behavioral characteristics (for example, “thruster”; Margerison & McCann, 1995). An individual’s position on this wheel is determined by their scores on each of four bipolar scales: Extrovert-Introvert (E-I), Practical-Creative (P-C), Analytical-Beliefs (A-B); and Structured-Flexible (S-F) (See Figure 5.2.) Each scale is measured by 15 items consisting of pairs of statements (60 pairs of statements in total) in which respondents are asked to choose between two alternatives. For example, “I prefer possibilities” versus “I prefer realities.” Items are scored by putting a 2, 1, or 0 next to each statement in one of the following permutations: 2–0 (definitely prefer first statement), 2–1 (prefer first statement but find it difficult to choose), 1–2 (prefer second statement but find it difficult to choose), and 0–2 (definitely prefer second statement). The scores on each scale range over 30 points either side of the midpoint. The TMP allows for the situation-specificity of the preferred behavior to be taken into account by giving a preference range. For example, in some situations individuals may prefer to be more extroverted, whereas in others they may be introverted. The higher score indicates the individual’s overall assessment as more introverted or more extroverted. Respondents’ “preference scores” are indicated by the letter of the pole for which they expressed the strongest preference overall, and a number

Figure 5.4: The 16-fold model of the Margerison-McCann Team Management Wheel. Reproduced by kind permission of TMS Development International Ltd.

112

Self-Perception Issues

indicating the magnitude of the preference. Altogether each individual has four preference scores (see Figure 5.4). For example, IPBS would indicate the individual’s major role as Controller-Inspector. However, it will be noted from Figure 5.4 that there are two types of Controller-Inspector, both are introverted and practical (I-P), but one is analytical and flexible (AF) whereas the other makes beliefsbased decisions and works in a structured way (BS). Margerison and McCann see the TMP as a tool that enables teams to “get the right balance from the players and to ensure people play in positions where they can use their strengths and cooperate with each other” (1985, p. 18). A computerbased TMP software algorithm generates a “personal profile” for respondents, which contains information on an individual’s work preferences and preferred behavior in the following key areas: self-understanding, decision-making, teambuilding, interpersonal skills, organization, and information management. In addition to the eight team-role preferences, Margerison and McCann also identify an additional “linker” function. Linking is a set of skills that falls into two broad groups: linking of people (for example, by active listening, communication, and team relationships) and linking of tasks (for example, by work allocation, delegation, and objectives-setting). They describe linking as the “glue which binds the team together” (Team Management Systems, 1999, p. 74). It is the responsibility of everyone in the team that this linking function takes place. A team with effective linking is more likely to have “cohesion, continuity, and co-operation” (Margerison and McCann, 1984, p. 46). HOW VALID AND RELIABLE ARE TEAM SELF-PERCEPTION INVENTORIES? One of the most fundamental issues in psychological measurement is reliability (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedek, 1981), which is defined by DeVellis (1991) as “the proportion of variance attributable to the true score of the latent variable” (p. 24). It is possible to estimate reliability through the use of reliability coefficients (for example, Cronbach’s α). For internally consistent scales, this parameter exceeds .70 and for commercially available tests that have been rigorously evaluated Cronbach’s α should be at least .85 (Bates, 1999). Important though reliability is, Toplis, Dulewicz, and Fletcher (1987) observed that the objective assessment of validity is the most important question when choosing a test. Rust and Golombok (1989) argued that construct validity is the primary form of validation underlying the trait approach to psychometrics. However, Toplis, Dulewicz, and Fletcher (1987) noted that as well as construct validity, face validity should not be overlooked, otherwise the acceptability of tests to participants may be adversely affected. Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory (BTRSPI) Fincham and Rhodes (1999) noted some surprise at the “sparse empirical support” ( p. 192) for Belbin’s model given its widespread use. It first came under se-

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

113

rious critical scrutiny in 1993 when Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton (1993) reported a series of three experiments, which assessed the internal reliability, scale intercorrelations, and factor structure of the BTRSPI. They began their critique with an exposition of three potential weaknesses of the instrument. First, they argued that the use of an ipsative scoring system (in which respondents are required to rate groups of behavioral statements) may render the test subject to the drawbacks identified by Johnson, Wood, and Blinkhorn (1988). Namely it cannot be used to compare individuals between scales; the scale intercorrelations cannot legitimately be factor analyzed; scale reliability may be overestimated; and means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are not independent. There has been some debate regarding the psychometric properties of ipsative scales and more specifically the soundness of factoring ipsative data. Saville and Willson (1991) using synthetic data (subsequently replicated on a “real” data set) found that there was a high degree of correspondence between the factor analysis of ipsative and normative data and that ipsative reliabilities were somewhat lower than those for normative scales. However Furnham and colleagues remained convinced that the drawbacks of ipsative tests outweigh any benefits that they may have. This position was supported by Cornwell and Dunlap (1994), who argued that although ipsative scores may be highly correlated with their normative counterparts they cannot be factored. In a principal components analysis with orthogonal (varimax) rotation of theoretical ipsative, ipsative, and normative scores for four personality measures (“influence,” “confidence,” “active,” and “gregarious”) Cornwell and Dunlap obtained factor-loading patterns for the ipsative scores that did not correspond to their normative counterparts’ factor patterns. They advocated the use of multinomial statistical methods for the analysis of ipsative scales and concluded that “ipsative scales can be used to assess personality and can be used in personnel psychology, but only as long as statistical procedures are used that are consistent with the information actually available within the ipsative scores” (Cornwell & Dunlap, 1994, pp. 99–100). The second limitation of the BTRSPI posited by Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton (1993) is the “vague” and “inconsistent” nature of the situations for which respondents are asked to specify their potential behaviors. Finally, the third limitation, which is potentially more difficult to surmount, is the fact that the BTRSPI was derived inductively (and not deduced a priori from any extant theory) with the potential consequence that “previously well-documented and theoretically important traits, like neuroticism, tend to get overlooked” (Furnham, Steele, & Pendleton 1993, p. 247). Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton (1993) conducted a series of three separate studies, which were designed as follows: Experiment 1: original eight-role BTRSPI with normative scoring and undergraduate participants from geography and business studies; Experiment 2: revised nine-role BTRSPI with normative scoring and working adults as participants; Experiment 3: original eight-role BTRSPI with ipsative scoring and working adult participants. Their results are summarized in Table 5.2.

114

Self-Perception Issues

Table 5.2. Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) for the BTRSPI from Furnham et al. (1993), Fisher et al. (1996) and Broucek & Randell (1995)

Furnham et al. (1993a) a

a

Fisher et al. (1996) a

b

b

Broucek & Randell (1995) c

c

Scale

1

2

3

Test

Retest

SPI

OA

CH/CO SH PL ME RI TW CW/IM CF SP

.45 .50 .34 .65 .54 .51 .54 .71 –

.55 .77 .37 .64 .60 .34 .62 .66 .68

.33 .71 .40 .47 .34 .56 .35 .53 –

.17 .66 .38 .32 .01 .42 .16 .40 –

.24 .61 .46 .25 .39 .50 .37 .43 –

.30 .83 .67 .60 .63 .52 .59 .61 .47

.40 .51 .42 .39 .34 .52 .25 .32 .52

a

b

c

Notes: Experiments 1, 2, and 3; first and second administrations; self-perception (SPI) and observer-assessed (OA) forms

As noted previously, one of the most widely used measures of the internal consistency of a test is the coefficient also known as Cronbach’s α (Cronbach, 1951). Nunnally (1978) suggested that this coefficient should exceed .70 for the test to be internally consistent. Of the 25 coefficients from Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton’s (1993) study set out in Table 5.2, only three exceed Nunnally’s minimum threshold. Furnham and colleagues commented that “as reliability sets the upper limit on validity, it seems that the first task of the test constructors is to improve the internal reliability [of the BTRSPI]” (Furnham, Steele, & Pendleton (1993) p. 256). With respect to construct validity Furnham and colleagues argued that in their Experiment 1 a justifiable two-factor solution comprised Creative Thinker (Shaper, Plant, Monitor Evaluator, and Resource Investigator) and Company Worker (Team Worker, Company Worker, and Completer Finisher) roles (see Table 5.3). For Experiment 2 the factor solution was less readily interpretable with Shaper, Resource Investigator, Completer Finisher, and Implementer loading ambiguously. In Experiment 3, which in terms of method was the most consistent of the three studies with the original aspirations of the BTRSPI (ipsative scoring and workplace sample), it may be argued that four bipolar factors emerged (Plant/ Company Worker; Shaper/Team Worker; Monitor Evaluator/Resource Investigator; and Chairman/Completer Finisher). Belbin (1981) used an analogy to suggest that pairings of opposite team roles may be governed by some unspecified natural order: “In physics every particle or

–

SP

a,c

.73

CF

Notes:

.76 .68

SH PL ME RI TW CW/IM .73

.72

.79 .47

.74

.72

I

b

.61

.50

.83 .49

II

.77

.71

III

b

Experiment 2

–

–.78

.46

.88

I

–

–.92

.80

II

–

.88 –.68

III

a

Experiment 3

eight-role BTRSPI, 1981; nine-role BTRSPI, 1988

–

.90 .60 .63 .73

.57

II

CH/CO .55

I

Experiment a 1

Furnham et al. (1993)

–

–.67

.85

IV

–.54

.59 –74

.78

I

–.52

–.80

.40

.75

II

.49

–.90

III

b

Sample 1

Senior (1998)

.89 –.40 .43

IV

–

.86

–.90

.59

I

–

–.89 –.40

.92

II

–

.77

.95

III

16PF Roles

–

.88

–.67

IV

–

.87

.93

–

.86 .51

.92

II

.79 .72

III

–

–.53

OPQ Roles

.72

I

Dulewicz (1995)

Table 5.3. Comparison of Furnham et al. (1993) and Dulewicz’s (1995) Principal Components Analyses (loadings of less than .40 suppressed)

116

Self-Perception Issues

force has a corresponding antiparticle or antiforce and all stable systems in the universe depend, or so it is held, on the interconnections of constituent opposites” (p. 67). He posited two types of team leader (Chairman and Shaper), two types of creative role (Plant and Resource Investigator). Neither of these correspond to any of the bipolar factors identified by Furnham and colleagues. Further on in his book Belbin (1981) identified two types of negotiator (Resource Investigator and Team Worker), two types of manager-worker (Company Worker and Completer Finisher), two types of intellectual (Monitor Evaluator and Plant), and finally two types of team leader (Chairman and Shaper). These do not appear to correspond to the factor structure identified by Furnham and colleagues. Furnham and colleagues’ method itself is deserving of comment. For instance, in each of their three experiments the sample sizes were 102, 110, and 100 subjects, respectively. As Tabachnik and Fidell (1996) noted “correlation coefficients tend to be less reliable when estimated from small samples. Therefore it is important that sample sizes be large enough that correlations be reliably estimated” (p. 640). They went on to cite Comrey and Lee’s (1992) guide to sample size, which suggests that a “good” sample size should comprise at least 300 subjects, whereas a sample size of 100 is “poor.” With a sample size of 100 participants Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggested a value of .55 for “significant” factor loadings. Applying this more stringent criterion adds some clarity to Furnham and colleagues’ first and second experiments. Following Furnham and colleagues, a number of other researchers have attempted to explore the properties of the BTRSPI. For example, Fisher, Macrosson, and Sharp (1996) reported internal and test-retest reliabilities for the original eight Belbin team roles. Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s ) were in the range .01 to .66 (hence none of the scales achieved the minimum threshold level of .70; see Table 5.2). Test-retest reliabilities (coefficient unspecified) were in the range .32 to .68 and “signal a lack of stability over the seven months between the first and second administrations” (Fisher, Macrosson, & Sharp, 1996, p. 64). Unfortunately, they did not explore the instrument’s construct validity, however, Senior (1998) did attempt to explore this property of the nine-role BTRSPI. She employed two samples, one of 352 middle and junior managers from a number of different organizations and the second consisting of 46 full-time masters-level graduate students. The scores were subjected to a principal components analysis with any factor accounting for more than 10 percent of the variance being extracted and subjected to orthogonal (varimax) rotation. Four factors accounting for 69.1 percent of the variance were extracted and .30 was taken as the criterion of salient loading. The factor structure that emerged was unfortunately contaminated by a number of cross-loadings. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern some similarities between this four-factor solution and that of Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton (1993) in spite of the fact Senior used the nine-role version. Senior’s Factor I may be said to correspond with Furnham and colleagues’ second factor (bipolar Shaper-Team Worker); her Factor II corresponds broadly to their first factor (bipolar Plant-

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

117

Resource Investigator/Company Worker); Senior’s Factor IV has some similarities to their third factor (bipolar Monitor Evaluator-Resource Investigator). Senior’s overall conclusion was that her results cast doubt on the reliability of the BTRSPI, and she offered some recommendations (in the absence of any improved version of the instrument) as to how practitioners may modify their interpretations of the scores. The factor structures from these various studies fail to correspond to the groupings suggested by Belbin. Nonetheless a sympathetic interpretation of the fourfactor solutions of Furnham and colleagues and Senior (the only studies that allow a degree of comparison) may indicate four team-role dimensions: challengingcooperative (SH-TW); creative extrovert-conservative (PL-CW/IM); judgingnetworking (ME-RI); and conscientious-coordinating (CF-CH/CO). A number of methodological observations may be offered with respect to these two studies. As with Furnham and colleagues’ first experiment, Fisher, Macrosson, and Sharp’s (1996) research employed a mixed, and presumably convenience, sample of student participants (149 undergraduates and 43 graduates across business, engineering, and science programs of study) whereas the BTRSPI was designed for use with occupational groups (principally managers) who had experience of working in teams. The value of Cronbach’s α of .01 for the resource investigator scale on first administration is extraordinarily low but rose to .39 on 7-month retest, which leads one to question the former value. Senior’s factor analytical study used two samples: One, in terms of size, may be described as “good” (that is in excess of 300 respondents) (Comrey & Lee, 1992); the second sample (and not discussed here) of 46 postgraduates is inadequate. Balderson and Broderick (1996) in a study of team roles in the health service sector found two clusters of roles, a leadership and creative thinker cluster and a task and interpersonal cluster. Broucek and Randell (1996) in a study that examined the relationships between the self-report and observer-assessed forms of Belbin’s team role inventory reported internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) for both versions in their ipsative forms—(see Table 5.2). The internal reliabilities for the self-report version ranged from .25 (Implementer role) to .52 (Team Worker and Specialist roles). For the observer-assessed version of the inventory the internal reliabilities were somewhat improved with the Shaper role exceeding the salient value of .70 (Cronbach’s α = .83). It should be added however that this was the only scale to exceed this threshold level, the others were generally lower (.30 Cronbach’s α ≤ .67). A further point of concern raised by Broucek and Randell was that the correlations between the self-report and observer-assessed forms ranged from .11 to .40 and therefore they are “not supported as parallel forms” (Broucek & Randell, 1996, p. 396). In a similar study (N = 65) was conducted by Senior and Swailes (1998), in addition to presenting correlations between self-perception and observer-assessed scores, they also calculated the amount of agreement between observers for each set of scores. For the full sample of 65 cases they found that there were statisti-

118

Self-Perception Issues

cally significant positive correlations (p < .005) between self-perception and observer-assessed forms for five of the nine roles (RI, SH, ME, TW, and CF) with correlations in the range .36 to .50. This compares well with Broucek and Randell’s study, in which they observed statistically significant correlations (p < .0001) between self- and observer-assessment for five of the nine roles (PL, RI, SH, ME, and CF), with correlations in the range .27 to .40. Senior and Swailes (1998) found that for 35 cases the level of agreement between self-report and observer-assessment was statistically significant (Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W). A further correlational analysis of these 35 sets reduced the number of statistically significant correlations to three (RI, TW, and CF). Senior and Swailes concluded that because nearly half the observer scores showed no agreement between observers, the observer-assessed form of the BTRSPI may be flawed as a team-role measure in terms of its reliability and validity. They do however raise the possibility that some team-role behaviors may be more identifiable than others or that different observers may have different perceptions of the same individual. They offer two possible explanations for lack of agreement in self- and observerassessment for those sets in which observers themselves agreed: (1) that the selfassessed and/or the observer-assessed forms of the Belbin inventory are flawed and “therefore, cannot be expected to yield valid and reliable results” (Senior & Swailes, 1998, p. 6); (2) that individuals may perceive their own characteristics and behaviors differently from the perceptions of others. They concluded by observing that Care should be taken when selecting and assessing people on the basis of their team-role preferences not to put too much reliance on information gained through self-reports. In many cases the use of assessment centres can overcome this self-report bias . . . particularly if referees can be encouraged to formulate their comments according to a framework which “mirrors” that on which candidates’ self-perceptions are structured. (Senior & Swailes, 1998, p. 7)

The above researchers aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the BTRSPI because in their view, because it is so widely used in management and organizational development, it required some independent assessment. The evidence presented thus far with respect to the BTRSPI raises some questions over its internal consistency, construct validity, and temporal stability. Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton’s (1993) paper sparked a spirited debate with the original research, Belbin’s reply, and Furnham and colleagues’ response to Belbin’s reply all appearing in a single issue of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (Belbin, 1993; Furnham, Steele, & Pendleton, 1993). Belbin asserted that “the BTRSPI as a self-standing psychometric test does not exist” (Belbin, 1993, p. 259), rather it was included in the 1981 edition of the book Management Teams in order that line managers might have a “quick and useful way” of having some indication as to what their team roles might be. He argued that by de-ipsatizing the BTRSPI Furnham and colleagues created their own version of the test, which “can scarcely be taken as a fair report on the BTRSPI itself”

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

119

(Belbin 1993, p. 259). However, as Table 5.2 shows, when used in the ipsative form as intended by Belbin (Experiment 3), the psychometric properties are certainly no better than for Furnham and colleagues’ normative version. In an attempt to overcome some of the limitations of previous versions of the inventory Belbin developed Interplace, a “computer-based Human Resource Management System” which “normalises inputs, filters out undiscriminating observers, identifies suspect self-reporting, analyses jobs and transposes their demands into team language” (Belbin, 1993, p. 259). According to the Belbin organization, Interplace is used by “over 40 per cent of the UK’s top 100 companies and has been translated into Czech, Dutch, French, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish” (http://www.belbin.com/interplace.html). Belbin’s argument was that Furnham and colleagues focused on the “historical antecedents” to Interplace. From this one may conclude that if the paper versions of the inventory differ substantially in terms of the content and properties of the items and scales from those used in Interplace some of the questions raised by Furnham and colleagues and other researchers may have been addressed. If, on the other hand, the items, scales, and scoring methods are largely unchanged between the paper and computer versions, the issues remain unresolved. Parker Team Player Survey In contrast to the BTRSPI, there has been comparatively little examination of the properties of the Parker Team Player Survey (PTPS). An interrogation of the Social Sciences Citation Index revealed a single critical paper by Kirnan and Woodruff (1994). Like Furnham and colleagues, they employed different groups of participants across three studies. The participants in Kirnan and Woodruff’s first study were 62 business psychology students and 62 individuals from a variety of organizational settings. Both groups completed the PTPS twice, the students with an interval of three weeks and the occupational group within a four- to sixweek interval. Test-retest coefficients (Pearson Product Moment) were in the range .51 (Challenger) to .75 (Communicator). Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) were in the range .20 (Collaborator) to .65 (Communicator). The least satisfactory of the four scales appeared to be the Collaborator scale (.20 Cronbach’s α .26; .43 test-retest .55), however none of the scales achieved the minimum threshold for internal consistency of .70 suggested by Nunnally (1978). In their second study Kirnan and Woodruff calculated the correlations (Pearson Product Moment) between team-role self-scores and peer scores. Correlations were in the range .18 to .46, with the former value being achieved for the Collaborator scale. Kirnan and Woodruff’s third study was an item-sort task performed by 35 undergraduates. Median percentages in agreement were in the range 63.5 percent to 85.5 percent, again with the lowest value being attained by the Collaborator scale. Kirnan and Woodruff’s (1994) exploration of the reliability of the PTPS found that the scales’ internal consistencies were generally lower than Nunnally’s minimum (.70) and temporal stability was variable. The Collaborator scale was the

120

Self-Perception Issues

least satisfactory of the four scales and Kirnan and Woodruff suggested that “indepth item analysis could be used to determine the specific items that might be rewritten to improve the measurement of this style” (Kirnan & Woodruff, 1994, p. 1036). Unfortunately Kirnan and Woodruff did not attempt to investigate the hypothesized four-factor structure of the PTPS, hence it is less easy to comment on this aspect of the instrument’s validity. Future research should explore the detailed psychometric properties of each of the four scales and the instrument’s factor structure using exploratory and confirmatory techniques. Like the BTRSPI, the PTPS is an ipsative test and may therefore suffer from the drawbacks suggested by Johnson, Wood, and Blinkhorn (1988). In addition researchers may wish to consider the development of a nonipsative form, thus avoiding many of the potential difficulties that some researchers associate with the factor analysis of ipsative items (see Cornwell & Dunlap, 1994). Team Management Profile Unlike the BTRSPI and the PTPS, the TMP is supplied not only with background information for potential users but it is also accompanied by an extensive manual that includes information on reliability and validity and a detailed analysis of a large database in terms of gender, age, functional area, professional, and industrial groups, and cross-national comparisons. Norms are presented for European, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, North American, Latin American, and Australian samples. The worldwide norms are based on scores from over 73,000 respondents broken down into over 80 countries (Team Management Systems, 1998, p. 277). All of these data have been collected by the Institute of Team Management Studies (ITMS), which also encourages independent assessment of the instrument. The instrument has been used widely and, like the BTRSPI, has many “blue-chip” clients. The instrument’s developers are careful to point out that the TMP measures work preferences and not work performance but argue that these preferences affect “motivation and long-term commitment to performing well at work” (Davies, Margerison, & McCann, 1988, p. 34). Reliability The scale means, intercorrelations (Pearson Product Moment), internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α), and test-retest coefficients of the four scales are shown in Table 5.4. The scale intercorrelations are moderate and represent between 0.02 percent and 11.56 percent shared variance, which is taken as indicative of scale independence (Team Management Systems, 1998). The internal reliabilities for each of the four scales are in excess of the .70 minimum recommended by Nunnally (1978). In addition item-scale total correlations are also available and are taken as indicators of those items that “do a better job of measuring preference than others” (Team Management Systems, 1998, pp. 36–38). Item-total correlations for two TMP items (37 and 55) failed to reach the minimum threshold value of .30. Data relating to the temporal stability for 44 subjects over a 6- to 7-month period are

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

121

Table 5.4. Scale Means, Intercorrelations (Pearson Product Moment), Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s α shown in bold along the diagonal), and Test-Retest Coefficients for the TMP

Scale

Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) Practical Creative (P-C) Analytical Beliefs (A-B) Structured Flexible (S-F)

Mean

E-I

P-C

A-B

S-F

TestRetest

.43

.83

–.34

-.22

-.13

.85

.85

.32 .86

.32 .32 .80

.87 .78 .76

1.17 11.34 4.86

good (in the range .67 to .85). The TMP has been translated into at least eight different languages (Team Management Systems, 1998), and the internal consistency of these non-English language versions appears in general to be satisfactory. A second version of the TMP was produced in 1997 with modifications to 10 of the items. The internal reliabilities for the modified scales all exceeded .70. Construct Validity There have been some attempts to explore the construct validity of the TMP through an examination of its relationships with the MBTI, 16PF, BTRSPI, and Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford, 1992). TMS cited three studies in which correlations between MBTI and TMP were computed. The weak correlations observed between the TMP and MBTI scales for Australian sample (N = 88) were attributed by the instrument’s developers to the former measuring work preferences and the latter measuring “overall life preferences” (Team Management Systems, 1998, p. 198) and was taken as being indicative of independence of the TMP and MBTI. Rushmer (1998) compared the TMP with the eight-role BTRSPI (N = 78) and found “no direct correspondence or translation from one model to another, despite considerable similarity in the behavioural indicators for the corresponding roles between the two models” (Rushmer, 1998, p. 211). Van Graan (1998) reported mixed results in a study of the relationship between the TMP and the 16PF (SA92 Form) (N = 216). Taking .40 as a “moderate” correlation, he observed that the TMP extroversion scale correlated moderately with warmth, dominance, and boldness; introversion correlated moderate negatively with warmth, impulsivity, and boldness; the practical scale correlated moderately and negatively with imagination and rebelliousness; the creative scale correlated moderately with imagination and rebelliousness. The A-B and S-F constructs failed to correlate at moderate levels with any of the 16PF factors. Carter (1987, cited in Team Management Systems, 1998) observed some relationships between team role and learning styles as measured using the Learning Styles Questionnaire

122

Self-Perception Issues

(LSQ). In a related study Scrivener and Strawson (1998) observed correlations in the range –.52 to –.28 and +.59 and +.24 (Pearson Product Moment) between the TMP and LSQ scales. The Practical, Structured, and Flexible scales failed to produce correlations that were significant at the p = .01 level. Full results of research into the factor structure of the TMP are available from the ITMS. Independent Assessment of the TMP An independent commentary (that is, not under the auspices of the ITMS) on the TMP was provided by Cartwright and Iles (1995). They acknowledged the value of the extensive support materials that accompany the instrument, the attractiveness and ease of use of the materials, and the strong commitment of the instrument developers to continuing research. Their concern relating to a shortage of information concerning the construct validity was addressed to some extent given that the most recent edition of the manual (1998) refers to a series of studies that compare TMP scores with MBTI, 16PF, LSQ, and other tests (see above). Overall they were of the view that any conclusions about the TMP’s psychometric qualities need to be “tempered by a consideration of the effects of its ipsative construction on matters such as scale reliability and inter-scale relationships” (Cartwright & Iles, 1998, p. 272) and that its criterion-related (or predictive) validity was insufficient to justify the use of the TMP in selection or placement, a point with which the instrument’s developers agree: “The Team Management Profile Questionnaire should not be used to determine cut-off scores in selection or placement decisions” (Cartwright & Iles, 1998, p. 272). However, they go on to argue that the use of the TMP in selection as a way of facilitating discussion in interviews and assessment centres is “quite in order” (Team Management Systems, 1998, p. 278). Ffrench (1988) has described at least one such application in the selection of employees for Touche-Ross in Australia. Further independent action-based assessment was provided by Rae (1990), who reported the effectiveness of the TMP in a staff development application in the U.K. Government’s Training Agency. A convenience sample of 855 participants from a range of job levels participated in the study. Rae found that the TMP approach opened up discussions about individual roles and the need for a balance of skills and preferences within an effective team. He concluded that the TMP was a valuable managerial resource in that it allowed: (a) the balance of existing teams to be assessed; (b) the identification of role preferences on which individuals may need to develop; (c) the opportunity for the notions of team roles and learning styles to be linked to enable a deeper understanding of individual and team learning processes; (d) the development of interactive and interpersonal skills by increasing participants’ awareness of behaviors, motivations, and needs of themselves and other team members (Rae, 1990). ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF TEAM-ROLE INVENTORIES One alternative to the use of these team-role inventories has been the calculation of team-role scores using personality inventories (principally the 16PF, which

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

123

was the foundation of much of Belbin’s work). Team-role scores may be produced by combining scale scores from the 16PF using the appropriate equations—an approach that has been used successfully by a number of researchers (e.g., Dulewicz, 1995; Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 1998). In addition, the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ), which assesses 30 aspects of behavior, may also be used to compute team-role scores. However, the range of measurement options available presents problems both for researchers and practitioners as Dulewicz (1995) observed: [H]aving assessed thousands of managers over the last eight years, it is becoming ever more common for managers to have been presented with more than one set of team-role scores, derived from different instruments, and in many cases for the results to be noticeably different, leading to significant confusion. (Dulewicz, 1995, p. 86)

Dulewicz went on to explore the construct validity of the team roles as operationalized in the 16PF (Form A) and the OPQ (Concept 5) by administering both tests to a sample of 100 managers enrolled at a management college. As may be observed from the results of the principal components analysis summarized in Table 5.3, the factor structures obtained from the 16PF and the OPQ are substantially different. The 16PF scores yielded a four-factor solution comprising a three bipolar factors (Shaper/Completer Finisher-Resource Investigator, Plant-Team Worker/Implementer, and Shaper-Monitor Evaluator) and a unipolar Coordinator/Monitor evaluator factor. In addition the Shaper and Implementer scales loaded ambiguously. No factors bore much of a resemblance to the groupings suggested by Belbin. Fisher, Hunter, and Macrossan (1998) subjected 16PF team-roles scores from 1,796 U.K. managers to a multidimensional scaling procedure. They found that a three-dimensional model provided the best fit for the data and argued that the plot suggested two groupings: a relationship team-role (Chairman, Team Worker, Resource Investigator, Company Worker, and Team Worker) and a task team-role (Plant, Monitor Evaluator, Shaper, and Completer Finisher). They argued that this provided support for Belbin’s original notion of complementary and counterbalancing roles. They also made some interesting observations regarding the relationship between primary and secondary team-roles: [I]t is likely that, for a given individual, the secondary role of a “task” type of person will not be a “relationship” role but a “task” role; neither will a “relationship” type of person be likely to adopt a “task” secondary team role. (Fisher, Hunter, & Macrossan, 1998, p. 287)

Dulewicz’s OPQ scores yielded a comparatively “clean” three-factor solution comprising Plant/Shaper, Coordinator/Resource Investigator/Team Worker, and Implementer/Completer Finisher/Monitor Evaluator (the only exception to this was the cross-loading of the Team Worker scale on Factors 2 and 3). Although these do not present the polar opposites or “antiforces” posited by Belbin (1981, p. 123), they do possess a coherence that allows each of them to be labeled by the present author as creative/leadership orientation (Factor 1), interpersonal orienta-

124

Self-Perception Issues

tion (Factor 2), and task orientation (Factor 3). The latter two are broadly equivalent to the labels provided by Fisher, Hunter, and Macrossan (1998). Some proponents of team-role theory may draw encouragement from this interpretation of Dulewicz’s OPQ data because it appears to provide simple results that have high face validity. Given the above it is possible that Belbin’s eight original team roles could be covered by a comparatively small team of as few as three or four individuals. In addition to an exploration of the psychometric properties of the OPQ team roles, Dulewicz also used a self- and manager-rated survey of 12 job competencies, which he termed “supra-competencies” (see Dulewicz, 1994), in an attempt to explore the concurrent validity of the 16PF and OPQ team roles. The creative leadership orientation correlated with the “energy and initiative” supra-competence (p < .01), the interpersonal orientation correlated with “managing staff” (p < .01) and the task orientation correlated with the “analysis and judgment” and “achievement motivation” supra-competencies (p < .1), which provided some evidence for the concurrent validity of the three OPQ team-role orientations. The most parsimonious interpretation using a personality questionnaire appears to be that of the OPQ team roles, wherein three easily interpretable factors may be observed and which possess a structural simplicity that is absent from some of the previous studies. HOW USEFUL ARE TEAM-ROLE SELF-PERCEPTION INVENTORIES? Few business and management scholars would dispute the view that team working is an important element of contemporary work organization. The notion that there are individual differences in behavior in a group context is indisputable. The nature of those differences may be described from a number of perspectives, but as we have seen, one theory that has exercised much influence over management and human resource practice is that of team role, style, or preference and the associated idea of team balance. The corollary of this is that a balanced team (in terms of the roles, styles, or preferences of its members) is likely to be more effective than one that is unbalanced. These observations raise a number of issues for scholars and practitioners alike. It is important that the nature of assessment of team roles, the interpretation of any assessment, and the different meanings and emphases accorded to assessing team roles are adequately debated if the field is to progress. Form of Assessment Team-role assessment may take a number of forms: Individuals may be requested to reflect on their own behavior (self-report), they may be observed in a work setting by colleagues (peer-assessment), or they may be observed by trained assessors in a simulated or “real” setting. Each of these is open to different forms of bias. Self-report may be biased because individuals cannot objectively report their behavior—they may respond in what they feel are socially desirable ways or they may not wish to report their perceptions of their true behavior. However

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

125

Furnham (1992) noted that many psychologists take the position that even if scores on tests are not veridical self-reports of internal states or behaviors, they do overlap with the trait they purport to assess. Observer assessment in simulated settings is open to bias in the form of observer error and reactivity (participants consciously or unconsciously changing their behavior because they are being observed). Peer assessment may be open to other forms of bias such as group affiliation and stereotyping. As has been noted precedent and practicality have dictated that much work in the field of team roles has relied on self-report, the convenience of which means that it is unlikely to be supplanted as a method of assessment. The onus therefore is on test developers to ensure that, as far as possible, their self-report instruments are both reliable and valid assessments of the behaviors they claim to assess. As we have seen the internal reliabilities of the BTRSPI and the PTPS were less than the minimum value of .70 suggested by Nunnally (1978). Research that has aimed to explore the BTRSPI’s factor structure has yet to reconstruct the groupings of the scales as suggested by the questionnaire’s developers. The PTPS has yet to be subjected to factor analytical scrutiny. The TMP has shown acceptable levels of internal consistency, and the ITMS has investigated the instrument’s hypothesized factor structure. There is a need for further work that (a) assesses the factor structure of the BTRSPI using appropriate samples (i.e., work-based populations with experience of working in teams) and exploratory and confirmatory techniques; (b) assesses the hypothesized four-factor structure of the PTPS with due consideration given to the relative merits of ipsative versus normative scaling; (c) independently builds on the voluminous research produced by TMS with particular regard for the TMP’s factor structure; (d) explores areas of overlap by comparing the PTPS, BTRSPI, and TMP in order that the theoretical bases of team roles may be further explicated, but also so that the value that each instrument adds may be assessed. For practical purposes a combination of self-report and observer assessment using commensurate scales is one way in which reliability and validity of assessment may be optimized. Interpretation of Team Roles Those practitioners who choose to use team-role self-perception tests are faced with decisions about how best to interpret scores. As Dulewicz (1994) observed, in his experience it is not uncommon for managers to be presented with differing and sometimes conflicting interpretations of their team roles. What is required is a simple, economical, and efficient explanation of the available evidence. For example, the factor structures of the BTRSPI reported in the various research studies cited herein are inconsistent. One possible interpretation of Belbin’s team-role theory is as a three-factor model comprising the creative/leadership, interpersonal, and task orientations discernible in Dulewicz’s study. An alternative theoretical explanation of team roles generally could encompass the splitting of the leadership and creativity roles to give a four-factor model of team-role orientation. Ori-

126

Self-Perception Issues

Table 5.5. A Hypothesized Four-Factor Model of Team Orientation Team Orientation Model

Leadership

Belbin

Coordinator Shaper

Creative

Plant

Parker Collaborator Challenger Margerison ThrusterCreator& McCann Organizer Innovator

Relationship

Resource Investigator Teamworker Communicator Explorer-Promoter UpholderMaintainer Reporter-Adviser

Task

Monitor Evaluator Implementer Completer Finisher Specialist Contributor Assessor-Developer Concluder-Producer Controller-Inspector

entation in this context refers to an individual’s predisposition either to the task (idea implementation), leading the team, maintaining relationships, and idea generation (a “creative” contribution). Individuals may have preference for one or more of these orientations, which is determined by their innate characteristics, the nature of the task, and their task-relevant knowledge and skills. The creative orientation for example might encompass Belbin’s plant role, Parker’s challenger style, and Margerison and McCann’s creator-innovator preference. One may speculate further by allocating each of the other roles, styles, and preferences to each of these four orientations (see Table 5.5). The Parker theory is potentially problematical in this regard because it is primarily a theory of style in which, for example, a leadership role may be performed in a variety of different ways, each of which is equally valid (Parker, 1996). One way of testing such a model would be by de-ipsatizing each of the tests and subjecting scores from appropriately sized samples to exploratory and confirmatory factor analytical techniques. In addition the relationships between the factors and measures of personality (for example, OPQ, 16PF, and MBTI) could be examined. Such an exercise could help to unify or rationalize the currently competing theories of team roles, allow for greater clarity, and identify any links with existing theories of personality. Multiple Meanings The debate between Belbin and Furnham and colleagues in 1993 draws attention to a divergence of perspectives of different interest groups, in this instance the scientists and the practitioners. From the scientific standpoint Furnham and colleagues’ perception of the BTRSPI appears to be that it stands or falls as a psy-

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

127

chometric test per se, and they are firmly of the view that because the BTRSPI is widely used by practitioners it should be psychometrically robust. From the practitioner standpoint Belbin maintained that the BTRSPI was never intended to be a self-standing test, it was not marketed for the purpose assumed by Furnham and colleagues and “never has been” (Belbin, 1993, p. 259). Belbin goes to some length in his books to describe the psychometric tests that were used (the OPQ and CTA) as antecedents or predictors of team roles; clearly therefore the BTRSPI could not have been one of these tests. Balderson and Broderick (1996) support the view that the BTRSPI has high face validity and acceptability among respondents and practitioners as a developmental tool. Likewise the TMP may be used for individual and team developmental and action research thus enabling a manager to “map out where more attention needs to be paid in terms of selection and development” (Margerison & McCann, 1984, p. 57). Similarly, the PTPS is a means by which “team leaders and team members [may] better understand themselves and how they contribute to team success” (Parker, 1996, p. xiv). If one interprets models and instruments such as Belbin’s as heuristics—as ways of raising awareness about individual differences in team behavior (Fincham & Rhodes, 1999, pp. 192–193)—the arguments about measurement accuracy become somewhat secondary to the practical value of self-report inventories in fostering learning and debate among managers about how to promote effective team behavior. Within this paradigm team-role inventories and the like may be selfconfirmatory rather than self-revelatory: “It is not the intention of a profile to put people ‘into a box’ and stereotype them. . . . We believe that an effective profile should create no major surprises” (Margerison & McCann, 1985, p. 16). Inevitably self-report test scores represent approximations, and it is up to the informed participant to judge their value. If tests are used as a heuristic but also presented as highly accurate measures, there is the potential for misunderstanding. Once the “genie is out of the bottle,” for example when tests are reproduced in a popular text, there is always the possibility that they may be widely used by individuals who are unaware of some of the problems of measurement. As Ffrench (1998) observed “managers have used [testing] as a crutch instead of [as] an additional tool. Many people have not fully understood what they are testing, and, often, what they are looking for” (p. 48). A similar paradox may be observed with respect to another popular management inventory, Honey and Mumford’s (1992) Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ). The LSQ’s psychometric properties have been subjected to critical scrutiny (see Allinson & Hayes, 1988; Fung, Ho, & Kwan, 1993), nevertheless it is still widely used by management development practitioners. When used as a heuristic to aid discussions about the learning process, many practitioners (including the present author) will testify that the LSQ has a great deal to offer. However some social scientists have opted for alternative instruments when researching learning and cognition. Finally, McCrimmon (1995) has raised the broader question of the validity of the team-role concept itself, with which he identified four problems: (a) role as-

128

Self-Perception Issues

signation may lead to expectations to role conformity or even a restrictive obligation to behave in particular ways; (b) although having a well-defined role does not preclude flexibility it does not encourage it either; (c) role demarcation and territoriality; (d) role abdication. He described roles as a defense mechanism or a “comfort zone” in which the unadventurous can feel safe. He attributes this inflexibility as a product of a “relatively static” business context in which team-role theories have evolved in the 1970s and 1980s, but “now rapid and continuous change is the order of the day” (p. 37). In defense of team-role theory it should be noted that the models considered here do lay considerable emphasis on creativity through the Plant, Challenger, and Creator-Innovator roles, and in some respects, especially those developed in the 1980s, may be said to have been ahead somewhat of their time. Perhaps greater emphasis needs to be given to the development of idea-generation capabilities among all team members and to balancing these with the idea-implementation capabilities of the Implementors, Contributors, and Concluder-Producers. SUMMARY Team working will continue to be an important aspect of organizational life in the twenty-first century as well as sustaining enormous interest from scholars and practitioners. Team-role theories are one way of exploring the relationships between team working and performance at the individual, group, and organizational levels. The perceived relevance, high face validity, and intuitive appeal of the concept of team roles and team balance are among the reasons for the great success of inventories such as those developed by Belbin, Parker, and Margerison and McCann. However, the field appears to suffer at the present time from a number of difficulties, principal among these are the apparent contradictions and conflicts between the different frameworks with areas of overlap and discrepancy, which are often difficult for practitioners and researchers to understand and rationalize. It is a matter of some concern if, as Dulewicz (1995) asserts, managers are being presented with differing interpretations of team-role preferences. Each of the models presented draw at least to some extent on theories of personality (Cattell) and psychological type (Jung) and hence are derived from differing traditions. In order to assess the degree to which team role is a valid construct (as operationalized through the various inventories discussed here) three avenues for further research may be suggested: (a) improvement of the psychometric properties of those measures that fail to demonstrate satisfactory reliability and validity; (b) rigorously conducted factor analyses—such an approach could encompass the Belbin, Parker, and Margerison and McCann inventories in the same studies, perhaps using the fourfactor model presented here as one of a number of competing models; (c) studies (cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental) examining the relationships between team balance and performance. Hence, there is considerable scope for further independent research in order that the contribution that team-role theory can make to individual and organizational performance may be fully realized.

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

129

NOTE The author is grateful to the following without whose help this work would not have been possible: Peter Lancaster of Belbin Associates for guidance on the BTRSPI and Interplace; Janine Athorn of Team Management Systems for her support in making available extensive non–public domain information relating to the Team Management Profile; Professor Adrian Furnham for his kind permission to reproduce the reliability and validity data from Furnham, Steele, and Pendleton (1993). Any errors and omissions are mine alone.

REFERENCES Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1988). The Learning Styles Questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb’s inventory? Journal of Management Studies, 25, 269–281. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and organization. New York: Wiley. Balderson, S. J., & Broderick, A. J. (1996). Behaviour in teams: Exploring occupational and gender differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 33–42. Barney, J.B. (1999). Looking inside for competitive advantage. In R. S. Schuler & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Strategic human resource management (pp. 128–141). Oxford: Blackwell. Bates, R. A. (1999). Measuring performance improvement. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Performance improvement theory and practice, Advances in developing human resources (pp. 47–67). Baton Rouge and San Francisco: Academy of Human Resource Development and Berrett Koehler. Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Heinemann. Belbin, R. M. (1993). A reply to the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory by Furnham, Steele and Pendleton. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 66, 259–260. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf. Broucek, W. G., & Randell, G. (1996). An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory and Observer’s Assessment from the perspective of the five factor model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 389–405. Cappelli, P. (1999). Rethinking employment. In R. S. Schuler & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Strategic human resource management (pp. 282–316). Oxford: Blackwell. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1993). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452. Cartwright, S., & Iles, P. (1995). The Team Management Index (TMI). In D. Bartram (Ed.), Review of personality assessment instruments (level B) for use in occupational settings (pp. 268–273). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H., & Tatsouka, M. (1970). Handbook for the 16PF Questionnaire. Champaign: IPAT. Chmiel, N. (1998). Jobs, technology and people. London: Routledge. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

130

Self-Perception Issues

Cornwell, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring ipsative data: A response to Saville and Willson (1991). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 89–100. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. Davies, R., Margerison, C., & McCann, R. (1988). Team management. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 6(1), 32–39. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Vol. 26, Applied social research methods series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dulewicz, V. (1994). Personal competencies, personality and responsibilities of middle managers. Journal of Competency, 1(3), 20–29. Dulewicz, V. (1995). A validation of Belbin’s team-roles from 16PF and OPQ using bosses ratings of competence. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 68, 81–99. Edmondson, A. (1999, June). The view through a different lens: Investigating organizational learning at the group level of analysis. Paper presented at the 3rd International Organisational Learning Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Ffrench, B. (1988). The Team Management index in the recruitment process. Management Decision, 26(5), 48–52. Fincham, R., & Rhodes, P. (1999). Principles of organisational behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fisher, S. G., Hunter, T. A., & Macrosson, W. D. K. (1998). The structure of Belbin’s teamroles. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 71, 283–288. Fisher, S. G., Macrosson, W. D. K., & Sharp, G. (1996). Further evidence concerning the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory. Personnel Review, 25, 61–67. Fung, Y. H., Ho, A. S. P., & Kwan, K. P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the Learning Styles Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 12–21. Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work. London: Routledge. Furnham, A., Steele, H., & Pendleton, D. (1993). A psychometric assessment of the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 245–257. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hendry, C., Arthur, M. B., & Jones A. M. (1995). Strategy through people. London: Routledge. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1999). Understanding human resource management in the context of organisations and their environments. In R. S. Schuler & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Strategic human resource management (pp. 4–28). Oxford: Blackwell. Johnson, C., Wood, R., & Blinkhorn, S. (1988). Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 153–161. Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. London: Routledge. Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in research and development organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 4, 715–726.

Self-Perception of Team-Roles

131

Kirnan, J. P., & Woodruff, D. (1994). Reliability and validity estimates of the Parker Team Player Survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 1030–1037. Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1995). Team work in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29–42. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns in management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Margerison, C., & McCann, R. (1984). The management linker: A key to the high-performing team. Management Decision, 22(4), 46–58. Margerison, C., & McCann, R. (1985). How to lead a winning team. Bradford: MCB University Press Limited. Margerison, C., & McCann, R. (1995). Team management: Practical new approaches. Management Books. McCrimmon, M. (1995). Teams without roles: Empowering teams for greater creativity. Journal of Management Development, 14, 35–41. McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parker, G. M. (1996). Team players and teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Preskill, H., & Torres, R. (1999). The role of evaluative enquiry in creating learning organisations. In M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne, & L. Araujo (Eds.), Organisational learning and the learning organisation (pp. 92–114). London: Sage. Rae, R. L. (1990). The team management resource in the training agency. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(4), 3–11. Rollinson, D., Broadfield, A., & Edwards, D. J. (1998). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley. Rushmer, R. K. (1998). TMS and Belbin. In Team Management Systems research manual (2nd ed., pp. 207–213). York, UK: Team Management Systems. Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1989). Modern psychometrics. London: Routledge. Sabel, C. F. (1982). Work and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Saville, P., & Willson, E. (1991). The validity and reliability of normative and ipsative approaches to the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 64, 219–238. Scrivener, J., & Strawson, L. (1998). TMS and the Learning Styles Questionnaire: Predicting relationships and patterns. In Team Management Systems research manual (2nd ed., pp. 229–249). York, UK: Team Management Systems. Senior, B. (1997). Team-roles and team performance: Is there “really” a link? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 241–258. Senior, B. (1998). An empirically-based assessment of Belbin’s team-roles. Human Resource Management Journal, 8, 54–60. Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (1998). A comparison of the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory and Observer’s Assessment sheets as measures of an individual’s team-roles. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 1–8. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins. Toplis, J., Dulewicz, V., & Fletcher, C. (1997). Psychological testing: A manager’s guide. London: Institute of Personnel and Development. Team Management Systems. (1998). Team Management Systems research manual (2nd ed.). York, UK: Author.

132

Self-Perception Issues

Team Management Systems. (1999). Team Management Systems accreditation handbook. York, UK: Author. Van Graan, J. (1998). Comparing the results of the Team Management Profile with the 16PF. In Team Management Systems research manual (2nd ed., pp. 214–223). York, UK: Team Management Systems. Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography on Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 996–1025.

6 TRANSITION ACROSS EDUCATIONAL PHASES AND THE IMPACT UPON PUPIL ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT Andrew H. Margerison

In general terms, we all, as individuals, want to feel that we are in control of our lives and to feel happy and secure. We want to feel that we belong to our chosen social and physical environments, to feel that our achievements match our aspirations and that the other people we meet at home, at work, or socially value us and our opinions and feelings. These feelings created within us are based on attitudes we form about ourselves through the knowledge gained by life experiences, what we perceive as personal successes and failures, and the comments or observations given by others, both positive and negative about something we do or say. Specific events, traumatic and exciting, can also contribute to the formation of these attitudes and the effect they have on our feelings and views of ourselves. In broad terms these feelings, attitudes, and perceptions about ourselves form our self-concept, and it is essential for personal happiness, adjustment and effective functioning that these are positive (Burns, 1982). Although general this view serves to put into simple terms what is a difficult, in many ways abstract, yet extremely important concept and psychological construct. THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF SELF-CONCEPT The fact that self-concept is an abstract and hypothetical construct (Marsh & Parker, 1984) has created the situation where there is no clear, concise, and universally accepted definition (Byrne, 1996; Wilson, 1998). The key word in this sentence is “universally”—there have been numerous definitions of self-concept pro-

134

Self-Perception Issues

duced, many of which are very precise, but there has been a tendency of self-concept researchers to interchange, at random, the various self terms (Byrne, 1996). Terms such as self-concept, self-image, and self-perception have been used interchangeably. Indeed, Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) determined 17 different conceptual dimensions on which the definitions could be categorized. Inevitably, this has led to an ambiguity among the various terms and notions of self-concept that are less than systematic (Byrne, 1996). Modern research into the nature of self-concept has its roots in the writings of William James, who published Principles of Psychology in 1890. Although this must not be considered to be the first major published work or attempt to define the “self,” this publication was notable in that it redefined the self as a legitimate study for the psychologist rather than a subject limited to the musings of the philosopher (Lawrence, 1981). By moving the topic from what had previously been the province of abstract philosophical debate into the realm of empiricism, James opened the door for methodological research linked to a philosophical principle to begin. Whereas James and later thinkers approached self-concept from a psychological starting point, the symbolic interactionists—Cooley, Mead, and later Erikson (see Burns, 1982)—approached the subject from a sociological and cultural perspective. The three basic premises of social interaction theory are first, that individuals respond to the environment on the basis of the meanings that the elements of that context has for them; second, these meanings are a product of social interactions but may be modified by further interactions (Burns, 1982). Therefore, self-image and resultant behavior is formed and changed by experience and social interaction. The third element was central to Cooley’s principles and he termed it the “looking-glass self.” The basic premise was that an individual’s self-concept is influenced to a considerable degree by what the individual believes others think of him or her. The everyday interactions between an individual and his or her various primary social groups produce feedback for the individual to evaluate and to relate to his or her own personal view. Research studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s into the structure of the self-concept, extensively reviewed by Wylie (1961, 1974), favored a “global” or “unidimensional” model that related more to the social interactionist perspective. However, because these models were only partly able to explain the relationship between self-concept and behavior, there has been a return to the position where the self-concept is conceived as a dynamic and multidimensional entity with a number of contexts and domain-related subelements. There is a considerable amount of support for this position (Hattie, 1992). Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton’s (1976) hierarchical model of self-concept, subsequently modified by Shavelson and Bolus (1982), and by Song and Hattie (1984), has a general self-concept at the apex that is subdivided into academic and nonacademic self-concept components. Based partly on conceptually similar models of ability that posit a higher-order ability factor as well as more specific

Transition across Educational Phases

135

components of ability (Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988), this model has dominated much of the focus of research into the nature of self-concept. In accordance with this view, Shavelson and Bolus (1982) defined self-concept as a set of self-perceptions that are “formed through one’s experience with and interpretations of one’s environment and are influenced especially by reinforcements, evaluations by significant others” (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982, p. 3). This definition has particular relevance to the subject of this paper and formed the theoretical underpinnings for the hierarchical and differentiated model referred to above. It draws on aspects of several theoretical perspectives, including the social interactionist, as well as that of researchers such as Skinner. Though generally associated with the behaviorist school of thought, Skinner considered that the self is a “focus point where many genetic and environmental conditions come together in a joint effect” (Hattie, 1992. p. 31). In a more detailed definition Marsh and Parker (1984) postulated that the selfconcept has seven critical features: (a) It is organised. (b)It is multifaceted, and the particular facets reflect the category system adopted by a particular individual and/or share by a group. (c) It is hierarchical, with perceptions of behavior at the base moving to inferences about self in sabres (e.g., academic—English, history), then to inferences about self in academic and nonacademic areas, and then to inferences about self in general. (d)General self-concept is stable, but as one descends the hierarchy, self-concept becomes increasingly situation specific and as a consequence less stable. (e) Self-concept becomes increasingly multifaceted as the individual develops from infancy to adulthood. (f) It has both a descriptive and evaluative dimension such that individuals may describe themselves (I am happy) and evaluate themselves (e.g. I do well in school). (g)It can be differentiated from other constructs such as academic achievement. (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982, p. 3)

The main principle of this view of the structure of self-concept is that the general self-concept is a higher-order factor that is accessed through a series of domain-specific self-concepts based within the academic and nonacademic domains. Although they correlate to each other and can contribute to the status of each other, each one is an essentially separate construct. These are then subdivided into elements or domains of knowledge such as English, math, or science for the academic self-concept. The nature of these self-concepts is accessed through the observable or measurable performances of the individual. Divided into vertical lines of “communication,” this creates the multidimensional nature of the construct. In this model the correlations are strongest between the levels immediately above or below so that the general self-concept correlates highest with academic self-concept, next highest with subject-specific self-concepts, and lowest with academic achievement. In the same way that there is no link between each dimension, there is no direct communication between levels ex-

136

Self-Perception Issues

cept those immediately above and below. This horizontal delineation creates the hierarchical aspect of the self-concept. This structure would appear to be relatively rigid, with the idea that each of the levels correlate with the level below it, and the dimensions operate as separate interpretable entities (Byrne, 1996). This, however, belies to some degree the view of self-concept as dynamic and reactive. In my view, there are some conflicts with the seven principles of self-concept described earlier. Furthermore, neither the Shavelson and Bolus (1982) model, nor the subsequent revisions, expand on the nature of the general self-concept. The comments are limited to an assertion that it exists and is essentially stable. Considerable research (Marsh, Byrne, and Shavelson, 1988; Marsh & Yeung, 1997) has demonstrated the multidimensional validity of the Shavelson and Bolus model (1982) in distinguishing between the academic/nonacademic divide. The hierarchical structure is less clear. Much of the recent research (Hattie, 1992; Marsh, Parker, & Smith, 1983; Marsh & Yeung, 1997) explored the effect self-concept has on an individuals academic achievement and how the self-concept is reflected in the individual’s academic performance and behavior. The results led Byrne (1996) to draw together the results of the research and to identify four primary conclusions: • • • •

That academic self-concept is multidimensionally structured That the hierarchical structure holds basically across age That academic self-concept becomes increasingly differentiated during preadolescence That findings related to developmental changes in the hierarchical structure of selfconcept are mixed

However, from an academic perspective, the real test of relevance to any research has to be how it can be used to inform and influence the organizations and institutions that are established. In real terms, are there any lessons to be learned or messages as to how the education system affects those whom it is intended to serve? THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSITION In the opening paragraphs and in the various definitions of self-concept, there has been a consistent reference to the importance that life experiences have on individuals’ self-concept and how they perceive themselves within their social environment. All children at several points in their childhood have to deal with changes in the social environment in which they operate. The majority of these changes are related to the gradual evolution of social groups or friendship circles, but some are more sudden, enforced, or traumatic such as moving or a change in family circumstances. In an educational context a change of school can be viewed as a similarly fundamental event. The reasons for change are multitudinous but can be categorized into two main types relating to the underlying cause. The first category may, for example, be due to relocation of the family. These moves that are out of the normal transition sequence of the education system put demands on children to adapt to a new setting, teachers, peers, curriculum, and

Transition across Educational Phases

137

learning expectations. Such moves have to be made without the support structures such as natural breaks in the curriculum, pre-transfer visits, and the presence of familiar faces, that are typical when children transfer schools as a natural part of the educational process. There is evidence that these midphase transfers have some impact on academic progress and complicate school adjustment (Alexander & Dauber, 1996). The second reason for change is one that the majority of children within the well-established education systems worldwide have to deal with at some point in their education as they move from one phase of education to another. In Great Britain, it is the transfer from primary to secondary school, normally at 11 years of age. Before that, with the rapid development of nursery education, there may be a transfer from preschool to a primary school context; or where a three-tier system still operates from first to middle school at 8 or 9 years and then to secondary school at 12 or 13 years of age. Similar transfers occur in Europe, Australia, and the United States. When a child moves from one place of learning to another what occurs is not just a physical change in the learning context but a total change in the characteristics of that environment. In a school context this can be considered in terms of the buildings, the building style, the organization of the timetable, the teaching arrangements, and the curriculum structure that forms the basis of the daily activity. There is also a change in the social structures that apply in these different contexts. The relationships between the pupils and the teachers change and, in many cases of primary to secondary transfer, become more varied and complicated. As children move through the education system the number of teachers they have to interact with increases, as does the number of fellow pupils they have to work with or alongside. Each of these individuals brings his or her own set of expectations and prior experiences. Furthermore, these transitions, particularly from the primary school context to a secondary context, very often coincide with the physical changes that children undergo at puberty and the intellectual changes associated with developing maturity. Eccles, Lord, and Midgley (1991), when describing the transition in the United States from elementary to junior high school note that junior high school classrooms are characterized by “a greater emphasis on teacher control, and discipline, a less personal and positive teacher-student relationship, and fewer opportunities for student decision-making, choice and self-management” (p. 533). Similar comments could be made about the difference between primary and secondary schools in Great Britain. Eccles, Lord, and Midgley (1991) go on to compare the differences between the teaching styles and teaching group organizations. In the high school setting there is a greater use of ability groupings and, therefore, public comparisons of ability and self-assessment. Again similar comparisons could be made about the schools in Great Britain. Secondary schools tend to be larger, the curriculum is subject-driven with specialist teachers in each curriculum area, and ability grouping is widely used to organize the pupils and to

138

Self-Perception Issues

deliver the curriculum. Although the use of specialist teaching and ability arrangements have become more widely used in primary schools in recent years, for the majority of pupils most lessons take place in a mixed ability setting and taught by one teacher. The class teacher may change at the end of each academic year, but within that time the majority of the teaching is undertaken by the same person thus establishing a strong teacher-pupil relationship. TRANSITION AND SELF-CONCEPT In the United Kingdom, at the point of transfer from primary to secondary schooling, the individual is experiencing a developing physical and intellectual maturity and a new-found self-consciousness. Into this unstable situation the education system introduces a potentially further destabilizing event: school transfer and the consequent adaptations in routine and learning approaches that this demands. The impact of these changes in educational context could have a significant impact on the child’s self-concept of him- or herself as a learner, as a possessor of academic ability, and as an individual. However, there is a subtle difference between natural changes that occur in selfconcept over time and any variation that may directly be attributed to transition from one learning context to another, which is an event that occurs at a specific time and is relatively short term. Oosterwegel and Oppenhiemer (1993) describe the influence of the environment on self-concept as being differentially related to people whose views, opinions and approval are considered by the individual as being significant. Over time there is a gradual shift away from the family as the primary focus as children move from childhood to adolescence (McGuire & McGuire, 1982). Although the self in the family context is much more stable and passive than in a school context (McGuire, McGuire, & Cheever, 1986), teachers, friends, and peers take on an increasingly powerful influence on the view the individual holds about him- or herself. This should enable the individual to filter the mixture of messages being received in a multidimensional context. The shift in the individual’s “significant other” focus relates directly to the findings of Song and Hattie (1984) that there is a decline in family self-concept around the age of 9 years of age and the early teens. Similarly, Rosenberg (1972) found that adolescents come to qualify the adult’s view of them rather than to accept it without question because of the adult’s status. Essentially, the individual becomes more discriminating, is able to self-reflect and to balance the messages they are receiving from different sources about themselves, their strengths and weaknesses. As Elkind (1971) noted, during adolescence there is a development of a “true sense of self.” In terms of younger children the child’s prior behavior and peer relationships are significant factors affecting the integration of the child into the new social environment as well as their resulting attitude to school (Ladd & Price, 1987). Whereas in longitudinal studies of older pupils a link has been established be-

Transition across Educational Phases

139

tween prior attainment and self-concept of ability, in the younger children the selfconcept of academic ability has yet to be established (Skaalvik, 1997). Therefore, it can have no impact on the efficacy of transition from, for example, preschool to primary schooling. If the Shavelson and Bolus (1982) definition of the self-concept is accepted, it is not the environment itself that impacts on the self-concept, rather it is the interactions that the individual has with the constituent elements of the environment that matter. It is the information or messages that the individual receives from other people. For the older pupils, the relationships and interactions inherent in a secondary school context are very complex. The type of school organization such as pupil groupings, the teacher/pupil relationships, including teacher attitude and the pupil’s academic ability, perceived and relative to peers are all contextual factors and sources of reference for the individual that can influence levels of self-concept (Barker Lunn, 1970; Thomas, 1973). In terms of the academic domain, Rosenholtz and Simpson (1984) proposed that three main factors related to the receipt of information influence the formation of an individual’s self-concept of ability. These are the amount of information available to the individual, the consistency of this information, and the accessibility of the information. They considered that the dimensionality of the environment played a particularly significant role. An environment was considered unidimensional if pupils and their performance were evaluated along a single criterion. Multidimensionality involves an evaluation of pupils and their performances along a number of criterion. The correlation between the primary educational context of essentially one class teacher in a stable group equating to the unidimensional and the secondary context to the multidimensional should be clear. Obviously the former scenario offers clear criteria and consensus. The messages the pupil receives from the teacher will be relatively consistent and the direction the pupil gets provides clear guidance about his or her capabilities and achievements in each area. The relationships between the learner and teacher may well be stronger and therefore of greater significance. It would be reasonable to conclude that such a learning context will have a correspondingly consistent impact on an individual’s academic self-concept. However, this need not necessarily equate to a strength of the situation in selfconcept terms. Due to the consistent messages received by the individual from teacher and peers, either positive or negative academic self-concepts could be reinforced. In the multidimensional context the consensus is less distinct, the guidance is more disparate and the individual will be faced with a mixture of messages from teachers with whom their relationship is less strong and secure. Rosenholtz and Simpson (1984) suggested that although the unidimensional context resulted in a high consensus of opinion and therefore a clear conception in the learner of ability; the multidimensional context provides more opportunities to maintain a favor-

140

Self-Perception Issues

able self-concept of abilities as a direct result of the reduced consensus. Essentially, the learner can “pick and choose” whose view to accept or reject. The primary indicator of the efficacy of an individual’s transition from one learning context to another is academic performance and related self-attitudes. Measures of self-esteem, the evaluation the individual makes about him- or herself in comparison to others, generally take the form of self-report questionnaires, such as the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ; Marsh, 1988). This particular example is accepted as the best available measure (Hattie, 1992) for the various first-order dimensions of the self-concept as proposed in the Shavelson and Bolus model (1982). The SDQ relates particularly to academic components of the multidimensional model of self-concept and thus can be used to explain the conflicting results in the research into the impact of transition. The SDQ uses the first-order components to establish levels of academic selfconcept, but as described earlier there is a range of contributory factors involved. Furthermore, another of the underpinning principles of the model is that an individual can have different levels of self-concept in different aspects of the curriculum (Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988). In simplistic terms, this means that at a first-order level a pupil can have a negative view of themselves as a learner of math, but a positive one as a learner of English with no correlation between the self-concepts of the two subjects. From a study in the United States (Hattie, 1992), there is evidence that the mean scores recorded in testing academic self-concept decrease significantly over the period of time covered by transition from primary to secondary schooling in the adolescent years. In addition the level of children’s academic engagement also decreases significantly (Epstein & McPartland, 1976; Song & Hattie 1984). However, there are conflicting results from studies into the actual impact of the transition itself, as distinct from other factors, on the self-concept. By evaluating the self-concept through measuring self-esteem, some studies have reported decreases in self-esteem and therefore self-concept (Simmons & Blyth, 1987), others have reported no differences (Dusek & Flaherty, 1981), and others have found that the self-esteem actually increases (Nottelman, 1987). Finally, to complicate matters further, other studies have found that the self-esteem decreases, but subsequently recovers as the child becomes established and acclimatized to their new environment (Eccles et al., 1989). Marsh (1987) attributes the decline in academic self-concept to changing achievement expectations and the situation where a child becomes a “small fish in a big pond.” One of the main principles of the Shavelson and Bolus (1982) hierarchical model is that it is stable at the apex, but it becomes increasingly less so toward the base. The first-order components of the self-concept are inherently unstable, more open to change, to variation and subsequent revision than those higher up the hierarchy. The sensitivity is limited to those factors that directly influence an individual’s perception about him- or herself within each component. For example, the self-concept components related to school are affected by associated factors and

Transition across Educational Phases

141

not by factors related to other components of the self-concept such as the family (Pekrun, 1990). There are conflicting views on the relationship between achievement and academic self-concept (Skaalvik, 1997), but taking a developmental perspective, the self-concept is shaped by experiences and achievements so these factors are the causally dominant. As time goes on and the self-concept becomes more stable, the relationship between academic achievement and self-concept becomes increasingly reciprocal (Byrne & Worth Gavin, 1996; Skaalvik, 1997). However, this reciprocation is not totally balanced. Academic achievement maintains a causally dominant position over academic self-concept (Muijs, 1997). Pupils use a range of indicators such as test results, grades for work, or the ability to answer questions to measure their academic achievement relative to their peers. These form the points of reference against which individuals measure their performance and impacts on the level of self-concept in that subject or area. A major factor in pupil perception of achievement is the influence of the teaching and the teacher. Teachers play a central role in encouraging the development of high self-esteem and, therefore, a positive academic self-concept. It is clear that the approach of the teacher is one important factor, particularly as the teacher takes on an increasingly prominent role as a significant “other” to children as they enter their adolescent years. Longitudinal studies on the effect of school experiences on changes in self-esteem indicate that specific teachers and experiences have an impact on an individual’s self-esteem in that specific curriculum area (Hoge, Smit, & Hanson, 1990). In a secondary school context this is a very important factor. In a primary context the pupils will be taught, for the most part, by one or two teachers each year with more limited contact with a number of others. The messages received will be relatively consistent from both teacher and peers. However, in a secondary school a pupil may have at least 10 different teachers each academic year. In this multidimensional environment the messages being sent and received will not be consistent, and the lack of consensus allows a greater degree of pupils’ interpretation. For example, where pupils, on school transfer move from a high-efficacy teacher to a low-efficacy teacher they end their first year in the new school with lower expectancies, perceptions of their performance, and confidence (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). In this situation the pupil’s rating of the value of the subject also deteriorates (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1988) and the associated decrease in the motivation toward the subject has a cumulative impact on the individual’s self-concept within that aspect of the curriculum. There is evidence that low-achieving pupils are particularly vulnerable to the effect of these classroom environmental factors. Equally, achievement in math or English positively affects the self-concept in that subject (Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988). This is where the importance of recognizing whether the transition from one school context to another has, in fact, contributed to these changes. Where the pupils moved from teachers of the opposite qualities, the reverse reaction was appar-

142

Self-Perception Issues

ent—perceptions and self-confidence improved and it would be reasonable to expect that achievement would reciprocate (Skaalvik, 1997) thus further reinforcing the improving trend in self-concept. However, such reactions could occur in any school where the pupils change teachers at, for example, the end of an academic year, irrespective of whether a transfer had taken place. The contributory factors of a different teacher approach and relationship and a change in curriculum may also result in reduced or improved performance, although the interpersonal factors of familiar surroundings, routines, and peers are more stable. It is also feasible to consider that, because the first-order components of the self-concept hierarchy are most sensitive to variation, the changes in motivation and associated self-concept could be reversed the following year. If, for example, the teacher and classroom environment changed again to a high-efficacy teacher and a positive learning environment, significant improvements in self-concept could occur. This correlates with the research findings referred to above that reported an initial deterioration and then an improvement in self-concept following transfer. It is possible that these variations are natural fluctuations that occur over a period irrespective of school transition. The degree of acceptance that the individual feels they have from his or her peer group is highly salient. Research indicates that children who retain a larger proportion of their friendships from a previous environment have more favorable attitudes toward the new school at the beginning immediately after transition (Ladd & Price, 1987). Obviously, friendships imply an acceptance and security that contribute positively to an individual’s ability to operate successfully within a particular context. However, the cushioning effect of the peer group only provides limited protection against the influence of academic achievement on self-concept. Consequently, the grouping into which a pupil is placed for teaching and learning has a significant impact on self-concept within that area. Where a pupil has above-average ability relative to the group, the feedback from the key indicators will be positive, and there is a corresponding rise in academic self-concept. Conversely, where the pupil’s perceived academic performance is below the average, there is reciprocal decrease in self-concept (Hay, Ashman & van Kraayenoord, 1997). Therefore, placing a pupil in a group where his or her achievement in comparison to the rest of the group is above or below the mean will have a reciprocal impact on the self-concept in that aspect of learning. This is not necessarily linked to relative ability across a large cohort of pupils. A pupil of relatively high ability will be affected if they are in the lower half of a group of very able peers. In self-concept terms, in a primary setting the pupil will be clear about his or her relative position and form a stable self-concept in the various areas and a cumulative self-concept as a learner. Even a pupil of average ability when measured against standardized tests could have a positive self-concept if his or her perceived achievements were high in comparison to the rest of the peer group. However, in a secondary context where setting arrangements are prevalent and the spread of

Transition across Educational Phases

143

ability in each subject covers the whole spectrum from very able to less able, this same pupil may receive mixed and possibly contradictory evidence. This creates a crisis or conflict with the individual’s self-perception within that subject area. It is at this point that the self-concept at the lower levels of the hierarchy is at its most vulnerable, and it is important that the individual has developed the ability to be discerning about the messages received. However, it is for this reason that it is possible to have varying levels of self-concept across the academic domain. In addition, to the influence of peers, academic achievement, and the influence of teachers, there are a range of other contributory factors at work that can, in themselves, affect self-concept but are not necessarily related directly to transition from one phase of education to another. Reference has already been made to the effect that teaching style has on self-concept development, but there is also the impact of learning and cognitive style. Each individual has a distinct preference for the way in which information is presented and a specific approach to organizing that information. The impact that cognitive style has on the efficiency of the individual to learn is well established, but the effect and relationship between cognitive style and self-perceptions of academic performance is less clear. A current study in the United Kingdom based in Cumbria is seeking to establish such a link and whether there is a correlation between an individual’s self-perception as a learner of English and math, their cognitive style, and the transition from primary to secondary schooling. CONCLUSION It has been established that the formation of the self-concept is related to the social environment and the reactions of other people whom the individual considers significant—parents, teachers, peers, or siblings. In the school context the contributory factors that lead to the formation of the self-attitudes can broadly be seen as the approach of and the relationship with the teacher, the response of peers, and the relative judgement of achievement by the individual. Any one of these factors can have a positive or negative impact on the individual’s self-concept in that specific curriculum area. However, the contributory factors that shape an individual’s self-concept occur naturally in the normal course of schooling and are not just a feature of transition from one phase of education to another. Transition from primary to secondary school does not in itself have any predictable impact on an individual’s self-concept and cannot be defined categorically. The key sources of reference within the environment, or the “beacons” that send out the signals used by the individual to evaluate performance, remain constant to both environments. However, the nature of these sources of reference does change significantly, particularly on transfer from a primary to a secondary context. The messages received are more diverse and possibly contradictory. This is due to increased number of teachers and possibly the efficacy of those teachers encountered on a regular basis, the type of pupil groupings, and the sudden broadening of the peer group.

144

Self-Perception Issues

Every individual pupil will react differently to the stress that this process and related changes in environment puts onto the children. However, the direct impact of the transfer on the child is related to the efficacy and type of the coping strategies that he or she evolves to deal with the unfamiliar situations (Gross & Burdett, 1996) rather than to the transfer itself. This is linked directly to their cognitive maturity. There is a relationship between the accuracy of self-perceptions, and therefore the self-concept, and the cognitive development of the individual. If the individual has developed a capacity to be discerning and able to filter the messages effectively he or she will deal with the change of context more effectively. The more mature the individual, the higher the correlation between perception and performance (Bouffard, Markovits, Vezeau, Boisvert, & Dumas, 1998). There is not a similar correlation with ability, so pupils of low ability are equally capable of coming to accurate conclusions about achievement and developing a realistic self-concept as are pupils of high ability. Any changes in self-concept will be due to accurate perceptions rather than misconceptions based on flawed personal judgments. However, it is important not to dismiss the transition from one educational phase as an unimportant event. If mishandled or if the pupils are ill prepared, it can have a significant, albeit indirect, effect on an individual’s self-concept. In response to the research evidence there are specific actions that can be taken as part of the preparation and support given to pupils before and during transition that can limit the indirect effect on each individual’s self-concept. There should be familiar faces to provide that initial cushion of security, pupils’ teaching groups should reflect accurately their ability so that having extreme ends to the ability continuum within the group, particularly the lower quartile, is avoided wherever possible. Finally and most important, the teaching and learning environment should be characteriszd by high-efficacy teaching that gives positive, supportive, and clear messages to the pupils and where the acquisition of knowledge facilitates discussion, reflection, and exploration. REFERENCES Alexander, K. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1996). Children in motion: School transfers and elementary school performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3–12. Barker Lunn, J. C. (1970). Streaming in the primary school. Slough: NFER. Bouffard, T., Markovits, H., Vezeau, C., Boisvert M., & Dumas, C. (1998). The relation between accuracy of self-perception and cognitive development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 321–330. Burns, R. (1982). Self-concept development and education. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the lifespan. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Byrne, B. M., & Worth Gavin, D. A. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for the structure of academic self-concept across, pre-, early and late adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 215–228.

Transition across Educational Phases

145

Dusek, J. B., & Flaherty, J. F. (1981). The development of self-concept during adolescent years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(4, Serial No. 19). Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C. (1991, August). What are we doing to early adolescents? The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 521–542. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. (1989). Selfconcept, domain values and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 284–293. Elkind, D. (1971). Children and adolescents: Interpretative essays on Jean Piaget. New York: Oxford University Press. Epstein, J. L., & McPartland, J. M. (1976). The concept and measurement of the quality of school life. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 15–30. Gross, H., & Burdett, G., (1996, September). Coping with school transfer: Predicting and using coping strategies. Pastoral Care, 38–44. Hattie, J. (1992). Self-Concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hay, I., Ashman, A., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1997). Investigating the influence of achievement on self-concept using an intra-class design and a comparison of the PASS and the SDFQ-1 self-concept tests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 311–321. Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Hanson, S. L. (1990). School experiences predicting changes in self-esteem of sixth-and seventh-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology (USA), 82(1), 117–127. Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following the transition from pre-school to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168–1189. Lawrence, D. (1981). The Development of a self-esteem questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 245–251. Marsh, H. W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(1), 17–39. Marsh, H. W. (1988). The Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ): A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A test manual and research monograph. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. American Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 366–380. Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of students self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively big fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213–231. Marsh, H. W., Parker, J. W. & Smith, I. D. (1983). Preadolescent self-concept: Its relation to self-concept as inferred by teachers and the academic ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 60–78. Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: Structural equations models of longitudinal data. American Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 41–54.

146

Self-Perception Issues

McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1982). Significant others in self-space; sex differences and developmental trends in the social self. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 71–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., & Cheever, J. (1986). The self in society: Effects of social contexts on the sense of self. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 259–270. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 375–395. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258. Muijs, R. D. (1997). Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept: A longitudinal perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 263–277. Nottelman, E. D. (1987). Competent and self-esteem during the transition from childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 441–450. Oosterwegel, A., & Oppenheimer, L. (1993). The self-system: Developmental changes between and with self-esteem. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pekrun, R. (1990). Social support, achievement evaluations and self-concepts in adolescence. In L. Oppenheimer (Ed.), The self-concept: European perspectives on its development, aspects and applications (pp. 107–119). Berlin: Springer. Rosenberg, M. (1972). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenholz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54, 31–63. Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. American Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 3–17. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C., (1976). Self concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407–441. Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine de Gruyler. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Issues on research on self-concept. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 51–97. Song, I. S., & Hattie, J. A. (1984). Home environment, self-concept and academic achievement: A causal modelling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1269– 1281. Thomas, J. B. (1973). Self-concept in psychology and education: A review of the research. Slough: NFER. Wilson, P. (1998). Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale: An examination of grade, race, and gender differences in third through sixth grade students’ self-concepts. Psychology in the Schools, 35(4), 317–326. Wylie, R. (1961). The self concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Wylie, R. (1974). The self concept. Vol.1: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments (rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Part II

Studies of Self-Perception

7 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN VERBAL AND MATH SELF-PERCEPTIONS: ONE FACTOR, TWO FACTORS, OR DOES IT DEPEND ON THE CONSTRUCT? Herbert W. Marsh, Andrew J. Martin, and Raymond Debus

Does academic affect generalize across different school subjects or is it specific to particular school subjects? To what extent does the answer depend on the specific academic affect? Is useful information lost when researchers construct general academic scales to assess a particular affective construct rather than constructing scales specific to particular school subjects? These substantive concerns are critically important to applied researchers wanting to measure academic affect, to theoretically oriented researchers wanting to better understand these constructs, and to practitioners wanting to motivate and enhance the academic affect of their students. More specifically, an increasing body of self-concept research reviewed here has shown math and verbal self-concepts to be nearly uncorrelated even though academic achievement in these two content domains are substantially correlated. Hence, the primary purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the generality of this finding across a wide variety of different academic affect and motivational constructs—a substantive issue—and to demonstrate the application of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models that appropriately assess and control for measurement error—a methodological issue.

150

Studies of Self-Perception

SEPARATION OF MATH AND VERBAL CONSTRUCTS The central substantive theme of this study is to evaluate the need to distinguish among affects associated with math and verbal school subjects. Some researchers construct generalized measures of academic affect and motivation (e.g., self-concept, attributions for success and failure, motivation orientation, anxiety, locus of control) that are intended to broadly represent all school subjects. However, others are interested in the development of students’ achievement-related motivations, beliefs, affects, and behaviors that are specific to particular content domains or school subjects (e.g., Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Gottfried, 1982; Harter & Jackson, 1992; Marsh, 1988, 1990, 1993a; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). Support for the domain specificity of academic affect is strongest in self-concept research. For example, Marsh, Byrne, and Shavelson (1988) found that correlations between math and English self-concepts based on each of three different instruments were close to zero, that math achievement was substantially correlated with math self-concept but not English self-concept, and that English achievement is substantially correlated with English self-concept but not math self-concept. Whereas such results provided strong support for the multidimensionality posited in the Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) model that was the basis of that research, the findings also posed some complications. The strong hierarchical structure posited by Shavelson and colleagues required math and English self-concepts to be substantially correlated so that they could be incorporated into a single higher-order academic self-concept, but the small correlations actually observed implied that any hierarchical structure must be much weaker than anticipated. Complications such as these led to the Marsh/Shavelson revision of the original Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton model and the development of the internal/external (I/E) frame of reference model. Marsh and Craven (1997; Marsh, 1990, 1993a) summarized a growing body of research showing that verbal and math selfconcepts are nearly uncorrelated and that the effects of academic self-concept on subsequent outcomes (school grades, test scores, academic effort, persistence, coursework selection) are also very content-specific. Based on this accumulated research, they questioned the usefulness of measures of general academic selfconcept as a summary of self-concepts in specific school subjects. Marsh (1986, 1990; Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988) developed the I/E model to explain the extreme content specificity of math and verbal self-concept. According to the I/E model, academic self-concept in a particular school subject is formed in relation to an external (social comparison) reference in which students compare their self-perceived performances in a particular school subject with the perceived performances of other students in the same school subject and an internal (ipsative-like) reference in which students compare their performances in the particular school subject with their own performances in other school subjects. Thus, for example, students may have a favorable math self-concept if math is their best school subject even if they are not particularly good at math. The exter-

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

151

nal comparison process leads to a positive math-verbal correlation; the internal comparison process leads to a negative math-verbal correlation, and the combination of the two counterbalancing processes results in a near-zero correlation depending on the relative importance of each comparison process. Furthermore, the I/E model predicts a perhaps surprising pattern of relations between verbal and math achievement and verbal and math self-concept. In path models relating these constructs, the paths leading from achievement to matching areas of self-concept are substantial and positive, but paths leading from math achievement to verbal self-concept and from verbal achievement to math self-concept are small and negative. These findings are consistent with the I/E model in that having a high self-concept in a particular school subject requires that skills in that subject are good and that skills in that subject are better than in other academic areas. Hence, strong verbal skills detract from math self-concept and strong math skills detract from verbal self-concept. Support for the I/E model has been found in a large number of self-concept studies based on different self-concept instruments, achievement measures, nationalities, and ages from preadolescence to early adulthood (see reviews by Marsh, 1990, 1993a; Marsh & Craven, 1997). These findings support the extreme domain specificity of academic self-concept. Marsh (1988) also demonstrated good support for the generality of the I/E model based on measures of anxiety and achievement in math and English. Math and English anxieties, like the corresponding self-concept measures, were nearly uncorrelated. Speculating on the reason the I/E model—based on self-concept research—worked so well with anxiety responses, Marsh suggested that “it may be that supposedly distinct affective constructs—anxiety, self-concept, self-efficacy, attributional dispositions, locus of control, intrinsic motivation, etc.—all measure largely the same construct. That is, whereas math and English affects are clearly distinguishable, the different affective constructs may not be” (p. 147). He went on to note that tests of these speculations would require researchers to examine relations between math and verbal affect based on a wide variety of different affective constructs. In contradiction to Marsh’s (1988) speculations, subsequent research with math and verbal self-efficacy measures (Marsh, Walker, & Debus, 1991; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1995) did not support the generality of the I/E model. Based on measures of self-concept, self-efficacy, and achievement in English and math, there was strong support for the I/E model based on self-concept responses but not for selfefficacy responses. In particular, whereas math and English self-concepts were nearly uncorrelated, the corresponding self-efficacy measures were substantially correlated, as were the achievement measures. In explaining these results, Marsh and colleagues suggested that self-efficacy ratings (i.e., ratings of the likelihood of correctly answering each of a series of math problems actually shown to students) severely truncated the operation of frame of reference effects posited in the I/E model. A response of 80 percent likelihood of successfully answering a particular problem, for example, does not indicate whether the student considers this to be a

152

Studies of Self-Perception

good or bad outcome, and it may be that this self-perceived worthiness of performance expectations in relation to personal and external standards evident in self-concept is critical in motivating and sustaining academic choice, persistence, and future performance. Skaalvik and Rankin (1995) replicated the Marsh, Walker, and Debus (1991) findings and supported their speculations by showing that math and verbal self-concepts influenced corresponding measures of intrinsic motivation, effort, and anxiety, whereas math and verbal self-efficacy responses did not. It is important to emphasize, however, that even though math and verbal self-efficacies were not uncorrelated, these correlations were still significantly less than 1.0 so that the domain-specific measures could not be subsumed into a single global self-efficacy factor without loss of information. Educational researchers have also demonstrated the need to distinguish between math and verbal domains in a variety of other academic affective constructs. Marsh (1984, 1986) demonstrated the domain-specificity of attributions for academic success and failure but found that it varied substantially depending on the particular attribution. Thus, for example, attributions to ability as the basis for academic success and failure were very domain-specific, whereas attributions to effort and particularly external attributions (e.g., luck and task difficulty) showed greater generalizability across different school subjects. Vispoel and Austin (1995), using a critical incident approach to measuring attributions, also found that content-specificity varied substantially for different attributions. They reported that internal attributions were very content-specific, whereas external attributions were not. Gottfried (1982) measured anxiety and intrinsic motivation in four school subjects (reading, math, social studies, and science) and concluded that “the necessity for assessing both academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety within specific subject areas appears to be paramount” (p. 213). Galloway, Leo, Rogers, and Armstrong (1996) also found significant differences in mastery motivational orientations of students between math and English subjects. Motivational researchers (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; also see Skaalvik & Rankin, 1995) have also emphasized the domainspecificity of constructs such as expectancy for success (defined in terms of perceived competency, anxiety, and self-concept) and task value (defined in terms of interest, usefulness, and challenge). Stipek and Gralinski (1996), however, reported that entity and incremental views of intelligence in math and social science did not result in content-specific factors, thus supporting Dweck’s (1986) proposition that these two theories are theories of general intelligence, rather than specific to different domains. In summary, the extreme domain-specificity in math and verbal self-concepts generalizes to some other academic affects. For other affects, however, math and verbal scales are at least moderately correlated or, in some cases, so highly correlated that it may be reasonable to subsume the math and verbal scales into a single construct. This, then, is the primary substantive focus of this study. A better understanding of the relations between math and verbal scales for different constructs,

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

153

however, requires that the same or comparable populations of students complete parallel math and verbal scales constructed for a wide variety of different academic affective constructs and that these responses are analyzed with appropriate CFA models. CFA MODELS OF MATH AND VERBAL CONSTRUCTS In multivariate research, substantive interpretations are likely to suffer if theory, data, statistical models, or the match between them is inappropriate. The critical methodological issue in this investigation is the application of appropriate CFA models to evaluate the dimensionality of math and verbal scales in each of a wide variety of academic affects. Whereas correlations between math and verbal scale scores that are the starting point for most research in this area may provide potentially useful information, complications associated with measurement error undermine this approach. Although it may be possible to use reliability estimates for each scale to correct for measurement error, assumptions underlying this approach are likely to be invalid in the present situation. In particular, this approach assumes that measurement error associated with each math item is unrelated to measurement error associated with all verbal items. If, however, the math and verbal constructs are measured with essentially parallel items (e.g., I am good at mathematics; I am good at English), then correlations between measurement errors (hereafter referred to as “correlated uniquenesses” that can also be interpreted as method factors) associated with matching math and verbal items are likely to exist and the failure to take into account such correlated uniquenesses will bias parameter estimates (e.g., Marsh & Hau, 1996). The concerns about correlated uniquenesses are reflected in the two CFA models (Figure 7.1). The first model posits no correlated uniquenesses (NCU) such that unique components associated with the matching items used to infer the math and verbal scales are unrelated to each other. For example, according to the NCU model, all of the covariation between the first math indicator and the matching verbal indicator can be represented through the relation between the two corresponding latent constructs. This NCU model might be appropriate if different items were used to infer the math and verbal scales. The second model, the correlated uniqueness (CU) model, posits systematic uniqueness associated with each math indicator that cannot be explained by the math latent construct but that is related to the uniqueness for the matching verbal indicator. These correlated uniquenesses are represented by curved lines connecting the uniqueness terms associated with matching math and verbal items (Figures 7.1b and 7.1d). The implications of correlated uniquenesses such as those posited here are well known in longitudinal CFA studies in which the same items are completed by the same participants on multiple occasions. Thus, Joreskog (1979; also see Marsh, 1993b; Marsh & Hau, 1996) emphasized that the corresponding residual error variables will tend to be correlated and, in order to get accurate estimates of relations among the constructs, correlations among errors must be included in the

154

Studies of Self-Perception

Figure 7.1a. Two-factor CFA assessing the correlation between math and verbal factors of the same construct with no correlated uniqueness.

Figure 7.1b. Two-factor CFA assessing the correlation between math and verbal factors of the same construct correlating the uniquenesses associated with matching items that have parallel wording.

Figure 7.1c. One-factor CFA with no correlated uniquenesses.

Figure 7.1d. One-factor CFA correlating the uniquenesses associated with matching items that have parallel wording.

model. If correlated uniquenesses are not included, the relation between the latent constructs will be positively biased. In the extreme, estimated correlations can exceed 1.0, as can scale score correlations that are corrected for traditional estimates of reliability (e.g., Marsh, 1993b). For this reason, Marsh recommended that a model with correlated uniquenesses should always be considered when the same items are used on multiple occasions. Whereas this problem is well known in longitudinal studies, it is also relevant when parallel indicators are used to measure different constructs as in the present situation. For example, in a study using the same example problems to measure self-efficacy and then to test achievement, Marsh, Roche, Pajares, and Miller (1997) showed that correlations between self-efficacy responses and achievement

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

155

scores were positively biased if correlated uniquenesses between parallel self-efficacy and achievement items were not included. Similarly, in the present application, the use of parallel items to measure math and verbal constructions would result in a positively biased estimate of the correlations between matching math and verbal factors if correlated uniquenesses were not included. It is also important to reiterate that this situation is not specific to CFA studies and Marsh (1993b) demonstrated that scale score correlations can exceed 1.0 when they are corrected for unreliability, approximating those correlations estimated with CFA models that did not include correlated uniquenesses. Furthermore, interpretational problems associated with this complexity are likely to be compounded when, as in the present investigation, comparisons are made between correlations based on different math and verbal constructs so that the amount of measurement error, the sizes of correlated uniquenesses, and the bias if correlated uniquenesses are not included can vary substantially for different constructs. However, the CU model provides a test for these correlated uniquenesses and a control for what would otherwise be a positive bias. Hence, the central substantive issue—the relations between corresponding math and verbal constructs—cannot be addressed adequately without considering this methodological issue because of the potential bias in the correlations if correlated uniquenesses are excluded and this cannot be pursued easily without the use of CFA. METHODS Respondents Respondents were 204 first-year education undergraduates enrolled in primary and early education programs at a university in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. The mean age of respondents was 21.7 years (SD = 5.9). Students completed the questionnaire during a normally scheduled class. The first author presented background information, instructions, and sample items. Students were then asked to complete the questionnaire on their own and to submit the completed form to the researcher at the end of the lecture time. Materials The constructs selected for study were part of a broader investigation into a model of the predictors and consequences of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, two strategies students use to protect their self-worth (see Martin, 1998, for further discussion on the theoretical rationale for the selection of constructs). The central substantive question is whether the broad selection academic constructs are distinct for math and verbal domains. Each item assessing these constructs was presented only once and participants were asked to indicate their response in one column in relation to the math domain (“Subjects that mainly involve maths and numbers”) and also in another column in relation to the verbal domain (“Subjects that mainly involve reading and writ-

156

Studies of Self-Perception

ing”). Aside from the demographic and background details, items on all subscales were responded to using a 7-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). After reversal of appropriate items, high scores on items reflected more agreement to the respective item and subscale referents. For this phase of the study, the order of items was randomized and the pages were presented in six different random orders. Specific constructs included the following. Level and Stability of Self-Concept Level of self-concept (e.g., “I learn quickly in these subjects”) was assessed using the Academic Self-Description Questionnaire II (ASDQ; Marsh, 1992). Stability of self-concept was primarily assessed using the Rosenberg (1965) Stability of Self Scale. This scale assesses the extent to which an individual’s self-concept changes over time (e.g., “My opinion of myself tends to change a good deal instead of always remaining the same”). The present study also incorporated two stability-related items from the Self-Concept Certainty Scale (Campbell, Trapnell, Heine, Katz, Lavallee, & Lehman, 1996). Future Academic Plans The future plans subscale, adapted from a Skaalvik and Rankin (1995), comprised seven declarative statements that asked respondents to indicate their willingness to engage in a given subject area in their further education or occupation. These items were adapted slightly to be more consistent with a higher education focus (e.g., “I don’t mind doing subjects in this area in my further education”) and to reflect a more generic perspective that would integrate with the two content domains in the questionnaire. Attributions The attribution scale used in the present study is based on the Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale (Lefcourt, Von Baeyer, Ware, & Cox, 1979) that can be broadly divided into internal and external dimensions that contribute to success or failure. Within the internal dimension are ability attributions for success (e.g., “The most important ingredient in getting good grades is my academic ability”) and failure (e.g., “Not doing so well in a course is because I lacked skill in that area”) and effort attributions for success (e.g., “Whenever I receive good grades, it is because I have studied hard”) and failure (e.g., “When I receive a poor grade, I usually feel that the main reason is that I haven’t studied enough”). External attributions refer to the extent to which external factors are perceived to be the cause of success (e.g., “Some of the times that I have gotten a good grade was because of the teacher’s easy grading scheme”) or failure (e.g., “In my experience once a teacher gets the idea you’re a poor student, your work is much more likely to receive poor grades than if someone else handed it in”). The Lefcourt and colleagues (1979) scale contains three items per subscale. A further three items were added to each of the ability and effort subscales, while the three luck and three context items were used to comprise the external subscale.

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

157

Motivation Orientation Respondents’ goal orientation was assessed using a shortened form of the Motivation Orientation Scale (Nicholls, 1989) as well as another subscale referred to as avoidance orientation. The Motivation Orientation Scale comprises ego-orientation contexts (e.g., “I feel really successful when I know more than other people”) and task-orientation (e.g., “I feel really successful when what I learn really makes sense”). The avoidance-orientation subscale (e.g., “Often the main reason I do my university work is because I do not want people to think that I am dumb”) is similar to an orientation outlined by Elliot and Church (1997), Middleton & Midgley (1997), and Skaalvik (1997). Persistence The persistence subscale was drawn from the Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols (1996) Cognitive Engagement Scale. The original scale comprised eight items and although the theme of the items was retained, they were adapted such that a sharper focus was placed on the persistence component (e.g., “If I have trouble understanding a problem or task, I keep going over it until I understand it”). Self-Regulation Self-regulation items were drawn from the Cognitive Engagement Scale (Miller et al., 1996). The original scale comprised nine items and an item pertaining to planning for assignments was also added. Minor adaptation of the nine items was undertaken with a view to tightening the self-regulatory focus (e.g., “Before taking an exam or quiz, I plan out how I will study the material”). Self-Handicapping The academic self-handicapping subscale items (e.g., “I often fool around the night before a test or exam so I have an excuse if I don’t do as well as I hoped”) were drawn primarily from the Shortened Self-Handicapping Scale (Strube, 1986) and the Academic Self-Handicapping Scale (Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996). A few additional items broadly consistent with the Midgley and colleagues (1996) conceptualization were written for inclusion in the scale. Defensive Expectations Norem, Cantor, and colleagues (e.g., Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b; Norem & Illingworth, 1993) proposed that defensive pessimism consists of two dimensions: defensive expectations and reflectivity. Some adaptation of two existing defensive expectation measures as well as the Life Orientation Test (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) was carried out to form a modified defensive expectation subscale (e.g., “No matter how well I have done in the past, I go into academic situations expecting to do worse”). Reflectivity Reflectivity refers to the thinking-through process that accompanies the negative expectations. Norem (1997, personal communication) has constructed a re-

158

Studies of Self-Perception

flectivity subscale that addresses these issues and these items (e.g., “I carefully consider all possible outcomes before tests and assignments”) are used in the present questionnaire as originally formulated. Esteem-Relevant Competence Valuation Self-worth motivation theory, as proposed by Covington (1992), suggests that individuals’ feelings about themselves are dependent on feeling competent and able. Thus a central component of self-worth motivation is esteem-relevant competence valuation, and consistent with this theme, six items were generated along those lines (e.g., “Feeling I am competent is very important to how I feel about myself”). Academic Public Self-Consciousness The Self-Consciousness Scale-Revised (Scheier & Carver, 1985) comprises private and public self-consciousness dimensions. The public dimension of the revised instrument was the basis of the academic public self-consciousness scale used in the present study. This subscale was modified to reflect concern with the academic image one projects to others (e.g., “I care a lot about how I present myself academically”). Implicit Theories The entity (e.g., “There isn’t much some students can do to make themselves smarter”) and incremental (e.g., “A student who works really hard could be one of the smartest in the class”) views of intelligence items were adapted from Stipek and Gralinski (1996). Perceptions of Future Control Items to assess respondents’ perceptions of control over future failure were adapted from Connell’s (1985) Unknown cognitive dimension of the Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Perceptions of Control. The present study reworked the failure items to reflect perceptions of control in avoiding future failure (e.g., “When I do well I’m unsure as to how to repeat that success”) and a further four items were added. Statistical Analyses Data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows and LISREL 7.2 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989). CFAs were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation based on covariance matrices generated with pairwise deletion for missing data. A detailed presentation of the conduct of CFA is beyond the scope of the present investigation and is available elsewhere (e.g., Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 1998; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989). Following Marsh, Balla, and Hau (1996), and Marsh, Balla, and McDonald (1988), we emphasize the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and relative noncentrality index (RNI) to evaluate goodness of fit, but also present the χ2 test statistic and an evaluation of parameter estimates. Model comparison is also facilitated by positing a nested ordering of models in which the parameter estimates for

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

159

a more restrictive model are a proper subset of those in a more general model (for further discussion see Bentler, 1990). Under appropriate assumptions, the difference in χ2s between two nested models has a χ2 distribution and so can be tested in relation to statistical significance. In the present investigation, for example, models without correlated uniquenesses are nested under corresponding models with correlated uniquenesses. Thus, for example, the one-factor model with no correlated uniquenesses (see Figure 7.1c) is nested under the corresponding onefactor model with correlated uniquenesses (Figure 7.1d) because the two models differ only with respect to the correlated uniquenesses. Hence, the model with correlated uniquenesses cannot have a lower χ2 than the model without correlated uniquenesses (the χ2s would be equal only if the correlated uniquenesses were all exactly equal to zero) and so the improved fit can be attributed to the inclusion of the correlated uniquenesses. Similarly, each model positing one factor is nested under the corresponding model positing two factors (i.e., the one-factor model cannot have a χ2 that is lower than the corresponding two-factor model and the two χ2s will only be equal if the correlation between the factors is exactly 1.0 in the two-factor model). However, the one-factor model with correlated uniquenesses (Figure 7.1d) is not nested under the two-factor model with no correlated uniquenesses (Figure 7.1a). If, for example, there are substantial correlated uniquenesses and there is only one underlying factor, then the one-factor model with correlated uniquenesses would fit the data better; whereas if there were no correlated uniquenesses but there were two separate factors, then the two-factor model would fit the data better. Whereas tests of statistical significance and indices of fit aid in the evaluation of the fit of a model, there is ultimately a degree of subjectivity and professional judgment in the selection of a “best” model and the evaluation of significance from a statistical and a practical perspective. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics for Math and Verbal Scale Scores Descriptive statistics for the math and verbal scales on each of the 22 affective constructs (Table 7.1) demonstrate a strong similarity in matching math and verbal constructs. Although the mean verbal scale score across all constructs is slightly higher than the corresponding math scale scores, the differences are small and statistically significant for only 4 of the 22 constructs. In order to better index this observation, a profile similarity index (PSI) was computed consisting of the correlation between the set of 22 means for the math constructs in Table 7.1 with the corresponding 22 means for the verbal constructs. Thus, for example if the constructs with the highest math mean responses also have the highest verbal mean responses, then the PSI would be positive; whereas if there were no relation between means for matching math and verbal factors, then the PSI would be close to zero. The extremely high PSI = .99 shows that the profile of math means is very similar to the profile of verbal means; constructs that have higher math scores also tend to have higher verbal scores. It is interesting to note, however, that the largest

160

Studies of Self-Perception

of the significant differences is for self-concept where there are higher scores for verbal self-concept than the corresponding math self-concepts, and that this difference is consistent with differences in math and verbal self-concepts reported elsewhere (e.g., Marsh, 1990, 1993a). Although coefficient alpha estimates of reliability are mostly reasonable (mean α = .85), the values range from .66 to .93 for different math and verbal scale scores. Again, however, the mean αs are nearly the same for the math (.82) and verbal (.83) constructs and the profiles of αs is very similar (PSI = .99). Hence, the differences apparently reflect the construct or the items selected to represent the construct, not the verbal-math difference. For purposes of the present investigation, the most critical values in Table 7.1 are the various correlations between math and verbal scale scores across the different constructs. Math-verbal correlations for raw scale scores tend to be very high (mean r = .84), but there are remarkable differences for different constructs, varying from a low of r = –.03 for self-concept to a high of r = .99 for self-handicapping. Again, it is important to note that the one near-zero correlation is for selfconcept and that this finding is consistent with a large body of research reviewed earlier (e.g., Marsh, 1993a; Marsh & Craven, 1997). As noted earlier, raw scale scores do not take into account measurement error and so these correlations are likely to be biased. A typical approach to correcting correlations for unreliability is to disattenuate the correlations based on α estimates of reliability. With this correction (adjusted scale score rs in Table 7.1), the estimated correlations increase dramatically so that all but two of the estimates are greater than 1.0! Obviously, something is wrong. (To paraphrase a Mark Twain adage, when the clock strikes 13 it casts doubts on the previous 12 chimes.) This apparent anomaly is, however, consistent with the failure to take into account correlated uniquenesses that is a primary methodological focus of the present investigation. It should be emphasized, however, that these correlated uniquenesses are posited a priori and that we do not endorse the common practice of adding correlated uniquenesses on the basis of post hoc data-snooping. Hence, these results provide one of the relatively few applications where the use of correlated uniquenesses has a well-grounded theoretical justification. CFA MODELS OF MATH AND VERBAL FACTORS FOR THE DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTS Why Correlated Uniquenesses Are Necessary An a priori set of four models was evaluated separately for each of the 22 constructs—a total of 88 CFAs (Table 7.2). The models posit one (combined math and verbal) factor or two (separate math and verbal) factors with or without correlated uniquenesses (Figure 7.1). Based on traditional guidelines of an acceptable fit (e.g., TLI and RNI > .9), none of the models without correlated uniquenesses provides an acceptable fit (all RNI and TLI < .8). In contrast, nearly all the two-factor models with correlated uniquenesses and many of the one-factor models with cor-

Table 7.1. Comparison of Parallel Math and Verbal scale scores for 22 Affective Constructs Math Construct

Level of self-concept Future plans Persistence Instability self-concept Ability—success Effort—success Ability—failure Effort—failure External—failure Defensive expectations Incremental view Self-regulation Task-orientation Control future failure Reflectivity Esteem comp valuation Avoidance orientation Ego-orientation Entity view Public self-conscious Self-handicapping External—success Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Verbal

alphas

M

SD

M

SD

Mth Vrb

4.14* 4.70* 4.78 4.23 4.62 5.36 3.89 4.85 3.56* 4.06 4.92 5.10* 5.65 3.96 4.39 4.99 4.33 4.54 3.05 4.48 2.29 3.82

1.20 1.30 .92 .92 .80 .82 .97 1.10 .85 1.30 .95 .87 .83 1.20 .83 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.20 .94 .93

4.55 5.10 4.84 4.22 4.66 5.37 3.86 4.81 3.64 3.99 4.92 5.16 5.68 3.97 4.41 5.00 4.35 4.55 3.05 4.50 2.28 3.81

1.10 .98 .94 .91 .80 .87 .99 1.10 .90 1.30 .94 .83 .83 1.20 .81 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.20 .94 .98

.89 .91 .76 .75 .77 .78 .75 .82 .66 .92 .79 .84 .85 .88 .69 .89 .86 .91 .85 .92 .93 .73

4.40 1.00 4.53 .98 2.28 .80 5.68 1.30

.82 .84 .66 .93

4.35 1.02 4.43 .96 2.29 .80 5.65 1.30

Scale r Raw

CU

NCU

.87 –.03 –.03 .86 .31 .35 .80 .80 1.02 .75 .81 1.08 .76 .81 1.06 .82 .85 1.06 .76 .82 1.09 .80 .90 1.11 .70 .88 1.29 .91 .93 1.02 .78 .97 1.24 .85 .93 1.10 .85 .89 1.05 .88 .96 1.09 .67 .94 1.38 .90 .97 1.08 .86 .97 1.13 .91 .96 1.05 .85 .95 1.12 .93 .97 1.05 .93 .99 1.06 .76 .93 1.25

–.11 .28 .77 .78 .81 .82 .83 .90 .93 .95 .95 .95 .96 .97 .97 .98 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 1.00

–.07 .36 1.05 1.05 1.06 .98 1.09 1.14 1.33 1.02 1.23 1.10 1.09 1.09 1.26 1.09 1.14 1.09 1.13 1.05 1.07 1.30

.83 .85 .67 .93

.85 .95 –.11 1.00

1.03 1.09 –.07 1.33

.84 .93 .03 .99

Adj

SEM r

1.03 1.08 –.03 1.38

Note: Raw scale scores based on a simple unweighted average of items designed to measure the scale were correlated for matching math and verbal constructs (raw scale r) and then adjusted for coefficient alpha estimates of reliability (adj scale r). Correlations between corresponding math and verbal correlations were also estimated with SEM models with correlated uniquenesses (CU) and with no correlated uniquenesses (NCU). * p < .05.

910.99 927.52 2039.39 1473.73 1059.45 1499.42 1453.12 1581.10 1462.21 3075.35 2869.50 3706.19 2249.96 1731.64 3440.67 2668.84 6203.79 5029.13 3301.17 5173.61 6856.29 1482.39

χ 54 77 104 77 54 54 54 54 54 135 54 170 104 54 104 54 135 104 77 170 209 54

df .42 .50 .30 .37 .41 .39 .33 .40 .30 .46 .24 .29 .51 .48 .20 .40 .20 .31 .32 .37 .31 .35

RNI .29 .41 .19 .26 .28 .26 .19 .26 .15 .39 .07 .21 .43 .36 .08 .27 .10 .21 .19 .30 .24 .20

TLI 53 76 103 76 53 53 53 53 53 134 53 169 103 53 103 53 134 103 76 169 208 53

df .80 .75 .30 .37 .42 .39 .34 .42 .32 .46 .31 .31 .52 .50 .24 .44 .27 .35 .38 .40 .36 .42

RNI

M2: Two Factor

355.65 512.98 2036.52 1470.72 1055.19 1498.76 1442.94 1526.13 1427.49 3070.36 2618.55 3641.64 2194.09 1658.84 3276.29 2486.78 5732.43 4720.49 2986.41 4999.34 6411.62 1327.80

χ

2

Note: RNI = relative noncentrality index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.

Level of self-concept Future plans Persistence Instability self-concept Ability—success Effort—success Ability—failure Effort—failure External—failure Defensive expectations Incremental view Self-regulation Task-orientation Control future failure Reflectivity Esteem comp valuation Avoidance orientation Ego-orientation Entity view Public self-conscious Self-handicapping External—success

Construct

2

M1: One Factor

No Correlated Uniquenesses

.75 .70 .18 .25 .27 .24 .18 .28 .15 .39 .14 .22 .44 .38 .12 .31 .16 .25 .26 .32 .29 .27

TLI 499.69 629.63 487.87 336.13 258.54 452.80 299.18 304.65 179.10 1016.69 325.75 663.37 392.65 280.29 532.47 400.11 611.00 826.22 367.01 708.68 861.02 140.12

χ

2

48 70 96 70 48 48 48 48 48 126 48 160 96 48 96 48 126 96 70 160 198 48

df .69 .67 .86 .88 .88 .83 .88 .90 .94 .84 .93 .90 .93 .93 .90 .92 .94 .90 .94 .92 .93 .95

RNI

M3: One Factor

.58 .58 .82 .84 .83 .77 .84 .86 .91 .80 .90 .88 .92 .90 .87 .89 .92 .87 .92 .91 .92 .94

TLI

47 69 95 69 47 47 47 47 47 125 47 159 95 47 95 47 125 95 69 159 197 47

df

.95 .95 .94 .94 .98 .96 .98 .94 .95 .95 .95 .94 .96 .96 .98 .94 .95 .90 .95 .95 .93 .96

RNI

M4: Two Factor

122.37 152.77 270.07 203.11 84.72 147.61 93.30 191.28 150.65 378.80 242.15 482.39 289.10 166.74 184.02 289.80 524.73 792.68 328.49 563.86 838.00 138.85

χ

2

Correlated Uniquenesses

Table 7.2. Goodness of Fit for Competing SEM Models: One- and Two-Factor Models with and without Correlated Uniquenesses

.93 .94 .92 .92 .97 .94 .97 .92 .93 .94 .93 .92 .94 .95 .97 .92 .94 .88 .93 .94 .92 .94

TLI

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

163

related uniquenesses do provide an acceptable fit. Hence, consistent with a priori hypotheses, the results provide strong support for the correlated uniquenesses that would bias parameter estimates if not taken into account. The math-verbal correlations for two-factor models with and without correlated uniquenesses (Table 7.1) provide a different perspective on this issue. For models without correlated uniquenesses, all but three of the correlations are greater than 1.0. All such models are “improper” in that this parameter estimate is out of range and, thus, should probably not be given very serious attention. It is interesting to note, however, that these correlations are slightly higher but very similar to those based on the adjusted raw scale score correlations. This follows in that both models correct for measurement error (α is a lower-bound estimate of the more accurate estimate in CFA models) and neither approach controls for correlated uniquenesses. For models with correlated uniquenesses, none of the math-verbal correlations exceeds 1.0, although some of these correlations (Table 7.1) are still very large. In summary, models without correlated uniquenesses typically result in improper solutions with math-verbal correlations greater than 1.0. These results are consistent with scale scores that are corrected for unreliability. In contrast, models with correlated uniquenesses resulted in proper solutions in which math-verbal correlations are less than 1.0. These results support—in the extreme—the a priori hypothesis that models without correlated uniquenesses provide systematically and positively biased estimates of the math-verbal correlation and demonstrate why the substantive issue of concern cannot be addressed adequately without taking into consideration this methodological issue. Because researchers often use items with parallel wording to measure different domains, as in the present investigation, this methodological concern is likely to have broad applicability, even when the positive bias is not so large that estimated correlations are greater than 1.0. Are There Separate Math and Verbal Factors? Because models without correlated uniquenesses are not able to fit the data and, in the case of the two-factor models, often result in improper solutions, we now focus on one- and two-factor models with correlated uniquenesses. The one- and two-factor models with correlated uniquenesses differ by only a single df—the one parameter estimate corresponding to the math-verbal correlation. The test of statistical significance between these two models provides a test of whether this correlation differs significantly from 1.0 (if the correlation was exactly 1.0, the one- and two-factor models would have exactly the same χ2 values). A comparison of the one- and two-factor models for the same trait (Table 7.1) show that almost all the two-factor models fit better than the corresponding one-factor model whether evaluated in terms of statistical significance (i.e., the differences at “significant” p < .05 when the ∆χ2 > 3.8 for ∆ df = 1), the RNI, or the TLI that takes into account model parsimony. In fact, one- and two-factor models differ signifi-

164

Studies of Self-Perception

cantly and the TLIs differ for models based on all but one of the constructs—the external-success that has an r = 1.0 (see Table 7.1). In terms of statistical significance, the CFA models (Table 7.2) provide evidence for the separation of math and verbal factors for 21 of 22 constructs. However, it is also important to evaluate the practical significance of this distinction as well as formal tests of statistical significance. In contrast to tests of statistical significance, most of the math-verbal correlations for the two-factor model with correlated uniquenesses (Table 7.1) are so large that the separation of the math and verbal factors is very dubious at a practical level. In fact, the median correlation is .95 and 6 of the 22 correlations are .99 or higher. The question then arises as to why the two-factor model fits significantly better than a one-factor model when the estimated correlation is .99. The answer is that the standard error of each of these correlations is extremely small so that the estimated correlation typically differs from 1.0 by 4 or 5 standard errors. Hence, the correlation differs from 1.0 at the p < .001 level even though the size of the difference is of no practical significance. It is important to emphasize, however, that there is considerable variation in the estimated correlations. Consistent with a priori predictions based on theory and prior research, the math-verbal correlation for self-concept is close to 0.0 (r = – .11). Several other constructs that are self-concept-like constructs (future plans, persistence, instability of self-concept, attributions to ability and effort) have math-verbal correlations that differ from 1.0 sufficiently to be of practical significance (see Table 7.1). Hence, the results clearly demonstrate that math-verbal correlations differ substantially depending on the particular affective outcome that is being considered. Because the self-concept construct is so central to the present investigation, we evaluated the extent to which more self-concept-like constructs produced lower math-verbal correlations from several perspectives in supplemental analyses. In order to index “self-concept-like,” we correlated math self-concept with the other math constructs and verbal self-concept with other verbal constructs. We then computed profile similarity indices such as those considered earlier, correlating the set of math-verbal correlations (Table 7.1) with the set of correlations between each construct and self-concept scores. Based on all 21 constructs other than self-concept, the set of math-verbal correlations correlated –.47 with the set of math-self-concept/math-construct correlations and –.57 with the set of verbalself-concept/verbal-construct correlations. Hence, constructs that were more selfconcept-like produced systematically lower math-verbal correlations than constructs that were less self-concept-like. Next, we evaluated the extent to which math-verbal differences by individual participants on self-concept ratings were correlated with math-verbal differences on other constructs. Consistent with other analyses, these results show that mathverbal differences in self-concept tend to be highly correlated with math-verbal differences in other constructs where there is more content specificity (e.g., r = 76

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

165

for future plans; r = .51 for persistence, r = .55 for ability success, r = –.61 for ability failure that is negatively oriented) and to be less correlated with math-verbal differences in constructs where there is less content specificity (e.g., r = –.03 for self-handicapping). Thus, for example, students who have higher verbal selfconcept tend to have more favorable verbal scores in other constructs where the verbal and math scores are more distinct (and vice versa for math scores). DISCUSSION The present investigation evaluated the need to distinguish between math and verbal factors of different academic constructs (the substantive issue) and the need to apply appropriate CFA models that incorporate correlated uniquenesses (the methodological issue). Substantively, the results showed that the distinctiveness of math and verbal factors varied substantially depending on the particular construct. Consistent with a priori predictions and prior research, the math-verbal selfconcept correlation (r = –.11) demonstrated extreme content specificity for this construct. In marked contrast to this prior research showing that math and verbal constructs are so distinct, math-verbal correlations approached 1.0 for a surprisingly large number of the 22 constructs considered here. For some of the constructs considered here (e.g., self-concept) it would be inappropriate to collapse the math and verbal factors into a single factor, whereas for many of the constructs this may be justified. Methodologically, the results showed that CFA models without correlated uniqueness were not able to fit the data and resulted in seriously biased estimates of math-verbal correlations. A related methodological concern is whether the typically large math-verbal correlations found here were due in part to the format of the survey in which students were asked to respond to the same item in terms of math and verbal domains. It could be argued, for example, that this format encouraged students to make similar responses to the matching math and verbal items that would produce a positive bias to math-verbal correlations. From this perspective, the correlation for self-concept is pivotal because previous research has demonstrated that this correlation should be close to 0.0. Had the math-verbal self-concept correlation been substantially positive, then there might be support for a positive bias produced by the format of the items. This seems very unlikely, however, because the math-verbal self-concept correlation was significantly negative. Moreover, the fact that this negative math-verbal self-concept correlation occurred in the context of an instrument in which items were randomly dispersed and six different page orders were used demonstrates that respondents were carefully considering each item and the extent to which each item’s referent operated in math and verbal domains. Research reviewed earlier suggests that the critical feature in producing the extreme domain specificity in math and verbal self-concepts is the internal comparison process posited in the I/E model described earlier. To the extent that this ipsative-like process is activated, higher math ratings lead to lower verbal ratings (and

166

Studies of Self-Perception

vice versa) so that the two factors are more distinct. We suspect that this type of ipsative process is also underlying ratings of constructs that are more self-conceptlike. Thus, for example, the second-smallest math-verbal correlation is for future plans (r = .28); it is probable that an increased likelihood to pursue verbal or English subjects is associated with a decreased likelihood to pursue math subjects and vice-versa. Although other correlations were at least moderate in size, this speculation may also apply to correlations for persistence, self-concept instability, ability attributions, and effort attributions that were the smallest (Table 7.1). In contrast to constructs that may naturally evoke this internal comparison process, many of the constructs in the present investigation represent strategies about how to deal with potentially ego-threatening academic situations. Thus, for example, selfhandicapping, public self-consciousness, and attributing academic success to external causes—the constructs with the largest math-verbal correlations—are designed to represent strategies that are likely to generalize across different academic content areas. Although these post hoc speculations are consistent with previous research, further research is needed to more fully evaluate their validity. Hence, the results provide clear support for substantial differences in the domain specificity of different academic affective constructs, but are only heuristic speculation about why these differences exist. The results also add to the growing body of research demonstrating the importance of CFA approaches and, more specifically, the important implications of failing to incorporate correlated uniquenesses in CFA models. Models without correlated uniquenesses were unable to fit the data and, perhaps more important from a substantive perspective, produced systematic biases. This issue is well known in longitudinal studies for which Marsh and Hau (1996) argued that correlated uniquenesses should always be included, but these concerns are also becoming better recognized in studies where largely parallel items are used to measure different constructs (Marsh et al., 1997; Marsh & Jackson, 1999). The present investigation provides a particularly dramatic demonstration of this problem in that most of the math-verbal correlations were greater than 1.0 (and thus improper) when correlated uniquenesses were not included. The same phenomenon was observed when scale score correlations were corrected for unreliability. Even when the biased estimates of correlations do not exceed 1.0, however, this bias can distort interpretations of the correlations and implications based on them. The results of the present investigation also demonstrate an interesting juxtaposition between the counterbalancing effects of unreliability and correlated uniquenesses. Raw score correlations are likely to underestimate true score correlations because of the failure to account for unreliability but may overestimate true score correlations because of the failure to account for correlated uniquenesses. Although the effect of unreliability is well understood, traditional approaches to correcting for unreliability in raw scale score correlations may actually produce more biased responses than not doing so. In the present investigation, for example, the (unadjusted) raw score correlations provided a reasonable

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

167

approximation to the math-verbal correlations based on the correlated uniqueness CFA model; some are marginally larger, some marginally lower, and the average correlation across the 22 constructs is nearly the same (Table 7.1). It must be emphasized, however, that this similarity is based on a fortuitous counterbalancing of biases due to unreliability and correlated uniquenesses. In general, researchers cannot count on these counterbalancing biases being approximately equal. We suspect that unreliability is likely to be larger and more consistent than correlated uniquenesses, but this can only be evaluated by applying CFA models such as those demonstrated here. Whereas we cannot predict the relative sizes of the counterbalancing effects of unreliability and correlated uniquenesses on correlations, we can predict when correlated uniquenesses are likely to occur. Correlated uniquenesses are likely whenever there is a logical pairing of items designed to measure different constructs—a method or halo effect that influences responses to two items designed to measure different constructs. This is likely whenever the same or largely parallel items are used to measure different constructs as in the present investigation, the same construct over time as in longitudinal studies, the same construct in different contexts as in state and trait ratings of the same factors, or the same construct from the perspective of different raters as in studies of agreement between teacher, student, and parent ratings. Whereas our focus was on this problem in the measurement of parallel math and verbal affects, this range of application demonstrates that the concern has widespread implications in educational and psychological research. Although there may be important advantages in using parallel items in many research contexts, this approach also introduces complexities that can only be addressed with statistical techniques such as those demonstrated here. Hence, these models are likely to have broad generality. Our focus has been on substantive, theoretical, and methodological issues, but the results also have important implications for applied research and practice. Researchers cannot assume either that affect associated with a particular construct will generalize across different school subjects or that it will be distinct to specific school subjects. Our results show that the content specificity of affect varies dramatically depending on the particular construct. We offer some suggestions about which constructs are more likely to demonstrate domain specificity. However, because there is extreme variation in the domain specificity for different constructs, researchers may need to rely on previous research with their particular construct using methodology such as that demonstrated here or conduct their own research to address this issue. These findings may also have important implications for the design of interventions to enhance affect, motivation, or more appropriate coping strategies in academic situations. To the extent that math-verbal correlations are very high, it may be that interventions designed for one content area are more likely to generalize to other content areas. In contrast, however, where mathverbal correlations are very low, it seems unlikely that intervention effects will generalize over content areas.

168

Studies of Self-Perception

NOTE This research was funded in part by a grant from the Australian Research Council. Requests for further information about this investigation should be sent to Professor Herbert W. Marsh, Dean, Graduate Research Studies, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, PO Box 555, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia, 2560. Tel: (02) 9772–6633 FAX (02) 9772–6428 E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, E., & Lehman, J. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156. Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child Development, 56, 1018–1041. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283–331). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218– 232. Galloway, D., Leo, E. L., Rogers, C., & Armstrong, D. (1996). Maladaptive motivational style: The role of domain specific task demand in English and mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 197–207. Gottfried, A. E. (1982). Relations between academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety in children and young adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 20, 205–215. Harter, S., & Jackson, B. K. (1992). Trait vs. nontrait conceptualizations of intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation. Motivation & Emotion, 16, 209–230. Joreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural models in longitudinal investigations. In J. R. Nesselroade & B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp. 303–351). New York: Academic Press. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS. Lefcourt, H. M., Von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox, D. J. (1979). The Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale: The development of a goal specific locus of control scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 11, 286–304.

Individual Differences in Verbal and Math Self-Perceptions

169

Maehr, M. L., & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of personal investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Marsh, H. W. 1984. Relationships among dimensions of self-attribution, dimensions of self-concept, and academic achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1291–1308. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. Marsh, H. W. (1988). The content specificity of math and English anxieties: The High School and Beyond Study. Anxiety Research, 1, 137–149. Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172. Marsh, H. W. (1992). The content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35–42. Marsh, H. W. (1993a). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 59–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Marsh, H. W. (1993b). Stability of individual differences in multiwave panel studies: Comparison of simplex models and one-factor models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 157–183. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315– 353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391– 410. Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366–380. Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 131–198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364–390. Marsh, H. W., & Jackson, S. A. (1999). Flow experience in sport: Construct validation of multidimensional, hierarchical state and trait responses. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(4), 343–371. Marsh, H. W., Roche, L. A., Pajares, F., & Miller, D. (1997). Item-specific efficacy judgments in mathematical problem solving: The downside of standing too close to trees in a forest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 363–377. Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., & Debus, R. (1991). Subject-specific components of academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 331–345. Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and consequences from a self-worth motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.

170

Studies of Self-Perception

Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason”: Predictors of adolescent’s use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423–434. Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388– 422. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Motivation and studying in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 115–126. Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986a). Anticipating and post hoc cushioning strategies: Optimism and defensive pessimism in “risky” situations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 347–362. Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986b). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208–1217. Norem, J. K., & Illingworth, K. S. S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on self and tasks: Some implications of optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 822–835. Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A revision for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687–699. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. N. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and test anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the internal/external frame of reference model at different levels of math and verbal self-perception. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 161–184. Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397–407. Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211–224. Vispoel, W. P., & Austin, J. R. (1995). Success and failure in junior high school: A critical incident approach to understanding students’ attributional beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 377–412.

8 SELF-ESTEEM AND SELF-PERCEPTIONS IN THE CLASSROOM: VALUING CIRCLE TIME? Stephen G. Rayner and Usha Devi

INTRODUCTION The contributors to this book have addressed self-conception or self-esteem in a number of different ways. Harter and Whitesell have, for example, considered the evaluative component of self-esteem and the importance of ratings as part of the process of maintaining self-esteem. Margerison has looked at the effects of transition from one educational phase to another on pupils’ self-esteem. Pajares and Schunk have investigated the relationship between school success, self-efficacy and self-concept. Marsh and Martin, on the other hand, have reported empirical work exploring the self-perceptions of pupils in the specific academic areas of verbal and mathematical activity. Similarly, Skaalvik and Valas have investigated the causal relations between achievement and self-concept, focusing on the areas of mathematics and verbal arts. These and other approaches to self-conception are evidence of a continuing interest in self-reference for both researchers and practitioners in the field of education. A popularly held conviction that performance in both teaching and learning has a great deal to do with self-conception is very difficult to miss, given its longstanding status in the field. Such conviction is nicely illustrated in MacKay and Fanning’s (1992) assertion that self-esteem and self-worth represent “an emotional sine qua non”(p. 11), that is, they are aspects of the human condition essential for psychological survival. Self-esteem, therefore, represents one of the main differences distinguishing human beings from other animals.

172

Studies of Self-Perception

A similar perspective, albeit considering implications of self-esteem for mental health, learning, and emotional development, is persuasively presented by Weare (2000). In what amounts to more of the same, recent educational guidance published by the government in the United Kingdom has included particular reference to the use of a specific teaching approach, “circle time,” as part of an attempt to raise pupils’ self-esteem and improve educational achievement (DEE, 1997a, 1997b). A number of questions, however, remain unanswered about the validity or utility of this and other educational approaches centered around the notion of positive self-conception. Indeed, fundamental questions about the construct of self-concept, including a concern for its psychological validity, remain pertinent, as do more practical questions about its significance for teaching and learning. There is still a great deal of work to do in the development of applied and theoretical approaches to self-conception and its effect on teaching and learning. There is, for example, a need to be clearer about the nature of the self as a learner, as well as more informed about the effects of self-reference on academic achievement (see Rayner’s chapter in this book). Equally important, and here we agree with Mruk’s position, the development of interventions aimed at securing improved self-conception, as well as a better performance in teaching or learning, is in itself a process that can further contribute to an understanding of what it is we actually mean by self-esteem or self-worth (Mruk, 1999). Our interest is in self-esteem as a key factor in teaching and learning, as well as the use of circle time as an example of an approach aimed at enhancing pupils’ self-esteem (see White, 1993). This interest led to the setting up of a small schoolbased study in an inner city primary school (United Kingdom). We were interested in examining the perceptions teachers held about self-esteem and circle time, how pupils in turn perceived circle time, and whether there were any discernible effects in either sets of perception reflecting self-perceptions of teaching and learning in the classroom. The intention in this chapter is threefold: first to consider circle time and the place of self-esteem in the classroom; second, to report on a single-case study of perceptions and attitudes to self-esteem and circle time held by both staff and pupils; and third, to report on teachers’ self-perceptions as a teacher and the possibility of a relationship between these self-perceptions and teachers’ attitudes to circle time and self-esteem. PART 1: SELF-REFERENCE, TEACHING, AND LEARNING Defining the Self The self-referencing system, understood to be a psychological process of selfconceptions, self-perceptions, and self-judgments, combines to produce a discernible sense of self held by the individual. This system is obviously complex, fluid, and sensitive to context. Its nature or function is the subject of continuing debate,

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

173

and historically, has seen a movement in the field from perhaps naively construing the self-concept as a unitary construct that is global, to one that is multidimensional and made up of an array of self-percepts and concepts. The individual, therefore, might be expected to hold a series of self-perceptions about performance in any number of separate contexts, and these percepts are understood to be specific and sensitive to time, people, or place. The degree to which a sense of self is stable is subject to continuing debate, but it seems likely that a central core of self-beliefs exist at the heart of self-conception, and that these are more rather than less stable. Although the emphasis on a stable construct is now uncertain, the key points of definition stated by Piers and Harris (1969), although somewhat dated still hold true. They argued that several key features expected in any construction of the selfconcept also represented important theoretical assumptions about the construct. They presented a presumption that self-concept • • • • • •

is a phenomenological construct; is composed of both a global and specific component; is relatively stable; has a self-evaluative as well as a self-descriptive component; is experienced and expressed differently by children at various stages of development; is an important organizing function and plays a key role in personal motivation.

It is reasonable, taking this approach, to picture the process of self-conception involving the continuous collection and rejection of perceptions that inform a sense of self. To what extent this sense of self is fluid, will react substantially to contextual change, or fluctuates as a response to both internal (affective or cognitive) and external (environmental or milieu) factors, is still left uncertain and, as previously suggested, will undoubtedly vary from person to person, time to time, and place to place. It is also uncertain whether the volition of self-conception is organized in such a way that series of specific self-percepts gather to form part of the whole or remain separate and distinct self-concepts of domain-specific information. (See Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993, for a very useful study of the structure of selfconception.) For example, does a self-concept of mathematics actually form part of a more global sense of self, as Marsh (1990) has argued? Or is the latter, if it really does exist, a clearly discrete construct, and “far greater than the sum of its parts”? There is, furthermore, the likelihood that the valency of new information received by the individual may possibly affect the degree of stability in a self-concept. An individual’s process of self-referencing might be determined by a number of factors, say, for example, the significance attached to the percept, the strength and duration of the event experienced, or the consequential nature of that experience. The importance of judgments and values are emphasized in this notion of self-conception and reflect a wider debate about aspects of the self-referencing system that have to do with esteem, worth, efficacy, and attribution.

174

Studies of Self-Perception

Self-Judgment: Building Esteem or Regard in the Self-System The part judgment plays in developing a sense of self is critical to much of the recent theory of self-conception. The debate on the structure of self-conception is reflected in a concern as to how this process is maintained as a psychological function. Skaalvik (1997) in a recent overview of the research identified the following key principles in the construction of self-concept. These were • frames of reference—specific frames of reference used by the individual to form a selfconcept, of which the two key references are social comparisons of a single aspect of self-concept with others and internal comparisons of a single aspect of self-concept with other related aspects of the self concept; • causal attributions—reflecting the level of stability (the process of attribution) and locus of control (the structure of affective responses) inherent within the self-concept as well as a more general evaluative dynamic between elements of the self-concept system; • reflected appraisals from significant others—agreed by most writers to play a crucial role in the formation and maintenance of the self-concept; for instance, Rosenberg (1979) provided a clear rationale for this principle, which is echoed in the work of Harter (1987, 1993), focusing on the formation of self-esteem within young children, and research into the construct validity of self-concept (Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993); • mastery experiences—Skaalvik argued that the differences between researchers interested in self-efficacy and those interested in self-concept are probably a question of perspective rather than substance (Skaalvik 1997). He suggested that the relationship between the two may in fact be very close and that self-perception probably forms a central role in self-attribution. He acknowledged, however, that further research into this aspect of self-concept is required; • psychological centrality—referring to the notion developed by Rosenberg (1979) that the process of “valuing” perceptions and attributing importance to them forms a part of the self-assessment, which contributes to the self-concept. Skaalvik (1997) reported mixed evidence in support of this notion, with Marsh (1986) rejecting the principle, whereas others reported evidence to support it (Harter & Mayberry, 1984; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1990). The implications of psychological centrality for the self-concept and perhaps more important, self-attribution and motivation point toward the observation that it “may have serious consequences for many students’ general academic self concept and motivation for schoolwork” (Skaalvik, 1997, p. 73).

The implications for teaching and learning of the self-concept seem fairly obvious. For example, there are likely effects on pupils’ attitude and adjustment to school, learning motivation or academic performance, and the quality of a teacherpupil relationship. Equally interesting is the idea that a parallel set of implications involving self-perception and esteem exists for a teacher’s personal attitude and approach to classroom management, as well as teaching performance. The Learner, Learning, and Self-Esteem It is reasonable, if we accept that the self-referencing system is multidimensional, to suppose that self-conception is greatly influenced by the social milieu,

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

175

or that significant others, or events, will impact on self-perception. These arguments suggest that the role of a significant adult in the classroom is likely to considerably impact on the self-concepts of pupils, and in turn influence their sense of self as a learner. On the other hand, skeptics might argue that it may also be the case that self-reference is so fluid that such effects are temporary, limited, and therefore unimportant as a factor in teaching and learning. A concern for self-conception and self-judgments as they apply to theories of attribution and efficacy reflected in Skaalvik’s work is mirrored in literature on other constructs such as self-esteem or self-efficacy. Harter and colleagues (see Harter, 1979, 1983, 1985, 1987), for example, have argued that self-esteem should be measured separately from self-concept. They, in fact, attempted to measure self-esteem as a global construct. Furthermore, Harter’s work reflected the contention that in any accurate measure of self-concept, attention should be given to selfevaluative ratings of the “ideal/actual discrepancy” and incorporated in any psychometric scoring of the self-concept. This approach to self-esteem reflected an interest in tapping the self-perceptions of competence related to particular content domains (Renick & Harter, 1989). Underpinning Harter’s (1983) model of self-esteem is a rejection of a hierarchical structure, in favor of a developmental sequence that comprises physical attributes, behavioral descriptions, emotional descriptions, motivational descriptions, and cognitions. A basis for measurement of self-esteem is therefore salience, that is, the congruence between estimates of adequacy and importance. The greater the congruence, the stronger a person’s sense of self-worth. Clearly, this definition of self-esteem moves the construct more closely toward functions described as selfefficacy and attribution. A second consideration, if we take self-reference seriously as a factor in teaching and learning, is the degree to which it influences an individual’s attitudes, motivation, and behavior in the learning context. Self-efficacy, as previously explained, refers to judgments by the individual about his or her own behaviour, task completion, or performance. According to Bandura (1977, 1997), self-efficacy is different from the self-concept in so far as it is concerned about judgments of performance rather than with skills, qualities, or abilities perceived by the self. As defined by Skaalvik (1997), self-efficacy is concerned specifically with personal expectation of one’s own effectiveness and competence. Bandura’s theory contends that self-efficacy is affected by authentic mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Skaalvik (1997) made the point that the two constructs have not been rigorously compared, but cited work that supports their separateness (Marsh, Walker, & Debus, 1991; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1995). Bandolos, Yates, and Thorndike-Christ (1995) reported that the two constructs are factorially distinct but represent related components affecting mathematical achievement. An interesting implication of self-efficacy is the extent to which ability judgments and self-expectation might influence behaviors associated with learning.

176

Studies of Self-Perception

For example, does the nature of self-concept and self-efficacy directly affect activities such as completing a task, or an instruction, or a particular course? At a deeper level, does the impact of self-perception, self-efficacy and motivation interact to impact on the formation and development of learning strategies and instructional preference? Skaalvik (1997) reported on the interaction between ability judgments and expectation within mathematics, concluding that the constructs were separate but closely related. They stated that the main distinction between different math selfperceptions were to do with the level of generality in those measurements. They also reported that correlations, and the effect of the “nested factor models” in their questionnaire, suggested a very strong, common, second-order math self-perception factor underlying both self-concept and self-efficacy. The researchers concluded that this evidence supported the case for further research looking at the traditional distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy. Perhaps the more important implications of self-efficacy theory, as suggested earlier in this section, have to do with individual motivation. As Skaalvik (1997) explained, self-efficacy theory asserts that an individual’s levels of motivation and perseverance will be determined by the quality of their self-efficacy. Skaalvik and Rankin (1995) reported that classroom behavior such as engagement and persistence with a task correlated with pupils’ self-efficacy. Similarly, Skaalvik and Rankin (1995) reported that pupils’ ratings of effort correlated with self-efficacy. Skaalvik (1997) has provided additional detail of related empirical work pointing to the existence of this effect, including an interaction with pupils’ help-seeking behavior, intrinsic motivation, goal-orientation, and task-orientation. Further development of this approach has involved a focus on ego-orientation, attribution, and levels of self-worth (Skaalvik, 1997). Clearly, all of these facets of self-efficacy might be construed as aspects of self-reference, which in turn influence learning and behavior. It is also the case that these and other aspects of selfconception will probably interact with other separate aspects of the self as a learner, say, cognitive style, to influence an individual’s approach to learning (see Rayner, this volume). It is, nonetheless, open to question as to whether these constructs exist independently or comprise part of the larger self-referencing system. Although selfesteem serves as the focal point for the following study, it is our view that the idea of a self-referencing system in the psychology of the individual is a relevant and helpful superordinate construct. Such a construct offers a very useful conceptual framework for the development of an integrated notion of the self as a learner. PART 2: CIRCLE TIME AND SELF-ESTEEM Circle time is a teaching strategy based on whole-group activity and discussion. The idea of grouping students in a circle for discussion is not new, as Mosley (1996) pointed out. Indeed, the use of a circle as a structuring device to organize a

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

177

forum is the stuff of legend (for example, the Arthurian Round Table), as well as a recurring feature in primitive cultures bound by oracy (e.g., Native American decision-making rituals using the communal smoking of a pipe). More recent antecedents of circle time include the structure of small-group work in a number of different therapeutic approaches. Mosley (1996), however, attributes a particular influence on the development of circle time to the work of Moreno and the development of psychodrama. During circle time, the teacher and pupils sit in a circle and initially share in a range of teacher-led activities aimed at establishing the routine. This method may include a number of specific tasks as well as general discussion. The process is highly structured, following a clearly established set of rules aimed at governing conduct. A typical set of rules might include: no one should interrupt the speaker; participation in a “turn” is voluntary; all are equal in the circle; no one is allowed to deride the speaker’s contribution; the participants would respect the confidentiality of the circle. The Management of Circle Time The management of circle time might typically involve the following “basic techniques” (see Womersley, 1993): Sitting in a Circle In order to create a sense of “unity and equality,” the teacher and children sit in a circle. This gives children the message that the teacher is not a “controller” but an equal member of the group (Mosley, 1988, 1993). The latter concept is particularly important in developing an atmosphere of trust between teachers and children. Use of Games to Develop Skills Various games, for example, passing a “talk object” as a precursor for conversation, or “muscial chairs” used for mixing up the group, may be used to develop group dynamics within circle time. The use of games in circle time does not appeal to everyone; it is an informal way of teaching and some may not feel comfortable with it (Housego & Burns, 1994; Mosley, 1988; Womersley, 1993). The games give participants the opportunity to use their imagination, be creative, and succeed. Success of this form is subsequently identified as a crucial way of enhancing self-esteem (Hull, 1990). In addition, the activities and games develop a variety of skills including taking turns, concentrating, listening, following rules, helping others, and thinking about behavior (Docking, 1993; Mosley, 1992). For example prior to a game of “Simon Says” pupils can be asked what they will have to do to play the game properly. This can include things such as listening carefully and concentrating. Once the game has been played, the pupils could discuss how they felt when they made a mistake and what other people did or said to make them feel worse.

178

Studies of Self-Perception

Golden Rules In order for behavior management to be effective, Elton (1989) recommended that pupils take an active role in discussing and forming rules. The rules of circle time can be gradually introduced with the pupils while the reasons they are necessary are clearly explained. For example, eye contact is important so we can see as well as hear the person speaking, putting a hand up so there is no shouting out, no put-downs or laughing at others when a mistake is made, and being positive. Use of Rounds A positive atmosphere is created in which pupils can air views and concerns (Cooper, 1990; David, 1993; Elton, 1989). The use of rounds enables the class to talk about a variety of issues and allows the release of anger, frustrations, and concerns in a way that is not disruptive but allows pupils to gain attention in a positive way. It is useful to use an object or conch during rounds. The rule is that, first only the person with the object can speak while the others listen, and second, you can “pass.” Brainstorming and Discussions During brainstorming pupils are asked to contribute ideas without commenting on anyone else’s and then to discuss them (White, 1991). Topics can include good behavior, bullying, and friendship. The discussions can take place with the class as a whole, or the pupils can divide into smaller groups and then report back in the circle. Brainstorming and discussion give pupils the opportunity to cooperate and share each other’s views. Evaluation This can take the form of a round when everyone is asked to say what they enjoyed or did not enjoy about a particular activity or the specific session of circle time. This gives the teacher instant feedback on the pupils’ views of circle time and can be used to develop further sessions. It can also be used to allow pupils to explain how they felt about the behavior of other pupils and their own during circle time (David, 1993). It is usual for there to be an initial period of settling down usually experienced by groups in the first few sessions of circle time. When introducing circle time, teachers may find that some pupils are disruptive. Gilmore and Dymond (1994) emphasized that it is important not to tell them what they are doing wrong, but to acknowledge and praise those who are behaving appropriately. If this does not work, they suggested giving the more distracted pupils specific responsibility for their behavior by explaining that they can sit away from the circle until they feel ready to join everyone. Conversely the withdrawn child may find it difficult to contribute. Mosley (1993) recommended the use of a hand puppet so the pupils can whisper to it. Alternatively, talking to the child before circle time and informing him or her of the topic that will be discussed gives the child time to prepare. Finding out what inter-

.

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

179

ests a pupil has and using these as a focus for some initial circle time sessions can be another way of encouraging a quiet pupil to contribute. Another useful technique is the unfinished sentence as described by White (1991, 1992). All the pupils are given a simple statement to complete, for instance “I enjoy . . .” This technique is also a good way to prevent the more vocal in the group from taking over discussions and giving all pupils the opportunity to speak. The Effect of Circle Time As a group-based teaching approach, circle time is valued for its systemic nature and democratic structure. It has also been identified as an effective means of achieving higher levels of inclusion for pupils with special educational needs (Mosley, 1993). Such an approach, broadened to incorporate a whole school use of circle time, is presented as a useful tool for management of pupil behavior and pastoral care (Mosley, 1991; White, 1993). Indeed, there are those who argue that if it is to be fully effective, circle time should not take place in isolation. Rather, it should be perceived as a tool to be used as part of a whole-school-based approach to raising the self-esteem of pupils and staff. The lessons learned in circle time are better reinforced in a school committed to its use across the curriculum and in every classroom. Circle Time and Self-Esteem—Squaring the Circle? A great deal has been said about the value of circle time as an approach for enhancing self-concept. Indeed White (1993) identified its use as a specific tool for raising pupils’ self-esteem. Self-esteem, understood to be the worth and value we place on ourselves, is greatly influenced by the feedback we receive from people around us. Pidduck (1988) explained that low self-esteem is often displayed through signs of anger and frustration. Gurney (1988), in a similar vein, reported an association between low self-esteem and special educational needs. Self-esteem can be raised in a number of ways, including developing relationships between teachers and pupils that are based on trust and mutual respect for each other’s views and values. The Office of Standards in Education (OFSTED, 1993), the body responsible for school inspection in the United Kingdom, have concluded that positive self-esteem is a prerequisite for an effective school environment. Further argument, emphasizing the importance of self-esteem in teaching and learning, was somewhat typically expressed in the Elton Report (1989). The report was a seminal survey of behavior management and school discipline in the United Kingdom. It recommended a “healthy balance” in the use of reward and punishment. It underlined the importance of a system that is fair, consistently applied by all teachers, and characterized by praise and positive attitudes outweighing the use of negative sanctions. It also emphasized that punishments should not be humiliating. It was argued that the latter only caused resentment in pupils and

180

Studies of Self-Perception

created further problems, some of which related to effects on self-esteem and selfconcept. The report finally recommended that pupils be clearly shown they are valued through a pastoral system that allowed them to air their views and concerns, while offering active and meaningful involvement in the curriculum. Better behavior was evident where this was present (Cooper 1990; David 1993; Elton, 1989). Circle time is deemed a useful strategy for enabling such activity. It places emphasis on pupil involvement, raising self-esteem and, in turn, encourages and promotes positive behavior (Mosley, 1991). Developing this approach further, Kelly (1999) identified circle time as an appropriate intervention aimed at pupils with learning difficulties associated with low self-esteem. It was seen to incorporate a number of potential processes that contributed to enhancing self-esteem as part of the learning process. These included encouraging positive feedback between both teacher and students and students and peers; facilitating positive self-statements; promoting self-awareness; developing social skills and communication. The potential for circle time is recognized, in broad terms, as impacting on a wide range of learning activity. Galloway (1989), for example, thought that it provided the opportunity for teacher and class to come together and solve problems, discuss thoughts, feelings, share experiences, and talk about worries and achievements. According to White (1992), during circle time “pupils learn to recognize how their emotions and actions are affected by others, and how the emotions and actions of others affect them” (p. 10). Mosley (1996), taking the use of circle time further, suggested that the involvement of adults and pupils in a whole-school use of circle time was a prerequisite for positive results in self-esteem enhancement. In identifying the key role of the “significant other” in the process of forming, shaping, and maintaining selfesteem and self-conception, she compared all the adults in a school to a “circle of dominoes who have the power to knock down all the others”(p. 10). Mosley and Tew (1999) recommended circle time sessions for all adults in school as a way of improving self-esteem for pupils, arguing that high self-esteem staff encourages high self-esteem pupils! The difficulty with a great deal of this supporting literature, however, is that it is full of positive generalizations but rather less forthcoming with empirical evidence to support an inevitable call for greater use of circle time in the school context. One of the few reports of attempts to research the use of circle time and selfesteem is an experimental intervention described by Kelly (1999). Tentative results of a single-school study, comprising two groups of pupils (N = 53), reflected a perception of general effects including calmer and happier pupils in the classroom. The latter was confirmed informally with teachers who taught the pupils infrequently, and more rigorously with targeted pupils identified as presenting more serious problem behavior. The researcher also reported that the school’s re-

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

181

ferral rate to the Psychological Service for pupils presenting problem behavior improved both during and after the introduction of circle time. In postintervention evaluation, teachers identified the following features as contributing to enhancement of self-concept in pupils participating in circle time: • • • • • •

Confidence to express opinions or feelings Development of better group dynamics including trust, openness, and support Self-awareness raising and better understanding of behavioral consequences Solution-focused approaches to problems via discussion Pupil-centered “locus of control,” with pupils taking control of rule-making Greater insight into the cause and effect of difficult behavior

The conclusion reached by Kelly (1999) was that circle time had influenced behavior by affecting self-concept. There is, however, an obvious need to further develop an empirical base for supporting the use of circle time, and proof that the enhancement of self-concept or esteem as a strategy for improving school or pupil performance does work. Or is it possible, perhaps, that the continuing belief in the efficacy or valency of self-concept in academic performance is misplaced, and the guidance issued by the U.K. government recommending schools adopt circle time misleading? PART 3: THE STUDY Although terms such as self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy have been used interchangeably by many writers; we have used the term self-esteem as a starting point in the process of eliciting teachers’ perceptions of self-conception. The questions addressed in the study, consequently, were not about the nature of self-esteem. We were more interested in finding out, first, what it was teachers understood self-esteem to mean; second, if they thought it had any relationship with circle time; third, what they perceived to be the value in using circle time; and fourth, whether self-esteem or circle time was perceived as having any positive bearing on the process of teaching and learning. For the purpose of our study, therefore, we were not seeking to validate a particular theoretical model of self-conception. The attempt to elicit perceptions of the “self as teacher,” similarly, was not intended as a confirmatory exercise for construct development or psychometric assessment. It was, rather, a concern for evaluating how members of staff perceived themselves as teachers and their view of circle time or self-esteem as features of learning and teaching in the classroom. Finally, we were interested in eliciting pupil perceptions about circle time, although time constraints prevented anything other than a targeted survey of one class of pupils. Limitations of the Study Although time constraints, together with the small size of samples and the single-case structure of the research design, pointed to obvious limitations for

182

Studies of Self-Perception

the study, we felt that the work was worthwhile. The topic was one that had not produced much research in the field. We felt that the information would have immediate relevance for the school, but it might also point up directions for further work of a more substantial nature. We were also reassured by a review of the literature, which showed that, although neglected, more recently, the notion of the self as teacher might yield some interesting and useful insights into the performance of teaching or learning (see Adams, 1970; Bennet, 1976; Burns, 1979). Furthermore, we were interested to see if there was any indication that concern for self-esteem played any overt part in the thinking of teachers as they used circle time in their classrooms. Finally, we wanted to look for further indication of self-esteem effects in the thinking of both teachers and pupils who had experienced circle time. Context The research was carried out in a two-form entry primary school, situated approximately two miles from the center of a large city. The city is one of the largest in the United Kingdom and lies at the heart of the West Midlands conurbation. The school is sited on the edge of an industrial area within the city. The majority of the pupils come from an Asian heritage and are bilingual. The staff, not untypically for a primary school in the United Kingdom, reflected a mix of experience but were predominantly female (82 percent female; 18 percent male) with the majority of staff (87 percent) having less than five years of teaching experience. Circle time was introduced to the school approximately 6 years ago (in 1994) but has been promoted on a whole-school basis for only 5 years (whole-school since 1995). Teachers’ use of circle time was found to be, as expected, high, with 82 percent of the staff using the strategy more than once a week, and 55 percent of those staff indicating that they used circle time once a day. Procedure The study comprised three separate stages of data collection, all by questionnaire survey. The entire teaching staff was asked to complete a six-page questionnaire entitled “Self-Esteem and Circle Time” (N = 22). There was a 100 percent response rate, although several questionnaires were returned incomplete. Missing cases were generally found in sections devoted to either self-perception as a teacher or circle time (two teachers without class responsibility). A questionnaire devised as a simple worksheet requiring a forced response to single-stem statements using a 3-point Likert scale with “smiley faces” was also distributed to one class of pupils (year 5/6; N = 20) who were supervised as they completed the activity. The section on the self-perception as a teacher was structured to comprise four aspects of teaching; the first, attitude to interpersonal relationships (staff-pupil relations); the second, pedagogy (teaching philosophy and values); the third, presen-

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

183

tational mode (instructional method/delivery); and the fourth, self-esteem as a teacher (self-regard as a professional). The rating was constructed in the form of 25 forced responses using a Likert scale of 1–5 (“not at all” through to “all of the time”). The construction of the circle time section was predicated on two sets of items focusing, first, on evaluating the effect, if any, of circle time on learning performance, and second, the effect of circle time on teaching performance. The latter also included a series of four open-ended questions offering the opportunity for the respondent to more fully elaborate their responses. The construction of the self-esteem section of the questionnaire comprised a set of open-ended questions aimed at eliciting opinion about self-esteem, teaching, and learning. The response rate was mixed with 65 percent of the teachers volunteering limited statements, but others responding more fully with elaborated statements articulating value positions and understandings about the nature and effect of self-esteem. The pupil questionnaire was predicated on two banks of items: the first aimed at forcing a judgment as to whether circle time helped pupils in specified aspects of their learning in the classroom; the second asking for a similar response to items seeking a self-evaluation of the respondent’s self-perception as a learner. The first bank of items was clustered around the key concepts of self-awareness, collaborative learning behavior; social skills; communication skills and emotional well-being. The second bank of items reflected the key constructs of social self (e.g., popularity, making friends), learning behavior (e.g., hard-working, collaboration, support), and self-esteem (e.g., anxiety, openness, satisfaction). Results The data were analyzed, initially, in the following eight separate parts: 1. Teachers’ self-perception as a teacher 2. Teachers’ perceptions of circle time and learning 3. Teachers’ perceptions of circle time impact and teaching 4. Teachers’ evaluations of circle time 5. Pupils’ self-perceptions as a learner 6. Pupils’ perceptions of circle time 7. Teachers’ perceptions of self-esteem 8. Teachers’ perceptions of self-esteem, learning, and teaching

The data were reexamined with the aim of inferring any significant relationships between key independent variables and teachers’ specific perceptions of teaching, learning, self-esteem, and circle time. Correlation coefficients were calculated for clustered items from both sections of the questionnaire surveying teachers’ self-perceptions as a teacher, and their perceptions of circle time.

184

Studies of Self-Perception

Table 8.1. Percentage Scores for Subclusters in the SPAT

EST MOD IPR PED Valid N (listwise)

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

15 20 21 17 12

46.67 46.67 66.67 48.57

80.00 76.67 83.33 74.29

65.5556 65.4444 76.3492 64.5378

10.4401 7.8286 6.0466 7.8284

(1) Teachers’ Self-Perceptions as a Teacher The group profile for self-perception as a teacher reflected a positive bias from moderately high to high levels of professional self-regard. The percentage scores for self-esteem as a teacher (EST) are given in Table 8.1, loading positively so that a 100 percent of the raw score indicates a high level of self-esteem. It should be noted that nearly a third of the sample avoided responding to some items loading on this cluster. The mean percentage for the group is 65.5 percent but the SD (10.44) reflects a wide spread of response. Nonetheless, the results show a majority of teachers holding a positive view of their performance and standing as a teacher. The distribution of scores, not surprisingly for such a small sample, does not show a normal curve of distribution. The percentage scores for pedagogy—teaching philosophy/values (PED) are given in Table 8.1, loading positively so that a 100 percent of the raw score would indicate an emphasis in educational philosophy upon person-centered education. There is an emphasis reflected in the staff group on person rather than subjectcentered pedagogical structures, with a mean of 64.5 percent of the group valuing pupil-centered teaching, spontaneity in lesson time, and work aimed at moving pupils toward independent learning. The percentage scores for interpersonal relations (IPR) are given in Table 8.1, loading positively so that a 100 percent of the raw score would indicate a tendency for person-centered and active social structures in school life. The results show a bias in perceptions of interpersonal relations valuing open rather than closed social structures, reflecting a commitment to high levels of interaction and sharing between peer groups and pupils with staff (mean of 76.3 percent). This would suggest a commitment toward active learning, collaborative activity, and teamwork. The percentage scores for mode of delivery or instructional method (MOD) are given in Table 8.1, loading positively so that a 100 percent of the raw score indicated a preference for group work, experiential, and creative learning. A low score reflected a preference for individualized instruction and prescriptive learning. Again, the mean of 65.3 percent suggests that the staff generally values or prefers

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

185

teaching that, although teacher-centered, is active, and mixed in term of visual and verbal presentation. As in the case of pedagogical perspective, the tendency in distribution is to the mid-value on the Likert scale as a response to single items, suggesting a less dramatic emphasis on openness and activity than a higher result would have suggested. The distribution of scores across the four subclusters indicated a moderately strong commitment in response to open rather than closed structures of teaching and learning. This might be expected to show itself, for example, in a preference for person-centeredness, independent, and active learning, or group work, yet there was a tendency for staff to also emphasize teacher-led or controlled activity. This apparent contradiction is reflected in the higher value being laid on open rather than closed social structures but teacher-based authority in the classroom. Finally, professional self-esteem, in terms of a low to high measure, appears to be evenly but widely spread, with no clearly established trend. Anxieties and concerns about personal performance as a teacher, as reported, clearly affect some of the group more greatly than others, who rate themselves as effective and popular teachers. An examination of the interrelationship between the subclustered aspects of the teachers’ perceptions of themselves as a teacher showed some correlation coefficients approaching significance * at the .05 level or significance ** at the .01 level. These items are listed in Table 8.2. They include a positive correlation between mode of delivery (MOD) and interpersonal relations (IPR); self-esteem (EST) and both pedagogy (PED) and interpersonal relations (IPR); and, between pedagogy and interpersonal relations (IPR). The results seem to infer that mode of delivery is only related to professional relationships in teaching, whereas self-esteem is strongly correlated with pedagogy and more moderately linked to professional relationships. Interestingly, none of these aspects of being a teacher are even moderately correlated with years of teaching experience as perceived by teachers themselves. It should be remembered, however, that the sample comprised a majority of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching. (2) Teachers’ Perceptions of Circle Time and Learning Teachers were asked to rate the effect of circle time on aspects of learning in the classroom. Sixteen items required a forced response on a 4-point scale indicating an estimation of level of impact from 25 percent to 100 percent. The items focused on the impact of circle time on four aspects of learning: social conduct, pupils’ intellectual development, curriculum process, and pupils’ personal development. The aspects of pupils’ learning performance identified by teachers as being 100 percent impacted by circle time included: moral growth, 12.5 percent; pupil-pupil relations, 11.8 percent; communication skills, 11.8 percent; self-esteem, 5.9 percent; social behavior in the classroom, 5.9 percent; speaking and listening skills, 5.9 percent.

186

Sig (2-tailed)

.960 .223 1.000 .219 .181

I L K 2a B

–.365

B

.372 .081

–.337

2a

EST H

.000

K

.728 .910

–.348

L

MOD PED

.482 –.015

H I

.516

.270

EST

EXP IPR

.091 .032

PED

.000 .164

EXP IPR

Pearson’s Correlation MOD

EXP

Statistics

.459 .928

.314

.028

.158

.026 .018

.022 .026

.516

–.024

–.199

.290

.567*

.599* .384

.593*

.539*

.523*

.164 1.000

IPR

.384 .791

.881

.185

.161

.073 .110

.054

.728 .022

–.072

–.233

.042

.349

.430 .381

4.94

.490

1.000

.091 .523*

MOD

.968 .898

.370

.679

.951

.000 .196

.054

.910 .026

.038

.012

–.284

.127

.383 .019

8.52**

1.000

.490

.032 .539*

PED

.853 .333

.694

.988

.659

.156

.073 .000

.372 .026

–.323

.063

–1.43

.005

.485 –.160

1.000

.852**

.494

.270 .593*

EST

.743 .499

.395

.641

.754

.156

.110 .196

.081 .018

–.183

.089

.247

.131

1.000 .089

.485

.383

.430

.482 .599*

H

.205 .662

.078

.002

.659 .754

.161 .951

.960 .158

.118

–.335

.486

.721**

.089 1.000

–.160

.019

.381

–.015 .384

I

.719 .277

.009

.002

.988 .641

.185 .679

.223 .028

.289

.098

.645**

1.000

.131 .721**

.005

.127

.349

–.348 .567*

L

1.000 1.000

.009

.078

.694 .395

.881 .370

1.000 .314

.000

.000

1.000

.645**

.247 .486

–.143

–.284

.042

.000 .290

K

.021

1.000

.719

.205

.853 .743

.384 .968

.219 .459

.553*

1.000

.000

.098

.089 –.335

.063

.012

–.233

–.337 –.199

2a

Table 8.2. Correlation between Teachers’ Self-Perceptions as a Teacher and Ratings of the Impact of Circle Time upon Learning

.021

1.000

.277

.662

.333 .499

.791 .898

.181 .928

1.000

.553*

.000

.289

–.183 .118

–.323

.038

–.072

–.356 –.024

B

187

19 18 17 15 13 14 14 14 13 15 15

EXP IPR MOD PED EST H I L K 2a B

EXP

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

N

Statistics

16 16

15 14

15

15

14

17

19

18 21

IPR

16 16

16 15

15

15

14

16

20

17 19

MOD

14 14

13 12

13

13

12

17

16

15 17

PED

11 11

11 10

10

10

15

12

14

13 14

EST

16 16

15 14

15

16

10

13

15

14 15

H

16 16

15 14

16

15

10

13

15

14 15

I

16 16

16 15

15

15

11

13

16

14 15

L

15 15

15 15

14

14

10

12

15

13 14

K

17 17

16 15

16

16

11

14

16

15 16

2a

17 17

16 15

16

16

11

14

16

15 16

B

188

Studies of Self-Perception

The impact of circle time on learning was perceived by teachers to fall most positively (75 percent or more in the rating scale) on the following areas of pupils’ performance (percentages reflect degree of agreement across the sample): levels of self-esteem, 82.4 percent; speaking or listening skills, 76.5 percent; peer relations, 70.6 percent; moral growth, 68.8 percent; social conduct, 64.7 percent, communication skills, 64.7 percent; personal motivation, 62.5 percent; making learning fun, 64.7 percent; and self-awareness, 58.8 percent. The impact of circle time on learning was perceived by teachers to have least effect (25 percent to 50 percent in the rating scale) on the following areas of pupils’ performance: numeracy skills, 76.5 percent; appearance, 62.5 percent; and individual needs, 20 percent. High and low levels of agreement over perceptions of the impact on learning realized through the use of circle time, as reflected in the standard deviation (SD) across the range of responses in the questionnaire, centered on the following aspects of pupils’ learning performance: first for agreement, speaking, and listening skills (.52), self-awareness (.50), personal motivation (.50) and self-esteem (.48); second for disagreement, emotional curriculum (.87), communication skills (.77), appearance (.73), and collaborative or sharing skills (.70). An examination of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of themselves as teachers and their perceptions of the impact of circle time on learning showed some correlation coefficient approaching significance * at the .05 level or significance ** at the .01 level. These items are listed in Table 8.2. They include a positive correlation between teachers’ self-perceptions of interpersonal relationships in their teaching (IPR), pupil’s appearance (H), pupils’ personal motivation (I) and (L). There is also a moderately strong significant interrelationship noted between pupils’ self-esteem (A), and self-awareness (B), as well as a strong correlation between pupils’ individual needs (K) and pupils’ personal motivation (L) as perceived by teachers when rating the impact of circle time on pupils’ personal development. There were no significant correlations noted between teachers’ self-perceptions and ratings of the effect of circle time on pupils’ intellectual development or curriculum process although there was, not unsurprisingly, a strong interrelationship between standards of teaching and learning (O) and pupils’ learning performance (P). A similar trend is observed in the relationship between social conduct and teachers’ self-perception as a teacher, suggesting that teachers perceive no direct link between pupil’s conduct and their perception of themselves as a teacher! There exists, however, a strong interrelationship between better social behavior in the classroom (C) and pupil-pupil relations in the classroom (D). (3) Teachers’ Perceptions of Circle Time and Teaching Teachers were asked to rate the effect of circle time on specified aspects of teaching in the classroom. Eighteen items asked for a forced response on a 4-point scale indicating an estimation of level of impact from 25 percent to 100 percent.

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

189

The items focused on the impact of circle time for four aspects of teaching: accountability, pedagogical expertise, teachers’ personal development, and curriculum process. The aspects of teaching identified as being 100 percent impacted by circle time included: emotional curriculum, 20 percent; positive teaching, 12.5 percent; teacher-pupil relations, 12.5 percent; conflict resolution, 6.3 percent; social skills, 5.9 percent; and communication skills, 5.9 percent. The impact of circle time on learning was perceived by teachers to fall most positively (75 percent or more in the rating scale) on the following areas of pupils’ performance (percentages reflect degree of agreement across the sample): teaching social skills, 82.4 percent; enhancing group identity and classroom climate, 81.3 percent; conflict resolution among pupils, 68.8 percent; positive teaching, 62.5 percent; teacher-pupil relations, 62.5 percent; emotional curriculum, 60.0 percent; teachers’ communication skills, 58.8 percent. The impact of circle time on teaching was perceived by teachers to have least effect (25 percent to 50 percent in the rating scale) on the following areas of performance: personal interests, 26.7 percent; self-esteem, 14.3 percent, and selfawareness, 14.3 percent; developing group work, 11.8 percent; problem-solving skills, 11.8 percent; staff morale or team building, 5.9 percent. High and low levels of agreement over perceptions of the impact on teaching realized through the use of circle time, as reflected in the standard deviation (SD) across the range of responses in the questionnaire, centered on the following aspects of teaching performance: first for agreement, OFSTED Evaluations (.52), literacy skills (.51), enhancing group identify and classroom climate (.40); second for disagreement, an emotional curriculum (.90), conflict resolution (.80), enhancing teaching performance (.80), problem-solving skills (.79), and teacher-pupil relations (.79). An examination of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of themselves as teachers and their perceptions of the impact of circle time on teaching showed some correlation coefficient approaching significance * at the .05 level or significance ** at the .01 level. These items are listed in Table 8.3. They include a positive correlation between teachers’ self-perceptions of pedagogy (PED) and teaching social skills (LL). There is also a strong negative correlation between years of teaching (EXP) and teaching social skills (LL). A surprising interrelationship is also noted between pupils’ literacy skills (FF) and teaching social skills (LL). There were no significant correlations noted between teachers’ self-perceptions as a teacher and ratings of circle time on teachers’ pedagogical expertise or personal development. There was a relationship between perceptions of positive teaching (NN), active learning (GG), teacher-pupil relations (PP), and pupils becoming more responsible (JJ). There was also a strong significant interrelationship noted between pupils’ selfesteem (GG) and self-awareness (HH) and (OO), as well as a strong correlation between pupils’ individual needs (KK) and pupils’ personal motivation (LL) as

190

Sig. (2-tailed)

Pearson’s Correlation

EXP

.041 –.114 –.068 –.042 –.079 –.504 –.054 –.257

.163 –.048 –.317 .175 .247 .169 –.404 .336

.698 .825 .892 .789 .114

.866 .270 .550 .374 .601 .171 .220

HH KK

.375

.868

.779 .895

.520 .578

.910

–.082

.180

.910

.032 1.000

1.000 .032

PED

PED LL FF GG NN PP JJ OO

EXP

PED LL FF GG NN PP JJ OO HH KK

EXP

.783

.625

.161

.902

.976

.506 .680

.016

.520 .779

–.072

.137

.396

–.032

–.112 .008

.173

.591*

1.000

.180 –.082

LL

.231

.127

.008

.031

.223

.008 .483

.016

.578 .895

.317

.428

.676**

.539*

.189 .335

.634**

1.000

.591*

.163 .041

FF

.645

.001

.006

.000

.094

.021

.506 .008

.866 .698

.121

.748**

.689**

.800**

.570* .432

1.000

.634**

.173

–.048 –.114

GG

.741

.047

.447

.012

.006

.021

.680 .483

2.70 .825

.090

.539*

.221

.611*

1.000 .676**

.570*

.189

–.112

–.317 –.068

NN

.071

.492

.079

.004

.094 .006

.976 .223

.550 .892

.463

.200

.503

.672**

.676** 1.000

.432

.335

.008

.175 –.042

PP

.330

.149

.035

.004

.000 .012

.902 .031

.374 .789

.252

.391

.567*

1.000

.611* .672**

.800**

.539*

–.032

.247 –.079

JJ

.094

.223

.035

.079

.006 .447

.161 .008

.601 .114

.465

.380

1.000

.567*

.221 .503

.689**

.676**

.396

.169 –.504

OO

.770

.223

.149

.492

.001 .047

.625 .127

.171 .868

–.083

1.000

.380

.391

.539* .200

.748**

.428

.137

–4.04 –.054

HH

Table 8.3. Correlation between Teachers’ Self-Perceptions as a Teacher and Ratings of the Impact of Circle Time upon Teaching

.770

.094

.330

.071

.645 .741

.783 .231

.220 .375

1.000

–.083

.465

.252

.090 .463

.121

.317

–0.72

.336 –.257

KK

191

15 14 15 14 14 15 12 13 15

LL FF GG NN PP JJ OO HH KK

19 15

EXP PED

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

N

EXP

12 14

14 11

13

13

14

13

14

15 17

PED

15 17

17 14

16

16

17

16

17

15 14

LL

14 16

16 14

15

16

16

16

16

14 13

FF

15 17

17 14

16

16

17

16

17

15 14

GG

14 16

16 14

15

16

16

16

16

14 13

NN

14 16

16 13

16

15

16

15

16

14 13

PP

15 17

17 14

16

16

17

16

17

15 14

JJ

12 14

14 14

13

14

14

14

14

12 11

OO

15 15

15 12

14

14

15

14

15

13 12

HH

15 17

17 14

16

16

17

16

17

15 14

KK

192

Studies of Self-Perception

perceived by teachers when rating the impact of circle time on pupils’ personal development. (4) Teachers’ Evaluations of Circle Time Open-ended questions about the potential benefits of circle time included a range of response organized into three categories during a content analysis of the data: Circle time effects on the pupil; circle time effects on the teacher; general comments. Most frequent responses that were categorized as key effects of circle time on teaching and learning included the following: For the Pupil • Enhancing pupils’ social skills in group work, developing relationships and building levels of trust, sharing, and cooperation • Offering opportunity for ownership of behavior for pupils and helping to develop pupils’ awareness and strategies for independent learning • Encouraging social awareness; sensitivity to effects of praise; self-respect, and respect of others • Enhancing skills in communication and thinking and helping pupils to remember how to cooperate and share • Dominating focus on negative talk and problems

For the Teacher • As a strategy for pupil behavior management, providing pupils with an active opportunity to behave appropriately • Establishes expectations for the learning environment and used to reinforce class rules • Enables effective group work aimed at conflict resolution and problem solving • An assessment tool to gather data for individual and or behavioral needs—enables awareness of individuals, helps the teacher better know the pupils, and used to inform groupings based on levels of self-worth • Encourages a positive class room climate • Evaluative tool to gather information about peer relationships in the class, pupils attitudes, understanding and behavior • Improves interaction between pupils and teacher • Supports the development of teacher’s listening skills • As a school-based strategy that facilitates teachers sharing a common approach to dealing with pupils fairly, showing empathy, awareness of feelings, and having regard to individual needs

General Comments • Creates a team-based feeling to the classroom enabling all to work together and open up a new dimension to the teacher-pupil relationship, thereby generating a better classroom ethos/climate • Enables identification and response to specific issues/behaviors affecting the class • Difficult activity that isn’t enjoyed by the pupils • Restricted by size/space; class size; lack of support • A class-based approach that is very difficult to successfully operate

The majority of teachers expressed a perception of circle time that was positive, identifying teacher-centered benefits for its use in the classroom. Examples of

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

193

Table 8.4. Pupils’ Self-Perceptions as a Learner Boys

Girls

Pupil Self-perception: Social Self

(yes)

(no)

(yes)

(no)

Good at making friends Popularity Timid or reserved

50.0% 12.5% 00.0%

00.0% 00.0% 00.0%

50.0% 25.0% 16.7%

8.3% 16.7% 40.0%

50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 37.5%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.5%

16.7% 33.7% 58.3% 25.0% 41.7%

16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 8.3%

12.5% 62.5% 37.5%

12.5% 00.0% 12.5%

41.7% 33.3% 41.7%

00.0% 16.7% 8.3%

Pupil Self-perception: Learning Behavior

Hardworking Helping other pupils Working with other pupils Speaking to other pupils Caring for other pupils Pupil Self-perception: Self-Esteem

Worry about my image Satisfied with schoolwork Worry about failure

most frequent responses listed above reflected a concern primarily, for the personal, social, and emotional aspects of the curriculum. (5) Pupils’ Self-Perceptions as Learners The group profile for self-perception as a learner, given the small size of the sample, reflected a positive bias from moderately high to high levels of pupil selfregard. Indeed, the recording of negative responses may well have reflected such a response from only one or two pupils. The percentage scores for responses are given in Table 8.4. Nonetheless, the results show a majority of pupils holding a positive view of themselves as a learner. The distribution of scores also reveals some differences in gender as well as indicates some areas of more negative perceptions. No boys reported a negative perception of their social self, whereas 40 percent of the girls perceived themselves to be timid or reserved with respect to the teacher. No boys reported positively about their usual interaction with the class teacher. Differences in learning behavior were less pronounced, with both girls and boys reflecting a range of moderate responses to collaborative working. Interesting exceptions to this rule included boys more positively perceiving their ability

194

Studies of Self-Perception

Table 8.5. Pupils’ Perceptions of Circle Time Boys

Girls

Self-Awareness

(yes)

(no)

(yes)

(no)

Aware of personal behavior Speak politely to peers

87.5% 62.5%

00.0% 00.0%

100.0% 66.7%

00.0% 00.0%

75.0% 87.5% 62.5% 87.5%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

41.7% 58.3% 83.3% 58.3%

16.7% 8.3% 00.0% 8.3%

100.0% 50.0% 62.5%

00.0% 12.5% 0.00%

58.3% 33.3% 66.7%

00.0% 00.0% 00.0%

Learning Behavior

Taking turns in an activity Support peers in difficulty Working with peers Enjoy circle time Communication Skills

Helps you to listen Talk about you feelings Talk about your worries

to talk to peers, whereas girls were more critical of their own effort with schoolwork. In terms of self-esteem, boys were much more satisfied with their schoolwork yet much more inclined to worry about failure. The girls, on the other hand, worried about their image, about the risk of failure, and were less satisfied about their schoolwork. (6) Pupils’ Perceptions of Circle Time The group profile for pupils’ perceptions of circle time described a positive bias from moderately high to high levels of regard for the activity. The percentage scores for responses are given in Table 8.5. The greatest benefits perceived by pupils include, first raising levels of selfawareness of personal behaviour (100 percent of the girls responded with yes); offering opportunity to develop skills in supporting peers in difficulty; improving individual ability to listen and working with peers (note the gender difference reflected in the responses to these last two items). Interestingly, all of these perceived benefits reflect process skills linked to individual personal and social development. None reflect any obvious relationship with self-esteem or self-conception. There is an interesting split too, along gender lines, in the rating of personal enjoyment of circle time. The majority of boys express a positive regard for the ac-

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

195

tivity, whereas the girls express a more moderate response, with 41.6 percent stating that they enjoy circle time only sometimes or not at all. (7) Teachers’ Perceptions of Self-Esteem Open-ended questions asked of teachers about the effect of self-esteem on teaching and learning included a range of responses, which were organized in to five categories following a content analysis of the data. These included definition of self-esteem, effects on teaching, effects on learning, educational implications of self-esteem, and enhancing self-esteem. Most frequent responses were logged thematically and identified as consensual staff perspectives on self-esteem. 1. Definition of Self-Esteem Teachers expressed their understanding of self-esteem using the following phrases, clustered around the constructs of self-belief, self-worth, self-rating, and positive regard. Overall, the consensual concepts most frequently used to define self-esteem were self-belief and self-worth. • Self-rating: how you value yourself and your worth in society; feeling worth in one’s performance; valuing self—process in which self-descriptions and self-worth are realized; how you perceive yourself as others might perceive you; comparing self with peers, valuing differences rather than feeling threatened by them. • Self-belief: the level to which you can try and fail and yet still recognize that you are not really different from anybody else; a sense of personal competence—believing in yourself and thinking that you can do something even in the face of hardship; awareness of personal strengths and self-respect. • Self-worth: the way a person feels about themselves; feeling equal to others. • Positive regard: process of evaluating personal experiences positively; global sense of positive self-worth involving physical/academic/personal areas of life; promotion of the individual; thinking positively of one’s self at all times; the most important thing we can help pupils to achieve is a positive self-esteem.

2. Effects for Learning Teachers expressed their understanding of the effects of self-esteem on learning using the following phrases, clustered around the constructs of high self-esteem, low self-esteem, motivation, and self-confidence. Overall, the consensual concepts most frequently used to describe the perceived effects of self-esteem were self-confidence and self-worth. • High self-esteem: Boosts learning by giving pupils self-confidence; generates self-confidence; poor self-esteem is identified—expectations are raised, positive learning cycles are set, effect of teacher perceptions feed into a virtuous cycle of self-esteem generation; pupils need to feel good about themselves—they can do things better—and this will help them to succeed; pupils with positive self-esteem will engage more easily in the learning process, and their levels of understanding are more easily assessed. High self-esteem means a greater readiness to attempt tasks or work; school is not such a frightening place as they believe in their own capabilities; to participate

196

Studies of Self-Perception

requires genuine belief in your own ability to operate at or above the same level as peers; pupils feeling good about themselves are considerable more effective and productive—they respond in positive and growing ways, and there is a significantly lower chance of their being disruptive and angry or reluctant to join in or become isolated. • Low self-esteem: Low self-esteem produces low confidence, learning blocks, and little progress; feeling worthless prevents learning, personal growth, and even interest; a lack of esteem often means that a person will have given up a task before they have really started a task. A high self-esteem is indicative of a positive outlook and means the person is enjoying life and open to new ideas, new growth, and so on; low self-esteem results in defeatist and withdrawn behavior as the pupil questions the value of a task as it will be too difficult for them anyway; low self-esteem means negative attitudes and an unwillingness to engage in the learning experience. • Motivation: Pupils want to learn when they are valued; success in learning is a result of pupils’ feeling capable or willing to share ideas; celebrates and promotes the realization of personal achievement; triggers pride in achievement and intrinsic motivation nurturing positive attitudes about learning; pupils are more receptive and interested when they feel they have something positive to offer; teacher represents a significant adult and therefore has a tremendous opportunity to affect change. • Self-confidence: Self-belief and the confidence to ask questions and express a personal point of view; building self-confidence and the readiness of pupils to take risks in the learning activity; pupils with positive self-esteem are risk-takers, will contribute and participate in learning activities. 3. Effects for Teaching Teachers expressed their understanding of the effects of self-esteem on teaching using the following phrases, clustered around the constructs of teaching performance, pedagogical expertise, and self-confidence. Overall, the consensual concepts most frequently used to describe the perceived effects of self-esteem were low and high self-esteem, self-confidence, and expectation. • Teaching performance: Convincing teaching performances rely on positive selfesteem; how you feel about yourself is reflected in the way you present yourself. If you feel good about yourself and believe in what you do, you are more communicative and better able to teach effectively; low self-esteem affects performance as a teacher; high self-esteem affects performance as a teacher by generating selfconfidence and affecting standards of work; high self-esteem is needed to pass high self-esteem on to pupils; self-esteem impacts on expectation and intention, enables better teaching; low morale, stress, can cause teachers to have poor selfesteem and a negative effect on pupils’ own self-esteem and learning.

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

197

• Pedagogical expertise: A contribution to teaching persona and therefore classroom ethos based on self-worth and positive self-regard; lays the foundation for effective learning; valuing self-esteem as a teacher in turn influences pupils’ sense of worth and esteem; role model for pupils who will seek to emulate behavior linked to self-esteem; good levels of self-esteem provide a foundation for teacher effectiveness. • Self-confidence: Effective teaching requires self-confidence and certainty; effectiveness is achieved via self-confidence; self-esteem is linked to feelings—happiness—and when praise is used well, as self-esteem grows learning improves when pupils develop the confidence to tackle new things; enabling a person to make mistakes but learn from them.

4. Enhancing Self-Esteem Teachers expressed their understanding of the development of self-esteem in learning using the following phrases, clustered around the constructs of high selfesteem, low self-esteem, motivation, and self-confidence. Overall, the consensual concepts most frequently used to describe the perceived enhancement of self-esteem were positive expectations, positive regard for persons, celebrating success, and skills training in personal development. • Positive teaching: Coaching and modeling should be used to teach self-esteem; use circle time but also emphasize praise, acknowledgment, and celebration of achievement; important to reinforce self-confidence; self-esteem is reinforced by modeling positive regard on the part of the teacher; praise those who participate and follow instruction and encourage those who find it difficult to participate—it is important to identify areas of personal strength and use them to build up selfconfidence and esteem, which then “spills over” into other areas; teaching self-esteem involves noticing and valuing pupils for who they are and what they are very good at doing in the class; failure is recognized as part of learning and a positive contribution to improvement; always take an interest in pupils’ points of view and obviously value their experiences; loads of encouragement and praise when they do good things—being positive is a whole-class attitude; circle time is taught indirectly via use of praise, valuing effort and work achieved, not talking down to a child; provide emotional security by using praise and encourage behavior related to positive self-esteem; positive praise for effort as well as achievement applied on a consistent basis. • Classroom ethos: Self-esteem is fostered indirectly by positive emotional climate in the classroom; an emphasis should be laid on valuing individual contribution in a ridicule-free climate, which will create opportunities for success; self-esteem is taught indirectly via set expectations, emotional climate, relationships, and pupils’ feeling secure and valued.

198

Studies of Self-Perception

We build up each child’s self-esteem by making the classroom a positive environment; the classroom should become a fear-free zone for mistakes, in which personal ridicule does not feature. Circle time can help achieve this kind of environment; self-esteem is built up through the interaction and relationships that occur between teacher and individual pupils. • Learning how to learn: We invite pupils to see themselves as capable human beings—this can be done through activities and strategies such as: building feelings of trust, safety, security, individuality; acquisition of knowledge; belonging; enhancing social skills; gaining a sense of purpose in life; setting individual goals; making decisions; and recognizing successes and accomplishments, which are all reinforced by circle time; self-esteem is taught indirectly by learning collaboratively, developing social skills; cooperation skills; and supporting positive peersupport relations. Personal, social, and emotional growth: We make the effort to get to know our pupils and what makes them “tick”—then we can consider their personalities, their needs (emotional and academic) and then their learning will improve; working with self-esteem is a “carpe diem”—a preventive approach to problem behavior enabling individualized intervention through the group; self-esteem is created by establishing and maintaining mutual respect for persons; self-esteem is reinforced by encouraging social awareness, sensitivity to effects of praise, selfrespect and respect of others in the same classroom. 5. Educational Implications of Self-Esteem Teachers expressed views on the educational implications of self-esteem using the following phrases, clustered around the constructs of the value of self-esteem, pupil well-being, professional well-being, and educational effectiveness. Overall, the consensual concepts most frequently used to describe the perceived educational implications of self-esteem were positive attitudes, positive professional self-regard, individual success, and equality of opportunity in education. • The value of self-esteem: A person with high self-esteem responds better whether as a teacher or as a learner; self-esteem influences teaching and learning when my enthusiasm and love for teaching is transmitted to the pupils and they respond to me in a positive way; the belief in yourself that enables you to try things out, take risks, and to move forward in learning; a positive self-esteem as a teacher helps generate enthusiasm and showing that pupils’ performances matter to me, that teaching is viewed by me as important, that I am skilled and knowledgeable about my subject; demonstrating the belief that your school and teachers are very good because you deserve it; reinforcing self-esteem helps create enjoyment and reward in the process of teaching and learning; teacher self-esteem will encourage similar levels of self-esteem in pupils; it is important because everybody should have high self-esteem.

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

199

• Pupil well-being: Pupils feel better about themselves as they follow my personal example; awareness of self-esteem is reflected in the process of valuing individual effort, reinforcing positive regard, and thereby fueling effective learning; a teacher’s self-esteem is reflected in the way he or she deals with pupils fairly, showing empathy, awareness of feelings, and having regard to individual needs; being confident enough to say sorry—I was wrong. • Professional well-being: High self-esteem enables me to be confident and relaxed in my manner and so able to transfer this to the pupils; using humor and positive regard for contributions to the class; self-esteem is linked to feeling relaxed and self-confident, which translates into good lessons. • School effectiveness: Creating a positive teaching climate, a positive learning climate and an expectation of progress all reflect the generation of collective selfesteem; when teachers are positive, pupils experience a more positive learning environment; developing relations within the whole group; opportunities for all to share, talk, listen, be involved and not isolated. Self-esteem is present in the way I use experiences to influence and explain as well as encourage listening to others. It is linked to self-confident teaching, which translates into good lessons—I know I can teach some subjects better than others—these are the lessons in which my childrens’ self-esteem is greatly improved; convincing teaching performances rely on a positive self-esteem; children feel better about themselves as they follow my personal example—this is vital as a consideration in creating an effective learning environment; teacher leads and encourages behaviors and attitudes related to positive self-esteem.

Discussion: Evaluating Self-Esteem and Circle Time The results of the study reported in the previous section are constrained by several limitations and are to be treated with appropriate caution. The attempt to elicit perceptions and understandings of self-esteem, teaching, and learning, however, is regarded as interesting and worthwhile. It is also arguably, a first step in the process of evaluating teachers’ perceptions of the impact of self-esteem and circle time on the quality of educational experience in the classroom. Taking each key aspect of the study in turn, the following implications or issues are considered as part of an evaluation of self-esteem and Circle Time. (1) Teachers’ Self-Perceptions as a Teacher A majority of teachers in this primary school hold a positive view of their performance and status as a teacher. Anxieties and concerns for personal performance as a teacher, as reflected in the responses and as might be expected, clearly affect some of the group more greatly than others, who rate themselves more positively as effective and popular teachers. Self-perceptions of interpersonal aspects of teaching and learning reflected a high valuing of open rather than closed social structures. The idea that an effective teacher was involved in a range of collabora-

200

Studies of Self-Perception

tive and team-based activities appeared to underpin a notion of what it is to be a good teacher. There was an emphasis within the staff group on person-centered rather than subject-centered pedagogical structures, with two thirds of the group valuing pupil-centered teaching, spontaneity in lesson-time, and work aimed at moving pupils toward independent learning. Similarly, the staff generally expressed perceptions of their preferred mode of teaching delivery or instruction that valued teacher-centered, activity-orientated methods, and used a mix of visual and verbal presentation. The emphasis on active learning, group work, and teacher control is slightly contradictory, in terms of a commitment to open-ended structures, yet perhaps not surprising. The clear significance attached to high levels of interaction and sharing between peer groups and pupils with staff would suggest a commitment toward active learning, collaborative activity, and teamwork. An interesting point here, however, is the degree to which this emphasis is related to the adoption of circle time as a whole-school strategy, or separate from it. Whatever the relationship, it is likely that such a commitment will correlate with the frequent use of circle time, given its purpose and structure. In other words, values and attitudes espoused by the staff would suggest a fertile environment for the development of circle time. (2) Teachers’ Perceptions of Circle Time and Learning The impact of circle time on four aspects of learning were rated in the study: social conduct, pupils’ intellectual development, curriculum process, and pupils’ personal development. Social conduct was identified as a major aspect of learning impacted by the use of circle time. Peer relations and social behavior in the classroom were rated by the majority of teachers as more than 75 percent impacted, and by some as having a 100 percent level of impact. Using circle time was clearly regarded by this group of teachers as a useful tool in the management of pupil behavior. Pupils’ intellectual development was seen to be less impacted by circle time. Numeracy skills were consistently reported as not being addressed in this activity, whereas in contrast, speaking and listening skills were rated as being more consistently affected. The latter, however, appear to be construed as aspects of communication, collaborative learning, or social interaction rather than skills related to literacy. The contribution of circle time to the curriculum process experienced in the classroom features more moderately in the ratings completed in the study. A number of teachers, however, did identify making learning fun as an important effect created by circle time. In terms of pupils’ personal development, the aspect in which we expected most impact perhaps, given the focus for our study, teachers reported the highest level of impact for moral growth, whereas pupil self-esteem was also identified as benefiting from a high level of impact. Personal motivation and developing levels of

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

201

self-awareness were seen as being more moderately but consistently impacted by circle time. Circle time seems to be perceived by this group of teachers as a useful tool in personal and social conduct development. Surprisingly, perhaps, it appears to be perceived as less directly linked to learning performance, academic skills development, or curriculum process. (3) Teachers’ Perceptions of Circle Time Impact and Teaching The impact of circle time for three aspects of teaching was rated in the study: pedagogical expertise, teachers’ personal development, and curriculum process. Pedagogical expertise linked primarily to the management of pupil behavior was identified as an aspect of teaching receiving a very strong or maximum level of impact in circle time. More particularly, positive teaching associated with an emphasis on self-esteem, the use of praise and prompt, and child-centeredness reflected some of the ratings reported in the previous section. Both resolution of pupil conflict and the management of teacher-pupil relations were also consistently identified as aspects of teaching expertise reinforced by circle time. Teachers’ personal development was rated as impacted by circle time. Specific elements of this development included communication skills and social skills, although other elements of personal development were rated as having a minimum effect. These included personal interests, self-esteem, self-awareness, and skills related to teamwork or collaboration with colleagues. The results of this study seem to indicate that teachers did not perceive circle time directly helping them in the area of professional development. Curriculum process was identified as an aspect of learning impacted by up to a level of 100 percent through the use of circle time. The emotional curriculum, that is, activity and process linked to emotional growth or development, was seen as very highly impacted by circle time. Specific elements of the emotional curriculum identified as strongly impacted by circle time included, first, enhancing the classroom ethos and group identity and second, teaching social skills. Clearly, circle time was generally regarded as a tool for work in the area of personal and social development, either as part of pupil behavior management or as part of the pastoral curriculum. Teachers did not appear to view circle time as having any real relevance for their own personal or professional development. There is a temptation to wonder aloud and ask when it is that teachers think they actually stop learning, as a reflective practitioner, while engaged in teaching? (4) Teachers’ Evaluations of Circle Time Content analysis of the data collected in the form of teachers’ evaluations of circle time involved a consideration of effects on first, pupils, second, teachers, and third, more general effects. The importance attached to circle time as a tool for behavior management was repeatedly identified as its prime function. Teachers evaluated circle time as very

202

Studies of Self-Perception

useful as a strategy for behavior management, and particularly useful insofar as it encouraged pupils to take “ownership” or “responsibility” for social conduct. A cautionary complaint was expressed, however, by one teacher about the danger for discussion during circle time becoming dominated by a focus on problems and difficulty. A second main finding in this data was that teachers, somewhat contradicting findings in an earlier part of the survey, stressed the value of circle time for raising levels of self-awareness in pupils. Furthermore, they pointed to the value of this activity as a means of assessing a number of aspects of individual needs in the classroom. The latter included a range of information about aspects of pupils’ personal, social, emotional, and intellectual development. An explanation for this finding may well be that teachers interpreted the kind of assessment produced by circle time as informal assessment. It is therefore possible that when forced to make a judgment in the first part of the survey, assessment as a key aspect impacted by circle time was subsumed in other aspects of learning or teaching, for example, managing pupil behavior or the emotional curriculum. This appears to be confirmed in more generalized comments about circle time which stressed its usefulness for monitoring social relationships, the emotional climate in the classroom, and as an early warning and preventative system for detecting emotional or behavioral difficulties. There were also some negative comments made by two teachers about the practical problems sometimes presented by running circle time. These were largely to do with resource constraints and a perceived lack of support in developing the approach as part of the teaching timetable. Circle time was generally regarded as impacting directly on these aspects of teaching and learning more usually associated with the pastoral curriculum. It was, however, also regarded as a useful tool for building and developing a range of related learning skills and behavior in pupils, which in turn were perceived to indirectly impact on pupils’ intellectual development. In summary, circle time was identified as a vehicle for developing pedagogical expertise, particularly in the area of pupil behavior management. It was also viewed as a useful tool for informal assessment, particularly with regard to personal needs. Circle time was repeatedly evaluated as an effective tool for increasing a teacher’s awareness and knowledge of individual pupils and peer relationships existing within the classroom. (5) Pupils’ Self-Perceptions as a Learner The group of pupils surveyed in the study presented as self-confident and positive about school and schoolwork. Some gender-based differences included how girls perceived themselves as timid whereas no boys said they related well to the teacher. Although these results might obviously be skewed by the specific context—that is, the teacher’s relationship with the children—the question of what is a “cool attitude” to these personal aspects of school behavior among the pupils seems to be worth investigating. There also seemed to be a tendency for girls to be

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

203

either more markedly positive or negative about peer relations, or their ability to make friends, whereas boys were more moderately and consistently positive in rating their social self. A second set of differences occurred in rating self-effectiveness, suggesting that the boys in the group were more satisfied with their educational performance. The girls in the group appeared to be more anxious and less satisfied than the boys with either themselves or their schoolwork. (6) Pupils’ Perceptions of Circle Time The pupils generally regarded circle time positively, although boys more than girls seemed to enjoy the activity. Boys also seemed to see the activity helping them more directly with their social conduct and the development of skills associated with collaboration or sharing a task. Interestingly, self-awareness was identified most strongly, followed by a number of processes linked to personal and social development. Although this reflects an agreement, broadly, with teacher evaluations, the pupils made no overt linkage with self-esteem. It may be possible, however, that self-awareness incorporates self-esteem and other aspects of self-conception. This question clearly requires further investigation along the lines of making explicit what pupils understand self-awareness to mean. (7) Teachers’ Perceptions of Self-Esteem Teachers’ definitions of self-esteem emphasized the process of maintaining a sense of self through the feedback provided by colleagues and peers. The understanding of self-esteem as a concept was well expressed, with an emphasis on selfregard and what seems to be a concept of emotional resilience. The latter is described most often as a positive regard for self and for personal experience. It is also related to the idea of self-belief. The effects of self-esteem were recognized as equally applicable to teachers as individuals, and teaching, as it was for pupils as individuals, and learning. Teachers’ views about the effects of self-esteem on learning were largely grouped around notions of motivation and self-confidence. Positive teaching, with its child-centered philosophy, seemed to reflect many of the views expressed, as self-esteem was described as a kind of “climactic condition” required for good educational growth. Equally, self-esteem was perceived as a significant factor in the development of teaching performance. It was also seen to impact on the development of pedagogical expertise. Interestingly, comments described the idea of teaching persona, and the effect of self-esteem in the delivery and management of the curriculum. Again, terms such as self-confidence, personal regard, and emotional resilience surfaced in how teachers perceived self-esteem impacting on teaching performance. No teachers appeared to dismiss self-esteem as unimportant; rather they reflected the received wisdom that it is all-important in education. However, there were fewer ideas about how it should be built into teaching practice. Most teach-

204

Studies of Self-Perception

ers appeared to argue that self-esteem should be embedded in day-to-day practice, incorporating the intention to generate a climate of positive expectations, positive regard for persons, the celebration of success and specific skills training in lessons devoted to personal, social, and health education. Only a few teachers mentioned circle time as a specific tool for raising self-esteem. Similarly, few teachers were specific about the implications of self-esteem for education although many pointed to general effects, such as the creation of pupils’ positive attitudes to learning, teachers’ professional self-regard, individual success, and an equality of educational opportunity. Self-esteem is clearly regarded as a vital ingredient in the recipe for educational effectiveness. There is also a fairly well understood idea of what self-esteem means, but there is less certainty about how it should be developed within the school curriculum. Most frequently, teachers express the kind of thinking reflected in the comment that a teacher leads and encourages behaviors and attitudes related to positive selfesteem, as an appropriate psychological model, in contrast to suggestions for specific or direct ways of enhancing self-esteem or the self-concept. Nurturing and maintaining a climate within which self-esteem flourishes is viewed more as an “ecological approach” and “climate control” than it is about “prescriptive learning” or “intervention farming.” CONCLUSION This study has produced a set of perspectives elicited by a questionnaire survey of teachers and pupils in an inner-city primary school in the United Kingdom. Those perspectives include a range of perceptions about circle time and self-esteem. The data also comprised a set of self-perceptions as a teacher provided by the staff, and a set of self-perceptions as a learner provided by a class of pupils. The study confirmed that self-esteem is regarded by teachers as a vital ingredient in the realization of educational effectiveness. The teaching of self-esteem, however, is not perceived to be a formal aspect of the curriculum, but is linked to informal processes that form part of the pastoral curriculum. This in turn is related to three key dimensions of the pastoral curriculum: first, behavior management and social conduct; second, personal, social, and emotional development; and third, psychological well-being. An evaluation of circle time revealed that teachers, generally, were very positive about the value and efficacy of the approach, and perceived it as impacting on a number of processes in the curriculum. Although the approach is group-based, circle time was particularly reported as an activity that facilitated individual development, most notably in the areas of emotional growth, social skills, and moral development. Teachers also noted a link between circle time and the enhancement of selfesteem in pupils but did not perceive the same link for themselves as teachers. Circle time was regarded as a potential enhancer for pupils’ self-esteem, but not for teachers, in that it impacted most strongly on pupils as learners, and not teachers as learners or teachers.

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

205

One teacher surveyed in the study stated that “the most important thing we can help children to achieve is a positive self-esteem.” This opinion was reflected in a consensus, also to be found in educational literature, and was in turn confirmed again in the results of this survey—the agreed view is that as an overt part of personal development and a less overt aspect of learning, self-esteem and selfconception really matters! It is also the case, however, that an improved pedagogy for applying notions of self-esteem and self-conception in teaching and learning is required. This needs to be more than a re-presentation of humanistic psychology, but rather the further application of a theory of self-reference, as espoused by Mruk (1999), and the further development of a theory of the self as a learner (Rayner, 1999). A challenge for the primary school involved in our study, and many other schools like it, is to find a way forward for capitalizing on the value of circle time, while developing additional approaches to personal development and the teaching of an emotional curriculum. The aim should be to further extend ways and means of teaching learners how to learn, while encouraging teachers to perceive that learning is an integral part of teaching, and that teaching and learning are ultimately bound up with perceptions of the self. REFERENCES Adams, R. S. (1970). Perceived teaching styles. Comparative Education Review, 509, 39– 40. Bandalos, D. L., Yates, K., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (1995). Effects of math self-concept, perceived self-efficacy and attributions for failure and success on test anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 611–623. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bennet, N. (1976). Teaching styles and pupil progress. London: Open Books. Burns, R. B. (1979). The self-concept in theory, measurement, development and behaviour. London: Longman. Cooper, P. (1990). Turn on, tune in and co-operate. An interpersonal skills approach to emotional and behavioural problems in schools. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 8(2), 83–95. David, K. (1993). Pastoral care in schools. In T. Charlton & K. David (Eds.), Managing misbehaviour in schools (pp. 147–166). London: Routledge. Department of Education and Employment. (1997a). Excellence for all children: Meeting special educational needs. London: HMSO. Department of Education and Employment. (1997b). Excellence in schools. London: HMSO. Docking, J. (1993). The management of behaviour in primary schools. In V. P. Varma (Ed.), Management of behaviour in schools (pp. 167–186). London: Longman. Elton Report. (1989). Discipline in school: Report of the committee of inquiry chaired by Lord Elton. London: HMSO. Galloway, F. (1989). Personal and social education in the primary school. London: Pergamon Educational Productions.

206

Studies of Self-Perception

Gilmore, J., & Dymond, P. (1994). The co-operative classroom. London: Links Educational Publications. Gurney, P. W. (1988). Self-esteem in children with special educational needs. London: Routledge. Harter, S. (1979). Perceived competence scale for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press. Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives in the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 275–385). New York: Wiley. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the support scale for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press. Harter, S. (1987). The determinants and mediational role of global self-worth in children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary topics in developmental psychology (pp. 219– 242). New York: Wiley. Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem. The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 87–116). New York: Plenum. Harter, S., & Mayberry, W. (1984). Self-worth as a function of the discrepancy between one’s aspirations and one’s perceived competence: William James revisited. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press. Housego, E., & Burns, C. (1994). Are you sitting too comfortably? A critical look at circle time in primary classrooms. NATE—English in Education, 28(2), 23–29. Hull, J. (1990). Classroom skills—A teachers guide. London: David Fulton Publishers. Kelly, B. (1999). Circle time: A systems approach to emotional and behavioural difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 15(1), 40–44. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172. Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., & Debus, R. (1991). Subject specific components of academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 331–345. McKay, M., & Fanning, P. (1992). Self-esteem (2nd ed.). New York: MJF Books. Mosley, J. (1988, June). Some implications arising from a small scale study of a circle based programme initiated for the tutorial period. Pastoral Care, 10–16. Mosley, J. (1991). All round success—A practical guide to enhancing self-esteem in the primary classroom. Swindon, UK: Wilkshire LEA. Mosley, J. (1992). Value added pacts. Special Children, 55, 8–12. Mosley, J. (1993). Turn your school around. Cambridge, UK: LDA. Mosley, J. (1996). Quality circle time in the primary classroom (Vol. 1). Cambridge: LDA. Mosley, J., & Tew, M. (1999). Quality circle time in the secondary school: A handbook of good practice. London: David Fulton Publishers. Mruk, C. (1999). Self-esteem: Research, theory and practice. London: Free Association Books. OFSTED (1993). Achieving good behaviour in school: A report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools. London: HMSO. Oosterwegel, A., & Oppenheimer, L. (1993). The self-system: Developmental changes between and with-in self-concepts. London: Erlbaum.

Self-Esteem and Circle Time

207

Pidduck, R. (1988). Self esteem, love and dignity. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 6(3), 153–161. Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1969). The Piers-Harris children’s self-concept scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Rayner, S. G. (1999). The self as learner: A critical analysis of cognitive style, learning strategies, and self-perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK. Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing selfperceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 631–638. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 51–97). London: JAI Press. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept: The Internal/External Frame of Reference Model gender differences in self-concept structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 546–554. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model at different levels of math and verbal self-perception. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 161–184. Weare, K. (2000). Mental, emotional & social health: A whole-school approach. London: Routledge. White, M. (1991). Self esteem, Pack A. London: Daniels Publishing. White, M. (1992). Self esteem, Pack B. London: Daniels Publishing. White, M. (1993). Developing self esteem. In K. Bovair & C. McLaughlin (Eds.), Counselling in schools: A reader. London: David Fulton Publishers. Womersley, S. (1993). Reflections upon techniques used in a school group work programme. Therapeutic Care and Education, 2(1), 222–234.

9 CAUSAL LINKS BETWEEN ACADEMIC INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, SELF-ESTEEM, AND UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE BY TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS E. Makri-Botsari

INTRODUCTION During the last three decades, numerous researchers have highlighted the importance of motivational variables within the school setting. Low school performance and dropouts are attributed by the teachers to the lack of motivation at school, and most classroom teachers would like to find ways to enhance students’ motivation to learn. A number of studies have revealed that students who are intrinsically motivated show significantly higher school achievement (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Drew & Watkins, 1998; Fontaine, 1994; Gottfried, 1985, 1990; Harter & Connell, 1984; Haywood & Burke, 1977; Lloyd & Barenblatt, 1984; Makri-Botsari, 1999a; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985), higher intellectual ability (Gottfried, 1990), and more favorable perceptions of their academic competence (Gottfried, 1985, 1990; Harter, 1996; Harter & Connell, 1984; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Makri-Botsari, 1999a; Watkins & Hattie, 1990). Recent studies focusing on the interrelationships between motivation to learn and lifelong learning (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Fleming, 1997; McCombs, 1991; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Venkatesh, 1999), have further

210

Studies of Self-Perception

revealed that intrinsic motivation to learn is a necessary condition for promoting lifelong attitudes and skills and leads to sustained behavior. Fenzel (1990) asserts that maintaining an intrinsic motivation for schoolwork is an important element in keeping adolescents in school and in promoting lifelong learning. The question of how academic intrinsic motivation can be increased has been of central interest to educators and psychologists. Toward this end, teachers and teaching practices are considered to be critical factors that can contribute to the development of an intrinsic interest in school learning. According to the theory of Carl Rogers (Rogers, 1951, 1959, 1961; Rogers & Dymond, 1954), each person has a basic need to maintain, protect, and enhance his/her self-concept, employing the sole motivating power, that of self-actualization. So individuals are always motivated. This view of motivation as an everpresent internal drive, which can be dispensed in a variety of ways, is a tremendous advantage for the teacher. For Rogers, teachers are most likely to direct this motivation to educational ends and personal development if their students see them as caring, supportive, and accepting. The need of the individual for acceptance, in the form of positive regard by others considered to be significant in his/her life, has been put forward by many historical psychologists (Adler, 1927; Erikson, 1963; Fromm, 1955; Maslow, 1962; Rogers, 1951, 1959, 1961). This need has its roots in the infant years, when the little child tries to attract positive interest from others and acceptance of his/her experiences, as he/she lives through them. It is difficult for a child to feel emotions of worth and happiness, if he/she has not experienced positive acceptance at the beginning of his/her efforts (Hurlock, 1978). The need for positive regard from others is closely connected to another basic need of the individual—the need for positive self-esteem. These two needs are prerequisites to self-actualization. For Rogers (Rogers, 1951; Rogers & Dymond, 1954) it was not only acceptance but unconditionality of acceptance, in the form of unconditional positive regard, that was an essential prerequisite to high self-esteem. Rogers defined unconditionality as the complete acceptance of the individual along with his/her experiences and behavior, without any critical assessment or possessive and autocratic tendencies. When there is an environment of good intentions and unconditional acceptance, the individual learns to express him- or herself freely. The three main conditions of good effective counseling, as presented by Rogers (empathy, unconditional positive regard, and genuineness), would also seem to be valuable traits for all teachers to develop in their interactions, academic and otherwise, with pupils. Burns (1982) argues that teachers should create within the classroom an environment of mutual support, trust, caring, openness, and empathy. Harter (1996) demonstrated that particular teacher attitudes associated with the transition to junior high school—such as teachers’ greater emphasis on grades, their greater focus on competition, and decreasing personal interest in students— impact perceived scholastic competence, which in turn, influences motivation.

Causal Links between Motivation, Self-Esteem, and Acceptance

211

Caine and Caine (1994) assert that relationships in the classroom have an impact on achievement because the brain does not naturally separate emotions from cognition, either anatomically or perceptually. In their opinion, learning occurs only when what is being presented is meaningful enough to the student that he or she decides to actively engage in the learning experience. For Glasser (1998), people often judge an activity as meaningful when it satisfies deep-rooted human emotional needs. If learning in school meets students’ emotional needs, they will more likely engage in the learning and school becomes a motivating place to be. Several research studies have revealed that teaching practices that focus not only on the development of skills, but also on the enhancement of students’ selfesteem, are more effective (Burns, 1982; Davis & Brember, 1999; Lawrence, 1996; Rogers, 1961; Staines, 1958). Along a similar line, a number of researchers (Brief & Aldag, 1981; Gecas, 1982; Korman, 1970; Schlenker, 1985; Shamir, 1991; Sullivan, 1989) have developed models of self-concept-based motivation. For these researchers, as the selfconcept continues to develop, it becomes a source of motivation.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION The scope of the present study was to address issues concerning the construct of academic motivation in Greek junior high school students. More specifically, the study examined the causal relations between sex, academic intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, and unconditional acceptance by teachers. Acceptance, in the form of positive regard, is generally defined as the extent to which others like one as a person and treat one with respect, as a person of worth. In the study, a distinction was made between conditional and unconditional teacher acceptance. Conditionality was defined as the extent to which the student feels that acceptance is only forthcoming if he or she meets high teacher standards or expectations. It is contrasted with unconditional positive regard in which one is accepted by one’s teachers even if one doesn’t meet all of their expectations. This distinction was made in view of the findings that reveal that conditionality is actually not perceived as supportive (Harter, 1995, 1999; Harter, Marold, & Whitesell, 1992).

METHOD Sample Three grade levels were sampled in this cross-sectional study representing grades 7 through 9. The sample consisted of 300 students (140 boys, 160 girls) from junior high schools in Athens, Greece. There were 99 seventh graders, 107 eighth graders, and 94 ninth graders, with approximately an equal number of boys and girls in each grade.

212

Studies of Self-Perception

Measures Academic Motivation The instrument used to tap academic motivation was the Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom (Harter, 1981). This scale identifies five aspects of classroom learning along an intrinsic to extrinsic continuum: preference for challenge versus preference for easy work assigned, curiosity or intrinsic interest in the subject material versus getting grades/pleasing the teacher, independent mastery versus dependence on the teacher, independent judgment versus reliance on teacher’s judgment, and internal criteria for success/failure versus external criteria for success/failure. The question format of this instrument directly pits these orientations against one another, as alternative choices. Sample questions for the preference for challenge and the curiosity/interest subscales were: (a) Preference for challenge: “Some students like hard work because it’s a challenge” but “Other students prefer easy work that they are sure they can do”; (b) Curiosity/interest: “Some students do their schoolwork because the teacher tells them to” but “Other students do their schoolwork to find out about a lot of things they’ve been wanting to know.” The respondent is first asked to decide whether he/she is more like the children described in the first, or the second, part of the statement. After making this choice, the subject is then asked to check one of the two boxes on the side of the statement selected, indicating whether that description is only “Sort of True for Me” or “Really True for Me.” Items are scored 4, 3, 2 or 1, where a score of 4 represents the most intrinsic orientation and 1 represents the most extrinsic orientation. For the purposes of the present investigation, only the first two subscales (preference for challenge and curiosity/interest) were considered. The factor analysis of the students’ responses to the questions of these two subscales yielded a unique factor, which was labeled as academic intrinsic motivation. The reliability of this factor (Cronbach’s α coefficient) was found equal to .83. Bear in mind that although this variable is labeled in terms of the intrinsic pole, represented by high scores, a low score on this variable designates an extrinsic orientation. Self-Esteem Self-esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Each of the 10 items in this instrument is intended to measure global selfesteem in the sense described by Rosenberg (1979). For Rosenberg, when we characterize a person as having high self-esteem, we mean that he or she has selfrespect, considers him- or herself a person of worth. Rosenberg claimed that we should acknowledge the individual’s general sense of self-worth in addition to one’s self-perceptions across the specific domains of one’s life. Rosenberg has argued that, in all likelihood, the various discrete elements of the self are weighted, hierarchized, and combined according to an extremely complex equation of which the individual is probably unaware.

Causal Links between Motivation, Self-Esteem, and Acceptance

213

Accordingly, Rosenberg has taken the direct approach to item-writing, assuming that each individual, in developing his or her self-esteem, has consciously and/or unconsciously taken into account and weighted a unique set of varying personal importance. The items are scored on a 4-point scale. Their reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficient) was found equal to .77 Unconditionality and Level of Teacher Acceptance In order to assess students’ perceived level of support, we created a scale whose items tap the support that students feel they are receiving in the form of acceptance, interest, and guidance from their parents, classmates, and teachers. The validity and reliability of this scale was documented in a previous study (MakriBotsari, 1999b). For the purposes of the present investigation, only the teachers’ acceptance subscale was considered. The items of this subscale tap the extent to which students feel their teachers like them and treat them as a person of worth. One of these items reads as follows: “Some students have a teacher who treats them like a person of worth” but “Other students don’t have a teacher who treats them like a person of worth.” The reliability of the items assessing the perceived level of teachers’ acceptance was found equal to .67. Unconditionality of acceptance by parents, classmates, and teachers was assessed by another scale whose items tap the extent to which acceptance is conditional on students’ meeting significant others’ standards. The validity and reliability of this scale was also documented in a previous study (Makri-Botsari, 1999b). For the purposes of the present investigation, only the teacher unconditionality items were considered. These items tap the extent to which students feel their teachers treat them as a person of worth and give them initiative, even when they don’t meet all of the teachers’ expectations and/or do not have a high school achievement. One of these items reads as follows: “Some students have teachers who find it hard to treat them as a person of worth when they don’t have a high school achievement” but “Other students have a teacher who treats them as a person of worth even when they don’t have a high school achievement.” The reliability of the items assessing the unconditionality of teacher acceptance was found equal to .62. RESULTS In order to explore the role of unconditionality of teacher acceptance, we divided the students of the sample into those who feel that their teachers accept them unconditionally and those who perceive that their acceptance is conditional. Out of the 300 students who participated in the study, 90 reported that their teachers accept them unconditionally. The self-esteem, perceived teacher acceptance, and academic intrinsic motivation mean scores for these two groups of students are presented in Table 9.1.

214

Studies of Self-Perception

Table 9.1. Teacher Acceptance, Self-Esteem and Academic Intrinsic Motivation Mean Scores by Level of Conditionality of Teacher Acceptance Level of Conditionality of Teacher Acceptance

Unconditional acceptance Conditional acceptance

Teacher Acceptance

Self-Esteem

Academic Intrinsic Motivation

3.46 2.84

3.34 3.07

2.87 2.57

As it can be seen in Table 9.1, the students who feel their teachers accept them unconditionally report higher levels of self-esteem and acceptance, and have a more intrinsic academic orientation than the students who feel that their acceptance is conditional [self-esteem: t(298) = 4.920, p < .001; acceptance: t(298) = 5.764, p