Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Self-concept and locus of control : a study of intermediate and secondary students with learning disabilities Charlton, Janice Mary 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 C42.pdf [ 5.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097254.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097254-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097254-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097254-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097254-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097254-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097254-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097254-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097254.ris

Full Text

SELF-CONCEPT A N D L O C U S  OF C O N T R O L :  v  STUDY  OF INTERMEDIATE AND WITH L E A R N I N G  SECONDARY  STUDENTS  DISABILITIES  by JANICE B.  A  SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  OF  OF  ARTS  FACULTY OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology a n d Special Education)  We  accept this thesis to the required  THE  1977  FOR THE DEGREE  MASTER  (Department  CHARLTON  E D . U n i v e r s i t y of S a s k a t c h e w a n ,  THESIS THE  MARY  UNIVERSITY  standard  O F BRITISH  OCTOBER,  © JANICE  as conforming  COLUMBIA  1987  MARY CHARLTON,  1987  In  presenting  degree  at  this  the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department publication  this or of  thesis for by  his  or  that the  her  representatives.  It  this thesis for financial gain shall not  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  for  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  DF.fitt/ft1l  requirements  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head  of  copying  my or  be allowed without my written  ABSTRACT This  study  involving  disabilities facets  investigated  of self-concept  influences  self-concept of  were  it  internal  of  locus at  was also  self-contained  first  related.  with  have  placement  Self  by  relationship  on  with  learning  between  examined.  self-concept  for  in  and general  and  internal  four  Second, and  self-concept  the  locus of  number  of control  education  assistance centre;  of years  (intermediate  at  in  grade  a  level  for  verbal  Academic  Responsibility success  placement  centre  age  and III.  Achievement  locus  special  learning  class;  self-concept  academic  self-concepts  found between locus  locus  of  and  for  tended  and and  variables  (resource  room);  first placement self-contained or  and  in a special  secondary  grade  locus  of  internal  for  control.  found The  academic  academic  u  academic  was  self-concept  academic  academic  self-concept  were  self-concept  tended  to be positive.  relationship  general  control  of control  self-concept  verbal self-concept  significant  internal  academic  Internal  Intellectual  The  a  math  D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire  the  failure.  placement  self-concept,  statistically  internal  the  scores  for  self-concept,  indicated that general  relationship was control.  the  students  repeated.  Math  to be negative  negative  gives  present  The data  self-concept  by  special education  class;  No  level  of control were  spent i n learning assistance  level) and grades  not  First,  variables  general  measured  control  of years  education  locus  placement  measured  control  age  secondary  areas.  academic  self-concept,  Questionnaire;  number  and  major  and  investigated.  Academic  were:  two  special education  control were  locus  intermediate  43  between  sample  tended  to  have  locus of control. A positive  and i n t e r n a l academic  failure  success.  academic  A  was  positively  positive  locus of correlated  relationship  was  found  between  mathematics  self-concept  of students h a v i n g negative  years  spent  control. A g e at relate  in  the  verbal self-concept,  self-concept i n both  The age of first placement of  and  program  first placement  in a  influence  self-contained  either  special  education  class  was  centre  and the  self-concept  special education  to self-concept or locus of control. T h e number  self-contained  the  majority  areas.  in a l e a r n i n g assistance did not  with  of y e a r s  number  or  locus of  class  did not  a child spent  inversely  related  to  internal  locus  control  were  in a  academic  locus of control. No  differences  intermediate An academic internal  in  self-concept  and secondary inverse  locus  relationship  of  academic  grade  control. locus  or  level  was  After  of  found  between  students.  found  failing  of control, but  between  grades  repeated  and  internal  students  still  had  an  indicated  an  only  one  grade,  failing  two  or  more  usually  e x t e r n a l academic locus of control. Limitations  of this  study  were  the  problems  l e a r n i n g disabilities and classification for the As influence control  a  result  special  of  this  education  study,  it  was  programming  of l e a r n i n g disabled students  purposes concluded  has  should be  nature.  iii  with  on  the  of a  definition  of the  term  of p r o g r a m m i n g . that  further  self-concept longitudinal or  study and  of  the  locus  of  ethnographic  T A B L E OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF T A B L E S  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  vii  C H A P T E R I: INTRODUCTION B A C K G R O U N D TO T H E P R O B L E M S T A T E M E N T OF T H E P R O B L E M D E P E N D E N T VARIABLES General Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Locus of Control INDEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S P U R P O S E OF T H E STUDY R E S E A R C H QUESTIONS  .,  1 1 3 4 4 6 6 6 7 8  C H A P T E R II: BACKGROUND OF T H E STUDY INTRODUCTION LEARNING DISABILITIES A F F E C T I V E CHARACTERISTICS Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept General self-concept Academic Locus of Control Self-Concept and Locus of Control SCHOOL HISTORY V A R I A B L E S SUMMARY  11 11 11 15 18 20 23 24 29 31 32  C H A P T E R III: METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF T H E SUBJECTS OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS Learning Disabilities Dependent Variables: Independent Variables: INSTRUMENTS Self Description Questionnaire III Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire Scoring DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES D A T A ANALYSIS HYPOTHESES  36 36 37 37 38 39 41 41 43 43 44 45 46  C H A P T E R IV: RESULTS A F F E C T I V E CHARACTERISTICS Self-Concept and Locus of Control SPECIAL EDUCATION P L A C E M E N T  50 50 50 57  iv  C H A P T E R V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Affective Characteristics Special Education Placement SUMMARY LIMITATIONS OF T H E STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR F U R T H E R R E S E A R C H CONCLUSIONS  68 68 68 76 79 83 84 87  REFERENCES  90  APPENDIX A: S E L F DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE III  110  APPENDIX B: I N T E L L E C T U A L A C H I E V E M E N T RESPONSIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE  122  APPENDIX  130  C: PERSONAL STUDENT R E C O R D INFORMATION  v  LIST OF TABLES Table  1: Self-Concept,  Table  2: L o c u s of Control, Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire  53  3: P e a r s o n Product-Moment Correlations, and Locus of Control  54  Table  Table  Table  Table  Self Description  Questionnaire III  51  Self-Concept  4: P e a r s o n Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients, P l a c e m e n t and Affective V a r i a b l e s  Special  58  5: T-test, Intermediate L e a r n i n g Disabled Students and L e a r n i n g Disabled Students 6: P e a r s o n Product-Moment Correlation and Affective V a r i a b l e s  vi  Coefficients,  Education  Secondary  Repeating  65 Grades 66  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  1: S t r u c t u r e of Self-Concept  Figure  2: Classification Scheme for the Achievement  5 Perceived  D e t e r m i n a n t s of  Behaviour  26  Figure  3: A g e at  F i r s t Placement i n L e a r n i n g Assistance  Figure  4: Total N u m b e r  Figure  5: A g e F i r s t Placed i n Self-Contained  Figure  6: Total N u m b e r  Centre  59  of Y e a r s in L e a r n i n g Assistance  of Y e a r s  Special Education  in Self-Contained  vii  60 Class  Special E d u c a t i o n  62 Class  63  C H A P T E R I: INTRODUCTION  B A C K G R O U N D TO T H E P R O B L E M Affective world and  characteristics  around the  us.  At  reactions  reflect  first  how  we  of others.  we  learn  feel  about  about  ourselves,  ourselves  G r a d u a l l y we form  a  through  others,  concrete  a  crucial  contribute (Bloom,  to  element  the  1976).  self-concept Stanton,  -  A  and  learning  of effort  learner  important and  affective general  academic  theme  Research  students who are  has  in the  component  programming  for  characteristics  of  on  as  the  forth  (Hamachek,  the  to  1978;  because  learn  related  a  learner.  This  they  specific  to  task  schooling  Shavelson,  Katkovsky,  Hubner  and  the  and  possible  secondary  relationship  affective  development  cognitive  and  of the  students study  students  psychomotor  1983). Deshler (1978)  levels. A second between  special  &  must  consider  examines  the  the being  functioning of overlooked points  all  the  relationship  out  purpose  of this  education  study  programming  is to  the that  salient between  self-concept and locus of control for a sample of learning disabled students at intermediate  are  Crandall,  on exceptional children questions  learning disabled, and generally has  disabled  what  1976).  (Silverman & Zigmond, learning  puts  are,  characteristics  achievement  characteristics  literature the  emphasized  classified  and  locus of control (Crandall,  of special education  affective  a  1978; Lefcourt, 1976; Phares,  persistent  influence served.  Two  academic  1976)  1965; G i l m o r ,  amount  influencing  the  experiences  concept of who we  we c a n and cannot do, and ultimately, our general w o r t h . Affective are  and  the  examine  variables  and  self-concept and locus of control. In  the  learning  disabilities literature  1  there  is  evidence  that  students  in  2 special  education  self-concept having  and  1979;  differences and  for  external  locus  an  educational  •Boersma,  placements  difficulties  Rogers  in  systems'  uncertainty  continues  recognizes  that  (Morrison,  find  because  to  among  into  learning  the  needs  1985). for  learning  hindered  believe  by  e m p i r i c a l evidence  of  the  that  are  learning are  agreement  normal  of  are  not  being  necessary  to  not that  intellectual,  a  a  and  which  met  in  accomodate  among  homogeneous  students physical,  who  social,  primarily  i n one or more  and school  group are  the them  disabilities  differ  the  learning  process  learning  individuals are  performance  Controversy  definition  disabilities  1983).  i n p a r t , to  a  of  Haskett,  & Cashion,  is  Definitions  L e a r n i n g disabled  from  labelled emotional,  characterized  academic  subjects  1976).  learning the  and  classes  (Kistner,  students.  children  disabled  some  have  1976; Ross,  c a n be compensated be  &  students i n regular  Identification  of certain  programs  is  causes  1980).  arrangements  disabled  of  the  not  Chapman  disabilities  disabled  negative  students  1979;  studies can be attributed,  regarding  Kavale,  There  Manifestations researchers  learning  learning  b y a significantly below grade-level & King,  the  Boersma,  labelled  district.  of  exist  &  c u l t u r a l backgrounds.  (Chalfant  for  no  more  with  Pearl,  locus of control between  placements  special  entry  Students  primarily and  Others  &  MacMillan  for  district  1985).  to  classroom,  districts.  & Saklofske,  identification  (Chapman  criteria  &  and  a  compared  Bryan  findings  disability  regular  when  1987; S i l v e r m a n & Z i g m o n d , 1983; W a t t s  Contradictory school  control  have  1978;  special  W h i t e & Robbins,  of  disabilities  (Ames,  i n self-concept  students  learning  disabilities  learning  for or remedied. development  are  problems Research  of negative  varied,  but  experienced  most by  educators  these  individuals  suggests that remedial  efforts  affective  in  characteristics  and  may  students  3 with  learning  persistent research special  disabilities,  school  failure  indicates  that  education  Schumaker,  characterized  individual  attention,  seem  to promote  Clark,  students may  Warner  frequently  those  (Covington  setting  Alley,  especially  &  Beery,  identified develop  &  students  as  1976; learning  positive  Clark,  1980).  Special  close  student-teacher  positive affective  feelings  have  disabled  history  1978).  and  education  relationships  in  placements  all  of  a  (Deshler,  of academic  Schumaker,  of  Other  placed  characteristics  experiences  (Deshler,  a  Hamachek,  affective  b y positive reinforcement,  and  who  are  success,  which  would  Alley, Warner,  &  l e a r n i n g disabled  in  1980). An  relation  investigation  to  special education  development portions control  of the  of  affective  placement  attitudes  and  characteristics may  of the  suggest how placement  perceptions.  Before  professionals  of instruction time to developing positive self-concept affect  we  should  learning  disabled  affective  factors  learning  situation  affective  development  intermediate  student. could  and  know With  be  for  such  about a  students.  students  secondary  the  affective  description  incorporated  these of  more  into This  with  grade level; at  remedial study  learning the  as  an  relates to dedicate  characteristics  strategies  to  provide  disabilities  present time  major  and i n t e r n a l locus of  information  should  the  of  base,  improve  the then the  data  on  the  are  at  the  who  such d a t a are  scarce.  S T A T E M E N T OF T H E P R O B L E M This and  study locus  disabilities variables  investigates of is  have  control  two  of  examined.  areas.  F i r s t the  intermediate Secondly  on self-concept  and the  relationship  secondary influences  a n d locus of control are  between  level special  students  the  with  education  investigated.  self-concept learning placement  4  D E P E N D E N T VARIABLES The  construct  self-concept  are  formed  are  influenced by  attributions  through  is  explained  experience  with  reinforcements,  as  and  perceptions  of  interpretation  evaluations  by  self.  These  of one's  environment  significant others,  for one's behavior (Shavelson, H u b n e r & Stanton,  perceptions  and  and  one's own  1976).  General Self-Concept The  aggolmerate  dubious Wurf,  use  practice, 1987;  General  in  term  light of the  self-concept,  most  recent  &  Shavelson,  1985;  self-concept  is  considered  to  of  designed  to  measure  specific  self-concept  general  self-concept  reaches  a  responds  the  the  Marsh  combination  whether  of  several  facets  of  facets. scale  this process  Shavelson,  1985).  literature  Shavelson,  be  or  Hubner  with  (Marsh  the  &  subject  keeps  a  Shavelson,  considers  running  tab  is simply the  In  facet,  this  hierarchy,  as  a or  study  apex  of  the  from  the  items in the general  sum  & over  some  in  facets,  self subscale  he  1,  facets feels  with  of a self-concept  weighted  example,  on  are to a  of self-concept  and  about  and  himself,  is u n k n o w n is  s u m depending on process  considered the  a  specifically  What  complex is  with  For  a  1976).  is superordinate  a weighted  more  is  (Markus &  Stanton,  that  that  1976).  self-concept  Figure  &  scales  various how  area  either  1985).  Stanton,  other  general  shown  on  self-concept,  i n the  measureable  self-concept  accordingly (Shavelson, H u b n e r  of  general  a relatively unidimensional construct  decison, or  importance  even  general  to  (Marsh be  self  at  & the  resulting  questionnaire.  5  FIGURE STRUCTURE  OF  1  SELF-CONCEPT  General Self-concept  F r o m : M a r s h , H . W . and Shavelson, R . J . (1985). Self-Concept: hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, p. 114.  Its  multifaceted,  6  Academic Self-Concept The  term  academic learning  academic ability.  self-concept  An  experiences  as  he  receives  significant others.  person  a  of  enthusiasm  to  a  i n d i v i d u a l ' s definition  capability from evolves  refers  sense and  many  ability  motivation  of  over  his  of  a  their  series  performance  of and  to the information others provide, a  self-worth  a  self-perception  develops  judgements  I n response  of academic  (Chapman & Boersma,  of  person's  person  which  invests  helps in  determine  future  the  degree  academic  tasks  1980).  Locus of Control The  construct  describe they  locus  whether  receive  are  of  control  delineated  individuals believe that the  consequences  of  by the  their  Rotter  (1966)  positive and own  has  been  negative  actions  or  are  that  he  used  to  reinforcements due  to  factors  beyond their personal control. Internal  locus of control refers  instrumental refers  to a person's  i n obtaining rewards  to the expectancy  from  that rewards  chance, luck, fate or a n important  expectation  his environment. are  is i n control or  E x t e r n a l locus of control  out of one's control and determined  by  person.  INDEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S The the  independent system  identified  by  independent  variables  of m a r k e r Keogh,  are  classified  variables  for  Major-Kingsley,  variables are  as  school history  research  i n the  Omori-Gordon  employed in this  research:  &  field Reid  variables,  according to  of l e a r n i n g disabilities (1982).  The  following  7 1. T h e age  at w h i c h a student  assistance  2. T h e number in  the  3. T h e age  in the  first receives special education  l e a r n i n g assistance  of years  a student  learning assistance  at w h i c h a student  centre  (resource  room).  receives special education  assistance  centre.  is first placed i n a self-contained  class  for l e a r n i n g disabilities.  4. T h e number  of years  a student  is enrolled i n a self-contained class  for l e a r n i n g disabilities.  5. T h e present  p r o g r a m the  intermediate  for  are  in Chapter  presented  the  is enrolled i n : either  an  level class or a secondary level class.  6. T h e number of grades  The rationale  student  a student  selection of these  repeats.  variables  and  their  operational definitions  III.  PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purposes 1.  To  of this study are  three-fold:  provide  aid  understanding secondary  data  to  teachers  of learning disabled  grades.  and  administrators  individuals i n  the  in  intermediate  their and  8 2. To extend  the  between  self-concept  the  current  theory and  and  locus  knowledge of  about the  control  of  relationship  learning  disabled  individuals.  3.  To  examine  whether  special  education  programming  has  an  influence on self-concept and locus of control; and i f it does to suggest further  areas of study.  R E S E A R C H QUESTIONS The of  literature intermediate  relationship relationship  available on and  secondary  between between  learning  associated  the  assistance with  also examines  the the  students  self-concept affective  special education placement, a  l e a r n i n g disabled  and  not  locus  a  have  development  has  of  is  been  self-contained  been  relationship between  affective  repeating  used  to  A  sample  examine  Examinations  and  of  Are  A N D LOCUS  OF  there significant relationships  School  failure  characteristics.  grades i n school and  is  often  This  study  self-concept  CONTROL between:  a. academic self-concept and general b.  self-concept?  academic self-concept and i n t e r n a l responsibility for academic failure?  c. academic self-concept and i n t e r n a l responsibility for success?  the  locus of control, and  and locus of control.  1. S E L F - C O N C E P T  the  special education class or i n  inconclusive.  of negative  contradictory.  control.  variables, self-concept  i n either  centre,  students  academic  9 d. academic  self-concept  and academic  e. general self-concept and  locus of control?  academic locus of control?  f. responsibility for academic failure and responsibility for  academic  success? g. mathematics  self-concept  SPECIAL EDUCATION 2. L E A R N I N G Are  and verbal  PLACEMENT  ASSISTANCE  CENTRE  there significant relationships  a. the  age  age  between:  a child  number  is  first  placed i n a learning assistance centre  the number  and  locus of control? of years a child receives instruction i n the  assistance centre and academic d.  and  self-concept?  academic c. the  PLACEMENT  a child is first placed i n a l e a r n i n g assistance centre  academic b. the  self-concept?  learning  self-concept?  of years a child receives instruction in the  learning  assistance centre and academic locus of control?  3. S E L F - C O N T A I N E D Are  SPECIAL  CLASS  there significant relationships  a. the  age  a child is  first  class and academic b. the  age  a child is  first  PLACEMENT between:  placed i n a self-contained special education self-concept? placed i n a self-contained special education  class and academic locus of control? c. the number  of years a child is enrolled i n a self-contained special  10 education class and academic d.  the  number  of years  a child is enrolled in a self-contained  education class and  4. P R E S E N T  academic  secondary  level subjects  a. academic general  c. academic  5. G R A D E S  special  locus of control?  PROGRAMMING  Is there a significant difference  b.  self-concept?  between  intermediate  level subjects  in:  self-concept? self-concept? locus of control?  REPEATED  Is there a significant positive relationship  between:  a. the  number  of grades repeated  and  academic  self-concept?  b.  the  number  of grades repeated  and  general  c. the  number  of grades repeated  and  academic locus of control?  self-concept?  and  C H A P T E R II: BACKGROUND OF T H E STUDY  INTRODUCTION The  review  and  characteristics  on the  of  the  affective  literature of l e a r n i n g  the  descriptive  role  and  importance  the  affective  then  integration  of  of  introduced and  the  variables interest  and  its  topics.  briefly  outlined.  for  in  is  and  younger  older students  this  study,  The  examined.  locus  of  possible relationship  are  are  findings reported,  discussed.  and  The Next  locus  examines concludes  characteristics  to placement  nature  considered.  that  chapter  control  the  Research  self-concept  literature The  First,  children are  i n school learning  discussed.  affects  self-concept  disabled students and their  following  of learning disabled  of affective  placement  the  on these variables  characteristics  are  education  data  with  disablilities are  characteristics  and  control,  deals  special with  of  of  an  learning  decisions.  LEARNING DISABILITIES The  creation  educators, pattern  and  proper  disabilities.  at  term  different  "learning  researchers  development  to debate the  have,  the  parents  of  learning  of  (McKinney,  The  debate  points  in  the  reflects  neurologically disorganized,  range  classifications  it  term  is  not  for  a  the  in  variously  described  number  11  the  hyperactive,  learning  of learning and  continue  prognosis  disabled as  by  exceptional  fields  and  learning  that  an  diverse  emotionally disturbed.  surprising  realization  present  that  handicapped,  and  large  fact  been  dyslexic, perceptually  umbrella  children  Researchers  the  past,  damaged,  an  some  reflects  definition, etiology, symptomology, diagnosis,  autistic,  become  that 1984).  retarded,  of  disabilities"  of  children  educationally  minimally brain With  this  disabled behavior  diverse  label  has  problems  12 (Chapman that  & Boersma,  the  on  the  psychologists,  theoretical  school boards,  fiscal  and  learning disability is more  Although  considerable  definition,  appears  that  agree  on.  who,  despite  difficulty  there  The  point their  acceptable  of  is:  within  diagnosis  point  that  there  are  intellectual,  It  the  learn through  when  of  of  the  learning  educational experiences early  literature  or  children and  and in  research  learning them  disabled  without  the  on  older  in  impact  field  students  of  the  regarding  compensatory disabled  will  the  the  to  disabilities,  it  researchers  classrooms  "normalcy",  learning disabilities, for and  sometimes  like  their  peers,  are  social  as  well as  the  instruction. in  have  1976; C h a p m a n &  role of affective  aid  can  the  factors  Descriptions of development  of  for this population.  i n the  elementary  that  respect  regular  social  children, just with  with  of l e a r n i n g disabilities focuses  diagnosis and remediation of l e a r n i n g disabilities i n elementary  Recent  be  school  labels often given  learning  concerned w i t h  interactions  information  planning remedial  characteristics  The  therefore,  their  the  may  field  teachers  cultural,  L e a r n i n g disabled  considerably,  of  other  fact  situations.  exists  and  indisputable  agreement  1976).  environment,  appropriate  the  still  symptomology, one  to people t h a n  is the  varies  perspectives  of education.  in academic  confusion  physical,  (Shepherd,  important  salient  further,  to agree that l e a r n i n g problems can be compensated  social beings; they  is  is  legal  1980). B u t teachers and researchers,  also seem  physical  even  in some aspects of school learning (Chalfant & K i n g ,  Boersma,  remedied  etiology,  and  departments  to children who experience difficulty  the  research  incidence of l e a r n i n g disabilities i n school populations  depending  term  1980). C o m p l i c a t i n g the  reflects  school  their  the  progress  learning  fact  that  through  disability being  m a i n l y on  school children.  children  identified  as  programs  devised  for  substantially  altered.  13 Learning  disabled  hampered  by  problems;  they  school  and  disabled  &  their  in  enter  disability.  continue jobs.  young  situations  individuals  to  a  having  continue  disabilities  Sheldon,  1984).  concomitants  difficulty  (Bryan  &  Emotional  Bryan, and  a  common  major  for  focus  learning  (Bryan  &  Negative  Bryan,  simply  affective  difficult  are  behaviors  l e a r n i n g problems evidence social Gaier,  that  people  of  vocational,  Blalock,  1982;  academic  are  numbers  still  out  of  learning  and  Horn,  social  O'Donnell  as  presence  ascertain which  disabilities The  Pearl,  are  are  implications of  Hazel,  are  Sherman  commonly  research  during  predominant  to  experience  Bryan  frequently  whether  they  secondary  w i t h learning  of  emotional  Schumaker,  problems  1985).  1977;  variables  as  social and  individuals  social perception, well  the  reported  &  the  children last  conclusion is that relatively  Donahue;  &  low  1980;  ten it  social  Gresham,  1979).  to  cause the  w i t h l e a r n i n g disabilities, the  and  motivation the  learning  frustrations 1985).  disabilities experience  1977; Siegel,  secondary  linked  & Saklofske,  i n impulse control a n d  (Gardner, W a r r e n & G a r d n e r , The  primarily  young large  grades  social skills of l e a r n i n g disabled  learning  (Black, 1974; Rogers  students  adjustment, 1977)  to  in  disabled  1982; Serafica & H a r w a y ,  is  when  1977,  1981;  of learning disabilities. The  (Dudley-Marling & Edmiaston,  it  not  post-secondary,  social  years  but  in  to investigate  been  acceptance  are  reported  Peters,  have  is  have  secondary  1983).  Researchers learning  and  disabilities  difference  studies  (Ackerman, D y c k m a n &  Vitulano,  intermediate  Learning  make  Some  adults  the  disability  that  or  accompany  Nevertheless,  there  is  significant problems  in  (Griffin, ability to  1971;  Rosenberg  tolerate  &  frustration  1974).  emotional  disturbances  in  many  learning  14 disabled  populations  inferiority  (Wilgash  discouragement, and  is &  Some  parents  or  Patrich,  frustration,  complicate the  1968).  supposedly  total  rejection,  disabled  which  result  1982).  may  It  and  adjustment  learning  teachers  the  of  is  suggested  failure  of the  students  feelings  can  of  that  contribute  to  years  produce  l e a r n i n g disabled believe  inadequacy  and  of  despair,  emotional  overlay  individual  (Clements,  they  have  disappointed  negative  affect  (Bryan  their  &  Bryan,  1981). Little disabilities  research  cope  exists  with  their  that  investigates  relatively  low  learning disabled students over-estimate ego  defensiveness  evidence their  that  peers;  (Serafica be  children they  strangers  to  learning  are  &  &  disabled  a  likely  1979).  Bryan,  Harway, child  as  researchers  characteristics group failure 1980;  are  the  1977; 1979).  less  in  school  Watts  experiences  &  are  major  status.  Bruininks  social status, w h i c h  do  not  chosen  personality  as  One  study and  &  found more  their  attributes is  or  are  disturbed  among  playmates apt  teachers,  1981;  parents  to and  Gresham,  perceive  than  to  consistent  more  peers,  Donahue, that  found  popularity  characteristics  Bryan  he  There  enjoy  learning  (1978)  co-workers  disabilities by  Pearl,  with  their  their  siblings  1971). that  unifying  & Saklofske,  examined  Cashion,  be  acceptable  argue  of children (Rogers  to  learning  (Owen, A d a m s , Stolz & F i s h e r , Some  their  disabilities  Negative  with  social  children  lack of social perceptiveness.  learning  less  children  (Bryan  Serafica  than with  & Harway,  attributed  1982;  rather  how  1983).  by  a  There  academic dimension 1985). number is  of  an  Affective  and  reactions  that  effect  affective  heterogeneous to  (Chapman  agreement  a profound  negative  otherwise  of authors  some  of learning disabled children have  failure  success &  Boersma,  prolonged on their  and  failure affective  15 development  (Bryan &  Pearl,  1979;  Shelton,  1977;  investigation is the  m o t i v a t i o n a l pattern of the  account  students  how  attribution  theory,  academic  in  and failure  the  and  part,  construct  Major-Kingsley,  by  their  how  feeling  they  of the of  self-concept  have  Literature  reflect  begun  and  about  in  to  locus  of  the  a  the  in  of  few  into to  improve  failure  own  are  academic  & Barke,  1982).  functioning, focuses  mainly  school-age studies  children  of affective  (Keogh, status of  ( S i l v e r m a n & Z i g m o n d , 1983). awareness  the  to  and  their  Buenning, F a r m e r  growing  have  some  According  required  success  causes  conflicting results  control  effort  academic  elementary  1982);  Under  performance.  given to affective  O m o r i - G o r d o n , Reid,  has  academic  interpret  attention  l e a r n i n g disabled adolescents  self-concept  their  (Tollefson, T r a c y , J o h n s e n ,  The majority on  explain  1979).  learning disabled, w h i c h takes  students' willingness to put forth the  performance  determined, success  the  Thomas,  of  instruction  of  students (Bendall, Toffefson, F i n e , 1980; Serafica & H a r w a y ,  the  importance  learning  disabled  1979).  A F F E C T I V E CHARACTERISTICS Affect affective  arising  affective  and interactions  child's affective During their  how is  and  we  part  characteristics  the  most  peers as  early they  of  are  people  in  something.  growth social  formed  as  of  the  social force  which  (Mead,  result  development is  1934).  of e v e r y d a y  1973). N e x t to the i n shaping  and  a  of  social  Early  in  experiences home,  the  maintaining  the  1970).  years,  learn what  The  self,  contexts  (Khan & Weiss,  (Purkey,  school  about  the  important  characteristics the  feel  developing  w i t h other  school is perhaps  from  to  characteristics  phenomenon, childhood  refers  students  begin  capabilities they  to  distinguish  possess and  how  themselves these  are  16 different beliefs  from  their  about  peers  their  (Kifer,  abilities  influence  achievement-related  experiences  influence  individual  learning;  comparable  aptitudes  Bloom  (1976)  states  school  learning  and  which  a  learner  1975).  learn  affective  put  their  may  the  achieve  characteristics they  necessary  about and  These  even  and  because  forth  behavior  1976).  attitudes  achievement  will  both  (Nicholls,  sometimes that  C h i l d r e n ' s feelings  why  differently a  and  interpretations  attitudes  explain  are  themselves  towards  self,  persons  with  (Messick,  crucial  help  to  determine  effort  to  learn  a  of  1976).  component  in  the  to  extent  specific  learning  task. Children's failure  in  there  are  high  and  (Bloom, are  affective  school  are  differences low  reactions  likely in  to  achievers,  achievement.  the  influence  which  result  students begin to accept  views about  are  develop  successful  usually  experience  1975).  Eventually,  behaviors next  task,  Jones,  new  based  1977).  rendered tasks  in  failure  affective  learning  tasks,  ineffectual,  to  i f the  child  and  success  motivation  and  academic  tasks  on  number  1976;  in or  and  of  years  learning the  failures,  underachieving  (Covington & B e e r y , 1976; H a m a c h e k ,  dimensions academic emerge,  affective  1976; the  who  responses  Kifer,  for  (Bloom,  hampered,  who  affective  prophecy  fulfilled  children are  1978).  school  while those  become  student's  becomes  negative  in  abilities. Students  Covington & B e e r y , of  between  accomplishments  their  or  behavior;  unsuccessful  characteristics,  turn,  develops  and  unsuccessful  outcomes  success  help  successful  themselves  and  continuing  states a student's personality  (Bloom,  these  Attempts  the  positive affective  do not  on previous  effort  with  of  of successful  of  academic  expend  he  histories  experience  their  increases  concurs;  of  A s patterns  generally  the  willingness to  1976). W h i t e (1980)  partially  to  and to  the 1976; even  school  17 The  work  of  Ellis  (1962)  self-destructive  emotional reactions  of  expectations  beliefs  beliefs  irrational  illogical the  or  and  interpretations  nature  negative  of  their  affective  education with  certain  negative  about  suggests  they  are  the  evidence  assignment  results  examining  settings  have  Elliott,  1977;  characteristics  specific nature  certain the  than  way and  be  schools  be  are  with  time  support  students to have  same  those  maladaptive,  children, because to  developing  placement  allows the  during  (Jones, the  in  child  school  time.  on children's affective  of  more  special  to  associate  The  possible  development  has  1977; M e y e r o w i t z , 1962),  but  expectation  disabled  negative  Other  population  by  that  special  concomitantly diminished self-worth.  learning  1962).  disabled  affected  others  for some  of  calls  childhood  vulnerable  organized  placement  clearly  of  Ellis  that  positive.  may  not  situations.  result  more  placement  the  b y the  may  Meyerowitz, in  engendered  handicap,  not  found  suggests  learning  i n stigmatization and  studies  (1977)  Therefore  concern of educators does  Grieger  of events.  i m p a c t of special class  a  &  are  have  The  children  been  i n adults  self-perceptions  settings.  Ellis  they  characteristics  Children's  and  children  affective  studies  (Battle,  have  1979;  in  special  characteristics found  Towne  Some  education  (Calhoun &  positive  Schurr,  class  affective &  Joiner,  1972). Increased has  spurred  sensitivity  on the  settings.  Wittrock  affective  variables:  1.  What  are  to  research (1986)  the  special education  the  role  into the  suggests  affective program?  or  motivation  affective  two  in  cognitive  variables of importance  questions  motivational  has  that  relate  consequences  to  of  the  performance in learning analysis  placement  in  of  a  18 2.  H o w pervasive particular  The  answers  may  be  stable  are  the  affective  consequences  as  they  relate to the  and  improving  useful  in  understanding  positive  attention  and  education  settings,  learning  reinforcement,  close  student-teacher  could  disabled  disabled  children  enrolled  in  have  a  students.  could  special  experiences  a  vary  That with  programs.  is,  of  the  the  and  educational  success,  associated  on the  affective  number  Presently  academic often  effect  the  cognitive  population  settings.  relationships,  cumulative  l e a r n i n g disabled  the  of students placed i n special education  The  of limitations i n  area?  to these questions  performance  of  and  individual  with  affective  characteristics  characteristics  of years available  the  of  students  research  special  in  learning  have  the  been  area  is  inconclusive. This self-concept  study and  is to examine special  is  limited  to  the  examination  of  two  affective  locus of control. A s indicated previously, the the  education  relationship placement  between  variables  A t t e n t i o n is now directed t o w a r d  those in  a  affective sample  intent  variables  of  characteristics,  learning  of this  and  study  a number  disabled  a discussion of each of these major  of  students.  variables.  Self-Concept Self-concept,  broadly  perceptions  are  environment evaluations  defined,  formed  (Marsh and  own behavior  &  is a  through  experience  Shavelson,  reinforcements  (Shavelson, H u b n e r  by Shavelson, H u b n e r  person's perceptions  & Stanton  by  with  1985).  They  significant  & Stanton, (1976)  as  and are  others, 1976).  follows:  of h i m  or  her  self.  These  of  one's  interpretations especially  and  influenced  attributions  for  Self-concept is further  by one's  defined  19 1.  It  is  mutifaceted  they 2.  It  have  is  to  English  people  about themselves  hierarchically  moving  3.  i n that  categorize  and relate  organized,  inferences  about  with self  the  self-concept  is  perceptions  in  self-concept becomes  stable,  amount  these categories of  subareas  and M a t h e m a t i c s ) , then to inferences  General  vast  but  as  increasingly situation  to one  another.  behavior  (for  about  of information  at  example:  the  base  academic  -  self i n general.  one  descends  specific and  as  the  hierarchy,  a consequence  less  stable. 4.  5.  Self-concept  becomes  infancy  to  It  both  has  may  increasingly  multifaceted  as  the  individual  moves  from  adulthood. a  describe  descriptive themselves  and  an  evaluative dimension such  ("I  am  happy")  and  evaluate  that individuals  themselves  ("I  do  well i n M a t h e m a t i c s " ) . 6.  It can be differentiated  One possible representation Most basis,  (b)  early use  methodological response  to  conceptual  studies  from other  constructs  these  structure  are  criticized  (Shavelson,  criticisms of  because  the  (a)  instruments,  Hubner  researchers self-concept  the3'  &  Stanton,  have and  self-concept non-academic matter  areas  which  Hubner  contains  self-concept. and  &  then  Stanton two  Academic into  major  propose areas:  self-concept  specific  (c)  to  interpretations  (1976)  areas  is  a  within  clear use  Wylie, validate  of  theoretical  inappropriate 1979). both  the  In the  instruments  multifaceted  turn a  5.  1986).  academic in  a  1976;  sought  achievement.  1, page  lack  and  designed to measure it (Bryne, 1984; B r y n e & Shavelson, Shavelson,  academic  of this model is shown i n F i g u r e  psychometrically . inferior procedures  such as  model  self-concept divided  subject.  into  of and  subject  Concomitantly,  20 non-academic  self-concept  divided  more  specific  implies  that  into  self-concept situation  specific  academic  ability  is divided facets. the  into social and p h y s i c a l self-concepts,  and  According  model  closer  to  the of  each  facet  should be  more  closely related  of academic  achievement outcomes Thomas  in  school,  (Brookover, & Erickson,  ability and  is  Erickson  &  of  to  part is  Joiner,  this  hierarchy,  academic  the  achievement  most in  Brookover,  of  more  self-concept  longitudinal study  influential  1967;  al.,  Therefore,  of self-concept  more  et  the  self-concept.  A n earlier  the  therefore  Shavelson  base  becomes  ability i n social and p h y s i c a l situations. self-concept  to  then  of  than  argues  to that  closely linked  terms  of  LePere,  to  academic Hamachek,  1967).  Academic Self-Concept Academic self-concept refers ability  to  achieve  to the  i n academic  evaluative definitions an individual holds of his  tasks  as  compared  with  others  (Brookover et a l . , 1967). E v a l u a t i v e definitions form as perceptions his  own  of the judgement  self-perceptions  considered  to  be  1967; M e a d , children  is  critical  to  The  development  overall personal  the  relationship  self-concept  students,  and  of  develops  parents  provide  self-concept as  a  to  function  regarding  At  social  because of difficulties they various  stages  in  learning  of  positive  be  school  along  (Purkey,  susceptible  level to  is  (Coopersmith,  who w o r k w i t h  information  with  self-concept  adjustment  individual's  encounter a  the  of a n individual's  his abilitj',  achievement  the  1977), learning disabled students m a y  self-concepts  and  of a  1934). O f special concern for professionals  academic  (Bloom,  a result  of significant others regarding  of ability.  i n his school class  school-age  1970).  Since  teachers,  other  of  achievement  lowered  academic  i n school. task,  marks  and  grades  are  assigned  and  made  public  to  perceptions  accumulate,  a  develop.  performance  has  If  confidence,  but  children  consistent been  i f performance  Self-perceptions factor  in  school  1967)  conclude  average  of  that  school  a  positive but  it  self-concept  of ability, or academic  especially children  vulnerable have  performance,  a  (Haarer,  produce  more  achievement  suggest  is  logical  academic  with  their  Saklofske,  studies  Kifer,  findings,  their  normally 1985).  1980).  scores  that  from  approached  and  these,  necessary factor  of this  because,  limiting  al.  (1965,  for  at  in  itself  necessary  least in  condition  by  l e a r n i n g potential and  actual  students.  academic  the  instruments  appears  the  some  self-concept that  academic  relationships  are  subscales  between  school  range  from  Results  1978).  compare &  linked b y  on  subscales.  (Boersma  are these  employ  & Winnie,  students  definition,  of  found  academic  there  functionally  B r o o k o v e r et is  studies  studies have  with  1977).  l e a r n i n g disabled  because  self-concept  peers  a  in school have been  Other  Most  on  academic  achieving  Apart  self-perception  is a functionally l i m i t i n g factor i n  estimated  possibly  instruments,  on  are  sufficient  self-concepts  non-significant to highly significant ( M a r x Some  and  students develop a belief  as  w i t h m e n t a l l y handicapped  Boersma,  the  a  self-concept,  It  act  t h a t because  1975).  and  then  1964).  not  1965;  self-concept  tasks  self-concept  and achievement  &  future  may  self-concept  ambiguous  (Chapman  general  low  as contrasted  authors  of  to  performance-related  achievement  Gotlieb,  is  discrepancy between  Academic  used  They  students.  &  academic  school success.  most  ability  (Brookover  performance,  for  of  As  to certain types of learning (Bloom,  determining  achievement  pattern  parents.  been inadequate,  academic  success  to  satisfactory,  has  in their inadequacy in respect  and  learning  Chapman, to  be  few,  disabled children 1973, if  Rogers  any,  &  studies  22 dealing specifically  w i t h academic self-concept i n l e a r n i n g disabled intermediate  secondary  level  students.  the  time  l e a r n i n g disabled  more  the  more  academic  experiences  studies  than  model  Shavelson,  instrument  academic  Shavelson,  been  scales  reason  inadequate  and  level  of for  academic  & that  encounter.  results  a  significant  been  O'Neill,  1984),  Stanton  (1976),  is  which  used.  facets  As  of  &  is  more  based  well,  verbal  Shavelson,  and  found w h e n  distinguished from,  (Bryne  failure  generally indicate  have  subject-specific  that  assistance  Academic  has  &  self-concept  likely  self-concept.  achievers  self-concept can be  seems  special education  self-concept  High  This  population  not tapped  used  Self  in  are  on  (English)  but  1986;  the  studies  correlated Marsh  before  on academic self-concept i n the  instruments  often  for m e a s u r i n g  Description academic  this  Questionnaire, self-perceptions  has study,  the  developed for e l e m e n t a l  psychometric development  instrument  &  not but  been the  used  however, of  1979). The offers  intermediate specifically  subscales  in  construct.  past The  school children or  (Wylie,  of self-concept w i l l offer information about  i n other  Research  absense of studies  inadequate  the  non-academic facets is  will  (Marsh  or non-existent  assessing  students.  disabled  general  been  utilize  development instrument  III  indicate  for the  t h a t have  adults,  they  it  1984).  One has  and  that  Hubner  self-concept and mathematics with,  without  low achievers. These  the  this  do  school achievement.  Description Questionnarire  using  students  self-concept,  development of a lower academic  Self  of  of academic  experiences  indicate  positive relationship to positive self-concepts  terms  failure  lead to the  Overall,  In  and  a  promising  or  secondary  with  both  recent  a  learning  academic  and  these students  that  instruments.  self-concept  has  shown  that  achievement  measures  are  23 substantially verbal  correlated  self-concept  mathematics  are  1985).  simultaneous  verbal  &  with  Parker  (1984)  a student who is below average but  comparison.  Depending  individual  who  m a y have  The external  better  on  the  self-concepts,  not  than  a n above  skills, two  self-concept  to  correlation, a n d the joint operation  comparison  an  internal  processes, in  of both  process  will  the  a n external  this  mathematics.  lead to a positive correlation between internal  &  F o r example,  and English,  those  but  (Marsh  discrepancy  of reference.  and  areas,  correlated  English  of  self-concept  subject  the  frames  strength  or even  the  are  attribute  skills  relative  will  specific  i n both m a t h  math  a n average  comparison process  mathematics  negative  has  Mathematics  their  self-concept  of i n t e r n a l a n d external  comparison,  and  self-concept.  correlated  and  Marsh  operation  academic  highly  self-concept  Shavelson,  consider  with  will  verbal  lead  lead to s m a l l ,  to  near  a  zero  correlations.  General There  self-concept  are  students, can to  but  the  be almost be  Parker &  numerous  more  findings  evenly  of  are  divided  negative ' about  & Jorjorian,  Gaier,  studies  general  ambiguous.  between  self-concept  Studies  those  themselves  1973; Rogers  1977; B o e r s m a ,  the  than  that  of  assessing show  their  learning  general  &  Maguire,  self-concept  l e a r n i n g disabled children  peers  (Black,  & Saklofske, 1985; Rosenthal,  Chapman  disabled  1974; L a r s e n , 1 9 7 3 ; Rosenberg  1979) a n d those  that  do not  (Lincoln & C h a z a n , 1979; S i l v e r m a n & Zigmond, 1983; S w a n s o n & P a r k e r , 1 9 7 1 ; Winnie,  Woodlands  positive  relationship  finding  in  the  &  Wong,  between  learning  1982; K i s t n e r , H a s k e t t , self-concept  disabilities  White,  and achievement  research  (Black,  Robbins,  has been  1974; L e v i t a n  a  1987).  A  consistent &  Kiraly,  24 1975).  The  cause  available  which  success,  a  and  indicates  negative  relationship  is  self-concept  is  effect  what  and  vital  remains  comes  self-concept  apparent a  sequence  first,  or  gives  influence  unclear. a  school  some in  N o clear  positive  failure,  credence  improving  the  a  academic  computing,  learning  disabled  and,  as  a  thinking, listening, or  students  result,  it  is  can  generally be  General just it  self-concept  school related seems  academic  possible difficulties  taps  factors. that  low  expected  vulnerable to lowered self-concept  talking.  a  i n one  that  (Morrison, broader  whereas  or  these  enhancing  performance  more  school  reciprocal  that  (Purkey,  i n reading,  academic  writing,  achievement  school subject  younsters  will  is  be  of  areas  especially  1985). range  E x t r a p o l a t i n g from  general  The  or  strong  theory  1970). M a n i f e s t a t i o n s of learning disabilities include difficulties spelling,  evidence  self-concept  but  to  cut  self-concept  of  the will  academic self-concept  feelings  studies not  and  attitudes  than  outlined i n this review,  necessarily  be  w i l l be affected  affected  by  by problems i n  school learning.  Academic The  Locus of Control  affective variable examined i n this study  locus of control is based which a  an  refers rewards  to  (1954)  social  individual believes his o w n actions  significant  continuum  on Rotter's  is locus of control. The construct of  influence  ranging the from  on  from  expectancy t h a t rewards  behavior.  internal  expectancy one's  his  that  one  environment. are  to  to be the  Locus  external is  in  cause  of control is control.  control  External  out of one's  l e a r n i n g theory:  locus  or  the  degree  to  of reinforcements  is  conceptualized  Internal  locus  instrumental of  control  in  refers  of  as  a  control  obtaining to  the  control and determined b y chance,  luck,  25 fate,  or an important  those  suggests  that those  with  external  locus  an  1972; M a c D o n a l d ,  control  differ  delay  in  have  more  show  academic  academic  relationship the  result  have  resist  between to  between  locus  of  memory  performance  internal  locus  he  skills  (McGhee effort  &  put  into  to  is the  attributional  theory  Weiner  (1972,  1976).  Drawing  the  Weiner's  model  Attributions  are  provides viewed as  a  synthesis  efforts  learning  of  to make  less  information, degree  to  of  control  and his  information,  (Morgan, seems  number  the  1986).  logical.  of studies.  academic  Locus  The  of  expected  achievement  successes and failures  stems are  the  likely to exhibit more initiative and more  1968).  If  and  the  student  outcome  performance  control  cognitive  he  and  more  sees  little  will  likely  task.  of achievement of  information  task  academic  locus  of  lesser  attempts  problems  children's  settings  show  with  learning  related  a  relevant  acquiring  understanding  on  have  locus  locus of control is associated  believes  into the  kinds  &  have  control  Crandall,  (Massari  and  in a  thereby  and persistence  approach  seek  w i l l be more  solving  m u c h effort  of  ways  activities,  various  direct  and  academic  the  for  chance  experiences,  control  of  from  people w i t h high i n t e r n a l  versus  influence,  that, i f a person  locus of control differ  number  social adjustment  tasks,  between  a  A high external  academic  One  in  skill  failure  in  relationship not put  better  and  of his o w n behaviors,  problem  for  1972).  internal  high r i s k - t a k i n g behavior,  assumption  persistence  control  subtle  achievement.  control is related  with an  1973). F o r example,  forget  performance  link  of  preference  to  behavior,  A  from  their  ability  environment, greater  in  decision m a k i n g ,  conforming  poor  (Massari & Rosenblum,  Research  Rosenblum, of  person  and  in  achievement  motivation proposed work  of  Rotter  motivational  sense of or to interpret  the  by  (1966), contructs.  causes of  26 events.  These  perceived  causes  are  responses, expectancies,  and  attributions  achievement  primary and  within  perceived  luck.  an  causes  According  to  stability,  Reed, Rest  & Rosenbaum,  Figure  behaviors  of  locus  of  context  model  A  determine  1986).  and  four  and  subsequent  that  ability,  perceived  there  effort, causes  of this  are  task  model  on four  difficulty,  represent  controllability (Weiner,  representation  affective  W e i n e r ' s w o r k focuses  suggests  outcomes:  the  control,  1971).  to  (Wittrock,  achievement  this  dimensions:  presumed  Frieze,  three Kukla,  is presented  in  2.  FIGURE CLASSIFICATION DETERMINANTS  SCHEME  2 FOR THE  PERCEIVED  OF ACHIEVEMENT  STABILITY  LOCUS  BEHAVIOR  OF  CONTROL  INTERNAL  EXTERNAL  STABLE  ABILITY  TASK  UNSTABLE  EFFORT  LUCK  DIFFICULTY  F r o m : W e i n e r , B . , F r i e z , I., K u k l a , A . , Reed, L . , Rest, S. & Rosenbaum, R . (1971). P e r c e i v i n g the causes of success and failure. I n E . E . Jones (Ed.), A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g the causes of behavior. N e w Y o r k : G e n e r a l L e a r n i n g Press, p. 6.  There self-perceptions behaviors  is  a of  of others  link  between  Weiner's  competence  are,  (Wittrock,  1986).  in  model and part,  a  C h i l d r e n who  educational  function have  of  practice, the  because  attitudes  difficulties i n  and  traditional  27 school  situations  tend  to  be  1971; M e y e r s & M o r r i s o n ,  self-blaming  for  failure  (Harter,  1974;  1980) and this k i n d of information has  instruction. D w e c k ' s work  for  position,  he  suggests  that  achievement  outcomes  to influences beyond their own control; that is they  Goetz,  are  children who  noncontingent  Tollefson  control is v i t a l l y  &  important  academic  locus of control are  they  ought  external  to  in  of  indicates  their  own  the  achievement  &  general  Rosenblum,  tests  relationship  with  and  1972;  grades  learning  investigations  (Chapman  &  1978;  Bryan  &  Donahue,  of  control  Pearl,  academic  locus  students  on  Katkovsky learning  the &  Crandall,  disabled  between  i n school, often  attribute believe  who  of  for learning  have  structured  locus  an  internal  l e a r n i n g situation;  And  students  in  who  highly  are  structured  reinforcements. has  1972;  school.  The  children, 1979;  suggested strength  Wu,  Hallahan,  have  found  disabled  is  that  (Lavoie  1975)  literature  however,  learning  as  have  academic  internal  & Adams,  measured  investigating  contradictory.  Gajar,  Cohen  significant and  success  Several  &  Tarver,  non-learning  consistently to  on that  differences  Responsibility Questionnaire  studies  attribute  of  program  achievement  Messer,  1980)  determination  methods.  academic  These to  highly  their  Achievement  1965).  children tend  opposing  students  with  Boersma,  Intellectual  the  academic  population  in  disabled  a  constant  locus of control is associated  Massari  that  learning  increase  that  of an  penalized in  control  within  state  structure  immediate and f a i r l y  Research  1976;  study  structure  situations w i t h  academic  Their  locus  (1980)  to the  students.  difficulty  is  1973).  Fine  disabled  have  helplessness,  w i t h their own behavior (Dweck, 1975; Dweck &  1978; D w e c k & Reppucci, Bendall,  learned  implications in  planning  that outcomes  on  MacMillan,  in  disabled (Crandall,  indicated external  that  causes,  28 (Fincham  &  Barling,  1978;  1971). A d d i n g to the using  the  Hiasma,  to  inhibits  the  Achievement  Responsibility  findings a  indicate  sense  development  of  internal  of i n t e r n a l  provided in a  that  education  education  class.  setting  guaranteed  for  an  they  locus  locus  s m a l l group  tasks  internal  was  no  different  but  they  had  (1975)  more  teachers  who  so  improve.  a  more  if  &  not detected  Questionnaire  Roundtree, this  pattern  (Adams,  frequently  1977;  than  the  that give  locus  external out  learning  of  locus  be  success found  group  reinforcement  disabled  student's  and  variables  relating  to  Special education  assistance  to  situations an  be  the  previous  a  special  non-competitive  success  and  locus  locus  of control Lawrence  encouragement  special  in  should,  unwittingly  relationship  the  self-contained  therefore of control  learning disabled  success.  and  in a  internal  that their  may  a portion of  instruction  exposed  before  for  all day  self-confidence  A n investigation w h i c h examines  control  evaluation  receive  for  control  ample  peer  while  setting  i n internal  control of  evaluation  room) or  failure  (1979)  control  external  to  adult  control,  of control.  students  than  & Boersma  of  self-assuring  or individual  likely  locus of control for  an  suggest  Therefore, are  failure. C h a p m a n  doing  Nowicki  have  positive  i n a l e a r n i n g assistance centre (resource  have  1976;  investigations  (1972)  promote  frequently  special  of  Chazan,  1976).  appears  day  &  ambiguity other  Intellectual  White's  is  Lincoln  and  for &  failure,  Winschell  reinforced  hoping  that  achievement  between  education  sample  academic  placement  by by will  locus seems  warranted. T h e literature poor as  academic beyond  indicates  abilities, then  their  control.  t h a t i f learning disabled students believe they it is likely  Special  that  education  they  programs  will for  v i e w successful students  with  have  outcomes learning  29 disabilities consider years  provide age  in  of  successful first  special  placement  education  locus of control w i t h i n In  the locus  students  showed  and  grade  between  of  levels.  the  as  consistent Given  a and  this  intermediate  an  as  for  those  education  possible  students.  programs  explanations  of  found  relatively e x t e r n a l  secondary  students,  the  No  and for  trend age,  locus  there  intermediate  contrasting  a  increasing  trend  to  non-learning disabled samples,  (1975)  developmental  and  alternative  Kifer function  students being more i n t e r n a l t h a n As  special  programs  population  control a  in  experiences  studies  number  of  differences  in  a l e a r n i n g disabled sample.  general  internal  academic  while  unsuccessful  with  be  the  a  secondary  level  students.  from  at this  age  difference  learning  disabled  an e x a m i n a t i o n of locus of control w i t h i n  of l e a r n i n g disabled students seems appropriate  greater  of control across should  level  results  towards  a  and  sample  time.  Self-Concept and Locus of Control So  far,  locus  investigations  of  control  of l e a r n i n g  rely  on  the  disabilities that  procedure  with  their non-learning disabled peers.  and  academic  performance  self-concepts,  expectations  ages  seven  are  significantly  children lower than  to  have  twelve.  different  months  locus  learning  disabled  findings  indicate  from  lower self-concepts,  performance three  Their  comparing  expectations. experience)  the  of  self-concept  learning  that  disabled  and  room  and  students general academic  achieving  children,  l e a r n i n g disabled children The  learning  disabled  locus of control orientations,  disabled  resource  the  examine  beliefs,  normally  achievers.  external  Learning  control  and  normal  more  in  both  Rogers & Saklofske (1985)  academic  of  of  examine  children  newly  programs  were  enrolled  and (less  significantly  30 different more  on  than  that  self-concept  of  may  have  the  Ackerman  variables  programming  differed before picture  of  intermediate &  Howes  (1986)  has  an  learning  affective  secondary the  results  on  data  into the  disabled  The  effect  pre-entry  entry  the  and  than  i n such programs.  locus of control. N o  accurate  students at  affective  experience  special  and  An  to  set  six months  indicating  and they  the  the  for  the  provide  affective groups  with  evidence variables,  are  provided  special education p r o g r a m .  characteristics  levels r e m a i n s  literature  children  in  the  of  learning  to be d r a w n .  area  suffers  disabled According  from  three  shortcomings: 1.  the  reliance on the  2.  the  restriction of research  3.  the e m p h a s i s  The  comparative  disabled within than  and group  the  studies where  on peer  variability  between  (Baumeister, learning  his  assumes  of the  1967).  classroom  may  control.  Bryan  influence  their  performance  Morrison  (1985)  and P e r l m u t t e r ,  characteristics  as  classrooms,  and  the  setting m a y be  the  match  important  population; this been  the  may  focus  of  are  found  of  (1977)  the  greater  classroom,  together, student's  describe  of  comparative  students  but  the  perception  learning  disabled  b y hostile forces, w h i c h  probably  self-concept  and  locus  Crocker, Corday & G a r s t e c k i (1983) the  be  mainstreamed  learning disabled  learning  issue  the  Bryan  measures  accurately  upon  being surrounded  on  of children w i t h  &  has  rely  non-disabled  mainstream  special class  that  constrain  to  obscures  l e a r n i n g disabled  students i n the  the  ability  which  Researchers  and  and  to m a i n s t r e a m e d  the  variability  disabled  ability  settings  subjects  group  p a r a d i g m i n l e a r n i n g disabilities research,  relations i n school.  paradigm  non-disabled  mainstreamed of  comparative  best place to study the  l e a r n i n g disabilities. W h i l e  of  control.  suggest  that  social and emotional  it is important  to k n o w  31 how  children  classrooms,  with  the  learning  self-perceptions  i m p r o v i n g their academic  SCHOOL  HISTORY  Students  are  "not  create  to  constitute 1985, the  p.  a  identified the  placement  as  children  learning  disabled  clean,  describable  neat,  a  for  research  he  typically  adapting  to  the  a  child  experiences  regular  handicapped possible  the  effects  children's  detrimental  placement  might have  have  retarded had  been  students  higher  Similar  Smith  & Rogers,  to  who  results  were  environment.  programs  are  of different  allowed to than  found  1978). These  (Mayer,  Concern and  with authors  of is  &  Kavale, classroom  possible  special  education  special  education  social  studies  1966),  problems  investigated  while  segregation  often  would  regular  of  in the  length of  others  have  expressed  stigmatization  (Caroll,  upon  the  regarding  the  special  education  development. configurations i n classroom (Morrison,  remain  those  Some  that  children i n relation to the  degrees  contradictory  scores  and  delivery,  in the  or  on student's affective effects  surfaces  service  MacMillan  academic  labeling  somewhat  self-concept  1967).  (Morrison,  recurring  self-concept.  In e x a m i n i n g the studies  regular  germane  children  some  different  effects  of  for  classroom  education  of  referred  in  special  purpose  formally  time  studied  in  more  is  of educable m e n t a l l y handicapped  1967)  others  be  categories  identification,  self-concepts spent  with  may  the  purposes"  assessment,  Before  services,  for  child's learning difficulty  referral,  begins.  these  along  performance.  population  of  of  get  VARIABLES  3). W h e n  process  disabilities  in  students  a  1985).  A  partially  who  were  that  study  of  integrated  mildly setting  segregated  (Caroll,  students  (Strang,  a duo  reference  academically handicapped hypothesize  placements,  allowing  32 group  for  social  inevitable  comparisons  negative  learning  comparisons  disabled  segregated  provides  students  special day  to  their  indicate  classes  these  students  higher  which  determinant  of h u m a n  exist  within  is t h a t  within  the  the  situation  investigators  children  the  need  to  either  peers.  spend scores  to  the  Studies  time  than  with  mainly  students  in who  is the  situational context  a long tradition of a s s u m i n g t h a t  (Morrison,  children are  alternative  (Coleman, 1983; Y a u m a n , 1980).  behavior  it takes place. Special education has  problems not  important  who  self-concept  spend time m a i n l y i n regular class placement An  an  nonhandicapped  that  have  students  MacMillan  &  Kavale,  placed i n . The implication  control for  or  look  for  educational options i n w h i c h l e a r n i n g disabled students are  in the  1985),  and  for s a m p l i n g  variability  across  the  placed.  SUMMARY Locus  of control refers  failure  are  described and  an  as  a set  seniors  level,  but  and  or  the yet  external  no  & Eberhart,  assumption recent  that  about  are  study  meaningful 1986). M a n y  achievement  meta-analysis  viewed as  is  that  desirable  findings  indicate  aspects that  strongly  of research  internal &  in  a  higher  the  study  including educators,  related  i n this  of an  of nonhandicapped high  achievement  individuals,  be  (Diesterhaft  locus of control achieved at on  can  or  A positive self-concept  a sample  effect  success  self-concept  positively correlated  with  internal  whereas  themselves.  of research  self-concept  students w i t h had  factors,  generally  majority  1978). A recent  self-concept  a  The  positive  found  (Keith, Pottebaum  1979),  i n d i v i d u a l ' s generalized expectations  of beliefs people have  1983; H i l l ,  school  made  internal  development.  of control  Gerken,  to  an  i n t e r n a l locus of control are  individual's locus  due  to  area  to  self-regard  found  only  have (Wylie,  a  small,  33 positive  average  correlation  between  the  two  constructs  (Hansford  &  Hattie,  1982). W e c a n conclude that there is little solid evidence concerning the the  effect  self-concept  variables are Eberhart research of  and  locus  of  control  not generally amenable  1986).  A  review  of  the  have  on  and  locus  knowledge i n this area  literature  of control. T h e  as  other,  because  such  to e x p e r i m e n t a l control ( K e i t h , Pottebaum indicates  c o m p a r i n g l e a r n i n g disabled children and  self-concept  each  extent of  it relates  that  normal  results  are  to intermediate  there  is  achievers  a on  inconclusive and and  body  & of  measures a  base of  level  students  learning  disabled  secondary  is lacking. The  literature  children  have  children  (Bryan  more  lower,  or  on  general self-concept small  research more  & Pearl,  consistent  The  and  evidence  negative,  suggests  self-concepts  that than  normally  1979; Serafica & H a r w a y , 1979). These  measures  of  academic  self-concept  (Winnie, Woodlands & W o n g , number  of  studies  than  differences  are  measures  of  on  1982).  comparing  the  self-concepts  of  disabled children v a r y i n g i n special education experience have produced and  inconclusive  results  c o m p a r i n g self-concepts of  success  in  self-concepts  than  Evidence  that  programming successful  unsuccessful indicated  Halechko,  1978;  Ribner,  1979). T w o studies  are  students  lacking, had  with  the  significantly  learning  inconsistent  1978).  Studies  v a r y i n g degrees  exception more  of  Murray  positive  general  students.  that  external locus of control t h a n Harway,  1979;  of l e a r n i n g disabled children demonstrating  remedial  (1978), who found  (Battle,  achieving  learning  disabled  n o r m a l achievers  children generally (Bryan & Pearl,  have  a  more  1979; Serafica &  indicate t h a t l e a r n i n g disabled children have  a  more  34 e x t e r n a l orientation for successful academic experiences there  were  no  experiences  significant  (Chapman  investigations  & Boersma,  suggested  able  to  than  measures  discriminate  that  the  1979; P e a r l ,  measures  between  studies  disabled students  education  between  learning  of  groups  Bryan  academic  disabled  n o r m a l achievers, for  & Donahue,  locus  and  academic  of  normally  failure  1980).  control  but  are  Some better  achieving children  of general locus of control (Tognetti, 1972; Tolor, Tolor & B l u m i n ,  1977). N o n e of the learning  differences  than  assistance  reviewed compared i n relation to the  or  the  length  of  the  age  time  locus of control orientations of w h e n they  they  first  received  received special special  education  assistance. Another control  is  learning  failing  of  which  may  a  grade,  but  disabilities.  From  a  intermediate locus  factor  level  control  contribute  this  seems  to to  developmental  and  secondary  can  increase  level  both be  self-concept  neglected  perspective  students  on  our  knowledge  on  i n the  literature  the  measures the  in  and  the  locus  of  literature  of  differences on  between  self-concept  characteristics  of  and older  learning disabled people. T h e r e is an assumption locus  of  findings academic often  control  are  do  support  not  success,  associated  setting  could  disabled  students.  a  study  concomitants contention.  attention  of l e a r n i n g disabilities, but Positive  and  close  special education  settings.  c u m u l a t i v e effect  on the  Affective  learning disabled student This  that  individual  with  have  inevitable  focuses  characteristics  spends on the  that low self-concept and  may  reinforcement,  student-teacher Placement  affective vary with  in a  research  experiences relationships  of are  special education  characteristics the  external  number  of l e a r n i n g of y e a r s  a  v a r i a b i l i t y of students identified  as  i n special education p r o g r a m m i n g . w i t h i n group  35 l e a r n i n g disabled and to  a number  relationship sample between  of  documents their  of variables between  learning  the  related two  disabled  several school history  self-concept  to their  constructs, students, variables  and  locus of control, i n relation  school history. T h e self-concept  and and  in  turn,  affective  and  study  locus  investigates variables.  of the  examines control,  the in  a  relationships  C H A P T E R III: METHODOLOGY The first purpose  of this investigation is to examine the  affective  characteristics,  learning  disabled  whether  several  assistance,  self-concept  students.  The  school history  number  repeating grades,  of years  and  locus  of  second  purpose  variables,  such  a  student  receives  control,  of as  relationship between  this age  within  study at  is  first  a  sample  to  investigate  special  special education  two of  education  assistance  and  m a y be related to self-concept and locus of control.  DESCRIPTION OF T H E SUBJECTS Forty-three months  students  to  (41  17 years  male  and  3 months,  Twenty-eight  students  2 female),  as of J u n e (26  r a n g i n g i n ages from  30,  male  and  L e a r n i n g Disabilities Classes; fifteen  in  Secondary  the  were  two housed  secondary If  i n elementary  schools. The four  students  did not  were  bused  from  from  which  the  students,  L e a r n i n g Disabilities  and  is  live  schools and classes  i n the  their  home  sample  was  a  i n the  neighbourhood neighbourhood  "bedroom  to  in  the  two  study.  in  the  intermediate  classes were  the  two  for  Lower  classes  were  i n senior  district  programs.  school is  school.  services the  were  2  (all male) were enrolled  study  where  provides  community"  students  two secondary  involved  drawn,  female)  Classes. The  the  years  1987, participated in this 2  Intermediate  10  The  located  school  they  district,  approximately Mainland  of  school  year,  9,000 British  Columbia. These special used  as  class the  students for basis  had  students for  been  enrolled,  for  at  least  one  with  learning  disabilities. The  following  entrance  into the  intermediate  secondary  for learning disabilities:  36  and  criteria level  in  a  were classes  37 1. A v e r a g e or above  average intelligence based  Weschler Intelligence 2. M i n i m a l  academic  alternative 3. consent This as  sample  progress  i n the  the  population  severely learning disabled or as  learning  disabilities  is  a  generic  term  manifested  listening,  speaking,  reading,  writing,  learning  disability  may  a  conditions  (e.g.  by  sensory  significant  or  environmental  inappropriate  instruction,  and  these conditions or influences program  for  diagnostician discussed  at  learning and  (Chalfant  recommendations  a central screening  refers  (e.g.  for  to  in  a  and  are  often  categorized  heterogeneous  the  or  acquisition  mathematics with  retardation, cultural  factors),  & King,  each  who  concomitantly  mental  psychiatric  i n spite of  specific learning disability. The  reasoning  influences  disabilities  of students  that  occur  program  guardian.  difficulties  impairment,  disturbances)  the  additional district support;  having a  disorders  though  regular  student and parent or  reflects  of  Scale for C h i l d r e n - Revised;  teaching strategies and  of the  on scores  it  differences,  is  not  the  group  of  use  of  and  abilities.  other  social  was  placement  in  tested the  Even  handicapping and  emotional  insufficient direct  result  1976). P r i o r to placement  student  term  by  special  in  a  or of the  district  class  were  meeting.  OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS  Learning Disabilities The school  students  in  district's  apparent  ability  this  study  diagnostician to  learn  have and and  been  classified  demonstrate academic  as  learning  significant achievement,  disabled  discrepancies as  by  their  between  determined  by  38 standardized or  tests.  auditory  They have  acuity  n o r m a l or better intelligence, and  difficulties,  and  are  not  primarily  exhibit no  socially  or  items  from  visual  emotionally  handicapped.  Dependent Variables:  Academic This  Self-Concept  term  is  Description  made  operational  Questionnaire  developed  by  Marsh  &  subscales  or  facets  of  responses  ranging  developed for  III  (see  O'Neill  self-concept  from  definitely  This  Locus  use  and  A),  a  to  an  is  8-point  definitely  academic  measure  questionnaire  uses  academic  of  of  made  This  self-concept subscale  Self  self-concept  up  Likert-type  true.  the  scale has  of twelve scale  with  has  been  6 items  that  situations.  Self-Concept  variable  subscale  Locus  The  false  older students. T h e  the  Appendix  (1984).  assess self-concept in specifically  General  through  of the  of  operational  through  the  Self Description Questionnaire  control  choice  Katkovsky academic negative  made  eight  item  general  self-concept  III.  Control  of  forced  is  &  is  made  Intellectual Crandall,  intellectual achievement  operational  through  Achievement  1965;  see  achievement experience  followed  use  Responsibility  Appendix areas.  the  B), which Each  by  two  item  of  the  thirty-four  Questionnaire measures  (Crandall,  responsibility i n  describes  alternatives:  item  one  a  positive  or  attributes  an  39 internal  locus  of  responsibility two  score  subscores,  for failure  control; or  one  the  other  academic  for  an  locus  external  of  responsibility for  source.  In  control  score,  (I  success  (1 + ) and  addition tot),  to  the  one  a  total  scale  yields  for responsibility  (I-).  These Intellectual  two  measures,  Achievement  the  Self  Responsibility  Description  Questionnaire  Questionnaire,  are  III  described  and  in  the  Chapter  Three.  Independent Variables: The  following  file,  confidential  the  student's  group  information file,  report  cards, test  kindergarten  screening  confidential.  Information  referral  contained  individually reports), record  cards  child.  The  students used  other are  been  study  from  the  who in  forms,  (e.g. and  regarding  individual  the  educational  the  a  student's  that  permanent  and is  attendance  the  grades  placed  are  recorded  to collect the  data  of  from  on the  the  Basic  Skills  and  first  referred  for  special  and  the  reasons  confidential reports and  (e.g.  completed  and  the  kinds  record  files  of  cards.  is found  be  the  contain WISC-R  confidential.  are  pupil  for  files  that  school  various  to  personal  received  copies of  not  psychometric  records  contains  considered  The  deemed  attended, in  Test  was  file.  cumulative  medical information,  recommendation  results  file  reports  child  cumulative  test  some  Canadian  when  made  information  the  schools  have  i n the  scores  administered  and  registration  materials),  programming, are  garnered  and pupil record card. The cumulative  administered  education  was  for  Pupil every  programs The  form  in Appendix  C. The  age  at  which  a  student  first  receives  special education  programming  40 in a learning assistance year;  for  example,  between  age  Special  education  classroom;  in in  assistance  centre  where  a  5 years  study  the  students  refers  receive  student  where  age  at  students  learning  which  self-contained  associated  in  the  help  first  or  5 years  received  of  age  outside  education  their small  spanning  l e a r n i n g assistance  special in  groups  school. group  one  centre  category.  the  regular  experience In  the  was  learning  instruction i n  areas  regular classroom. received special education  F i v e months  or more was  p r o g r a m m i n g in  considered to be one  year  assistance.  The A  to  individual  The number  centre.  are  centre  i n the  a  grouped i n age  placed i n a  students'  they experience difficulty  in l e a r n i n g  purpose  were  assistance  of y e a r s  are  11 months  the  learning  l e a r n i n g assistance  class.  who  programming  this  generally  Students  a l l students  and  5  centre.  with  of this The  student  grouped  their  was  special education  are  disabled  a  for  class  instruction  l e a r n i n g disability.  students  is  first  placed refers  in  to  an  because  a  a  was  self-contained educational  of  A school that  considered  a  self-contained  placement  educational  is designed class  special  difficulties  specifically  placement  for  for the  study.  number  of  years  student  enrolled  in  a  self-contained  special  education class. The  grade  level  of the  assigned to each student 1. Intermediate  i n the  students  present  following  program.  One  of two  scores  was  manner:  Class for L e a r n i n g Disabilities  2. Secondary C l a s s for L e a r n i n g Disabilities The  sample  consisted of two classes  the  secondary  level.  The  intermediate  at  the  intermediate  classes  were  level  located  and  two classes  i n elementary  at  schools  41 and the secondary classes were located i n senior secondary schools. The  number  of  grades  assigned to each student  A  repeated  1. one grade  repeated  student  failed  a  spends  four  repeated.  One  of  three  scores  was  manner:  repeated  is considered to have grade.  student  i n the following  0. no grades  2. two grades  the  F o r the  years  in  purpose  the  considered repeating a  repeated  a  of this  primary  grade  i f his report  study,  division  if a  instead  student of  card indicates is  the  held  usual  back  three,  he and  it  is  grade.  INSTRUMENTS  Self Description This  Questionnaire III  questionnaire  Questionnaire  III  are  from  derived  Shavelson,  Self-Concept, Other  to  Shavelson's &  The  General  data  to  measure  1976).  collection.  subscales  Self-Concept, were:  Physical  Appearance;  Relations  Opposite  Sex  Peers;  Stability. T h e data  Relations  from  The to  With  has items  this  With  Parents;  13  &  Sex  Bolus,  subscales,  and  Peers;  Honesty/Reliability;  these subscales w i l l be used i n a later  were  subscale  the  Math  that 1982;  12  Religion  were  Solving/Creativity; Same  Description  of self-concept  of the  study  Self-Concept,  Problem  Self  (Shavelson  scale eight  The  dimensions  model  This  Verbal  administered  subjects.  thirteen  germane  subscales  Sports;  all  hierarchical  Stanton,  d u r i n g the  omitted.  administered  is designed  Hubner  administered were  was  Academic  Self-Concept.  Physical  Ability/  Relations and study.  With  Emotional  42 Each half  of  of the  which  used.  Students  from  1-definitely  12  are  negatively  respond  subscales,  Mathematics, validity  Stanton  Mathematics; Physical  Verbal on  model  Appearance;  Self  devised  for  instrument  that  are  the  With  factor  the structure  reliable, v a l i d  field  the  poor quality of the  and  on  several  The  (Marsh based  assumed  begin to check those  to  of  experience assumptions.  to  .93  and  approximately  statements  response  & O'Neill  with  options  vary  report  internal  (median  =.90)  for  support  the are:  for  Shavelson, Academic;  Physical  Peers;  were  (1984)  strong  subscales  Sex  items,  declarative  consistent  Same  to  III older  was  Relations  adolescent  & O'Neill,  that  selected  dimensions  upon  instruments facets  8  Solving/Creativity;  multiple  of self-concept comment  information  or  the their  Hubner General;  Ability/Sports; With  Opposite  Honesty/Reliability; and E m o t i o n a l Stability.  pre-adolescent  the  frequently  Problem  Parents;  .86  Academic,  Description Questionnaire  measures  well-developed  and  self-concept.  Relations  Sex Peers; Relations W i t h  is  of  6  76  true . M a r s h  interpretations  Verbal/English;  The  total  coefficients r a n g i n g from  based  (1976)  in  by  8-point L i k e r t - t y p e scale, the  false to 8-definitely  reliability  &  is represented  worded;  on an  consistency  construct  subscales  of  for  several  age  group.  reasons. This  self-concept;  1984), and  it  measures  has  It new a  dimensions  a  strong  theoretical model. Reviewers i n  one  of the  weaknesses  used  to measure  self-concept difficulty  that  with,  it. T h i s  learning by  using  within  the  instrument  disabled this  field  provides  students  measure  is  we  are can  43  Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire The  Intellectual  Crandall, one's  A c h i e v e m e n t Responsibility Questionnaire  1965)  own  was  administered  control over,  and  to  all subjects.  responsibility for,  (Crandall, K a t k o v s k y  T h i s measure  taps  intellectual-academic  failures. The Intellectual A c h i e v e m e n t Responsibility Questionnaire made  up  negative  of  by  one  and  another  else,  either items  other  forced  achievement  followed  the  34  academic internal  that  parent,  deal locus  with of  the  which  followed  stating  that  event  teacher,  measure the  half  items  experience  alternative  stating a  choice  by  the  peer  two  event  occurred  or  essentially  because  in  the  describe  caused  of the  responsibility  failure  control  responsibility for  score  (I  success  tot),  and  (1 + ) and  events.  b y the  separate  for failure  total  subscores (I-) are  and  positive stem  or is  respondent of  someone  One  success  A  in  instrument  Each  child's environment.  of responsibility for  for  a  behavior  child's acceptance  belief  successes  is a n  alternatives. was  a  &  half  events,  of the  internality  or  for  beliefs  in  from  this  obtained  instrument. Intercorrelations groups for  (third-,  older  between  fourth-,  1+  fifth-grade)  and but  I-  are  tend  to  children (sixth-, eigth-, tenth-grade).  = .69, for the  I+=.66,  it is one of the  and  for  the  non-significant increase  Test-retest  in  the  younger  positive  coefficients  I- = .74. T h i s instrument  most reliable and valid  for  was  for  age  direction the  chosen  I  tot  because  measures of academic locus of control.  Scoring On  the  reversed  Self so  self-concept.  Description Questionnaire that  for  a l l items  On  subscales  with  a  responses to negatively worded items  response 6  items,  of 8 scores  represented of  6  to  a 29  positive indicate  were  r a t i n g of a  more  44 negative  self-concept,  subscales  with  and scores  8  scores  items,  between  of 30 to  scores  40 and  in  selecting  locus  of  16  or  control  responses are  between  8  and  64 indicate positive  To obtain two groups students  48 indicate a more  that  fewer  were  indicate  and  negative  On  self-concept  self-concept.  divergent on the  internal  orientation  39  positive self-concept.  responses students  were  locus of control variable, considered  selecting  17  to  or  be  external  more  internal  considered to be i n t e r n a l in locus of control.  DATA COLLECTION P R O C E D U R E S The two affective a  morning  period  Questionnaire a  short  scales  was  break,  approximately  in  were June,  administered the  25  administered  to the  1987.  Intellectual  first  The and  administration minutes.  To  the  the  researcher  session  made  the  the  scales,  understand in each  the  subjects  responses  perseverative  while the  of  the  ensure  at  each the  were  the  responses. class  students  appropriate  In  the  was  w o r d i n g or  collection  parents  had  participate  i n the  of the  granted study,  the  of a  a  standardized  and  the  and  to  ask  particular  15 minutes.  After  Questionnaire  took  presentation  and  aloud to the  students  not  prior  to  appear the  clarification  statement.  to  Throughout  to comprehend;  did  for  Responsibility  questionnaires.  all appeared  times  school history  students  to  exhibit  administration i f the}'  O n several  did  of not  occasions  explanation. data  consent  researcher  Achievement  scales were read  for further  written  a class u n i t during  Description  instructions,  encouraged  class, students did ask The  initial  intent  Self  silently read  observed  as  it took approximately  circumvent potential reading problems both by  subjects  was  and  took the  place  in June,  students  given access  to the  had  1987.  Once  agreed  cumulative  to files,  45 confidential  files  and  pupil  record  cards  housed  p a r t i c i p a t i n g school. Information collected from  DATA Data to  collected on various facets  determine  whether,  constructs  Correlation  between  and  within  of  the  those  study  preferred explore  are  these sources  and  test  was  43 subjects,  the  equal to or greater  in  receives  number  of (5)  repeats.  test  constructs.  By  computing  office  of  each  complete.  first  years the  the  present  Pearson  in an  arbitrary  measures  of  confidence  assistance  hence  so for  related  to  and  direction of  two scales employed i n  study  was  correlation  statistical  centre;  assistance  (2)  i n the  the  enrolled  of class;  Product-Moment  (6)  (1) the  number  age  of  to  coefficient  is  For  .05  must  this be  level.  a child is  first  years  the  centre;  (3) the  age  special education classroom; (4)  the  l e a r n i n g assistance  self-contained is  were:  are  designed  significance.  statistically significant at the study  Pearson  correlation coefficients  the  the  of correlation  accurately.  magnitude  the  Product-Moment  coefficient  on the  between  P r o d u c t - M o m e n t Correlation Coefficient  variables of this  level  the  of relationship. T h i s  .3044 to be  student  Pearson  hypotheses  the  scale:  relationships  placed i n a the  existed  relationship is described more  a Pearson  than  learning  is  the  level  special education  student  population.  to  as  95%  independent a  disabled  relationship  used  hypothesized  study  placed  a  two variables. The scores  measured  at  The  degree,  C o r r e l a t i o n Coefficients s u m m a r i z e  to covariances  with  learning  two  interpreted  class;  main  of self-concept and locus of control i n order  what  were  relationship between  this  to  sets of scores,  Product-Moment  the  a  Coefficients  exploration  the  the  ANALYSIS  were  two  in  in and  Correlation  a  self-contained  the  number  Coefficients  special  of grades were  student  education a  student  computed  to  46 determine to  the  whether  academic  locus of control and  independent  variables.  relationships  are  whether  To  determine  intermediate determine  and if  the  differences  difference  responsibility for academic  alpha  level  of  .05  self-concept  was  used  are  to  related  determine  statistically significant.  secondary  a  An  academic  groups, exists  success  on  the  t-tests  between  affective  were the  used.  measures A  subscale  between  t-test  scores  and responsibility for academic  was on  the  done  the  to  IARQ,  failure.  HYPOTHESES A  relationship  is  considered  M o m e n t Correlation Coefficient  Self-Concept l.a.  and  Locus  of  statistically is at  the  significant  when  the  Pearson  Product-  a l p h a level of .05 or lower.  Control  There is no relationship between  academic  self-concept  and  general  self-concept. b.  There  is  an  inverse  relationship  internal locus of control for c.  There  is  a  positive  academic  relationship  internal locus of control for academic d.  There  internal e.  There  is  a  positive  relationship  between  academic  self-concept  and  academic  self-concept  and  academic  self-concept  and  general  self-concept  and  failure. between success. between  academic locus of control. is  a  positive  relationship  between  i n t e r n a l academic locus of control. f. There  is a positive relationship between  i n t e r n a l locus of control for  academic  failure and internal locus of control for academic  success.  47 g.  There  is  and v e r b a l  Special  an  is  ASSISTANCE  an  inverse  CENTRE  relationship  placed i n a learning assistance b.  There  placed  in  between  mathematics  self-concept  Placement  2. L E A R N I N G There  relationship  self-concept.  Education  a.  inverse  is  an  inverse  a  learning  between  centre  relationship  assistance  PLACEMENT the  age  and academic between  centre  the  a  child  is  first  is  first  self-concept.  age  and  internal  exist  between  the  the  learning  exist  between  a  child  academic  locus of  control. c.  A  positive  child  receives  academic d.  relationship instruction  relationship  There  is  an  CLASS  inverse  enrolled  assistance  the  l e a r n i n g assistance  is in  an a  FOR LEARNING  relationship  enrolled i n a self-contained There  of years centre  a and  number  of years  centre  and  a  internal  locus of control.  3. S E L F - C O N T A I N E D  b.  will  receives instruction i n the  academic  a.  in  number  self-concept.  A n inverse  child  will  inverse  between  DISABILITIES  the  age  special class and academic  relationship  self-contained  class  between and  the  internal  age  a  child  is  first  self-concept. a  child  academic  is  first  locus  of  control. c.  A  child  positive is  relationship  enrolled  in  a  will  exist  between  self-contained  the  special  number education  of years class  a and  academic d.  self-concept.  A n inverse  child  is  relationship  enrolled  in  a  will  exist between  self-contained  class  the  and  number  internal  of years  academic  a  locus  of control.  4. P R E S E N T  PLACEMENT  T-test significantly assessed a.  analyses different  assessed  Students  different  are  in  the  T  to test the  calculated  T score  following  hypotheses;  must  greater  be  to  than  be the  score.  the  academic  used  intermediate self-concept  level than  class  will  students  in  have  a  the  significantly  secondary  level  class. b.  Students  different c.  in  general  Students  different  the  in  intermediate  self-concept than the  academic  intermediate  level  class  will  students in the level  locus of control t h a n  class  will  have  a  secondary have  a  students i n the  significantly level  class.  significant^  secondary  level  class.  5. G R A D E S A the  REPEATED  relationship  Pearson  is  considered  Product-Moment  to  be  Correlation  statistically Coefficient  significant is  at  the  when alpha  level of .05 or lower. a.  There  academic b.  There  is  an  inverse  relationship  between  grades  repeated  and  relationship  between  grades  repeated  and  self-concept. is  an  inverse  49 general c.  self-concept.  There  is  an  inverse  academic locus of control.  relationship  between  grades  repeated  and  C H A P T E R IV: RESULTS This  chapter  terms  of  the  investigate results are  presents research  the  related  the  the  results  of  hypotheses  relationship  the  study  posed  between  in  findings  which  learning disabled intermediate  may  and  these  Three. locus  The  of  findings first  control.  dicussed. Concluding the  in  describing  level  students.  the  in  results  Next  are  aid  and secondary  describes  Chapter  self-concept  to special education placement  ancillary  and  the  chapter  characteristics  of  A F F E C T I V E CHARACTERISTICS  Self-Concept and Locus of Control The  Self  facets  Description  of  Questionnaire  self-concept:  academic  III  (SDQ) is  self-concept;  self-concept;  and verbal (English) self-concept.  self-concept,  mathematics  self-concept,  and  used  to  general O n the  verbal  measure  the  self-concept;  following  mathematics  six i t e m subscales,  self-concept,  a  score  academic of  30  or  higher indicates a more positive self-concept. On  the  ( S D = 10.48), (74.4%) the  which  scored  i n the  suggests the  math  a  sample more  negative  On  the  a  negative  more  subscale  the  negative  self-concept.  self-concept  range  sample  and  mean  was  Thirty-two  eleven  (25.6%)  24.28 students  scored  in  range.  mean  negative range  self-concept  self-concept  suggests  positive self-concept The  in  academic  and  for  math  self-concept seventeen  self-concept in math. (40%)  was  26.84  ( S D = 10.09),  T w e n t y - s i x students  scored  in the  (60%)  positive range  which scored on  the  subscale.  verbal self-concept subscale  50  the  mean  was  26.63  (SD = 8.37),  which  51 suggests ability.  the  sample  Twenty-seven  students (37%) On more  also  the  positive  Fifteen  students  scored i n the general  self-concept.  (35%)  of  the  have  (63%)  and  self-concept  range.  Table  The  Self  negative  scored  in  subscale mean  of  a  displays Description  (65%) the  self-concept  the  negative  of 40  sample in  scored  in  and  or  was  scored  means  of their  range  verbal self-concept  score  the  subjects  twenty-eight 1  a  positive range on the  forty-three  range  obtained on the  to  self-concept  self-concept  sample  tends  the  higher 44.91  and  verbal sixteen  subscale. indicates  a  (SD = 12.64).  negative  general  positive  general  the standard  deviations  the  Questionnaire.  TABLE  1  SELF-CONCEPT SELF  DESCRIPTION  SCALE  MEAN  NOTE:  STANDARD  DEVIATION  26.84  10.09  SELF-CONCEPT (positive n = 1 6 ) (negative n = 2 7)  26.63  8.37  SELF-CONCEPT (positive n = 11) (negative n = 32)  24.28  10.48  SELF-CONCEPT (positive n = 28) (negative n = 1 5 )  44.91  12.64  ACADEMIC  GENERAL  III  SELF-CONCEPT (positive n = 1 7 ) (negative n = 2 6 )  MATHEMATICS  VERBAL  QUESTIONNAIRE  M a t h , V e r b a l , and Academic subscale scores range from a possible 6 to 48. General self-concept scores range from 8 to 64 w i t h higher scores indicating more positive self-concept.  52 Academic Achievement internality success  score  (21%)  of  indicate scores On  internal more  academic  the  As  scores  locus  this  sample  more  external  get  by  three  of  lower,  was  two subscales,  internal  locus  On  categorized  classified  as  I-  8.26  for  the  scores  control  the as  internal  academic  responsibility h a v i n g an  it  score  external  provides  (I-tot);  locus  for  external  The  (40%)  are  twenty-six  (60%)  are  the  means  On  classified classified and  the as as  standard  indicates  more  of control  is  scores  scores  of the  of  8  sample  success  or on  scale,  locus of control and  responsibility having  an an  deviations  A c h i e v e m e n t Responsibility Questionnaire.  for  of  internal indicated.  nine  subjects (79%)  locus of control.  academic  having  total  of control. T h i r t y - f o u r subjects  h a v i n g an i n t e r n a l locus of control. The m e a n (SD = 2.29).  a  responsibility  responsibilitj' for academic  mean  are:  (I-).  locus  (SD = 4.33).  failure(I-),  The  Intellectual Responsibility  of 17 or higher  an  19.74  academic  of control.  seventeen  displays  The  locus of control score  responsibility  was  (IARQ).  measured  t h a t suggest a n i n t e r n a l academic  (SD = 3.06). are  was  (I + ); and responsibility for failure score  academic  mean  have  or  of control.  The  of control  Questionnaire score  An locus  locus  for  of  the  higher the five  (1 + ) and indicate  1+  11.49  subjects  (12%)  thirty-eight of the  locus  locus sample  of on  a  was  (88%)  sample  academic  external  internal  success  on  failure of  control  control. the  are the  scale, and  Table  2  Intellectual  53  TABLE LOCUS INTELLECTUAL  OF  2  CONTROL  A C H I E V E M E N T RESPONSIBILITY  SCALE  MEAN  RESPONSIBILITY (1 + )  FOR  ft  SUCCESS  QUESTIONNAIRE  STANDARD  DEVIATION  11.49  3.06  8.26  2.29  19.74  4.33  (internal n = 3 8 ) (external n = 5) RESPONSIBILITY (I-)  FOR FAILURE (internal n = 26) (external n = 1 7 )  TOTAL I(tot)  RESPONSIBILITY  SCORE  (internal n = 34) (external n = 9) NOTE:  1+ and I- scores range from 1 to 17. Scores between 8 and 17 are generally considered to indicate a more internal locus of control. T h e m a x i m u m score for the scale is 34, scores above 17 are generally considered to indicate a more i n t e r n a l locus of control.  Pearson self-concept were scores of  and  calculated on the  variables  table.  Product-Moment  Correlation  Coefficients  were  instrument  data  43  locus of control for  academic  and  general  locus of control instrument. are  shown  in  Table  3.  The  of the  self-concept  scores  calculated subjects. and  for  T h e correlation coefficients significance  levels  are  on  the  Correlations the  subscale  for the  included  pairs in  the  54 TABLE PEARSON  PRODUCT-MOMENT  SELF-CONCEPT  ACADEMIC  3  A N D LOCUS  GENERAL  MATH  CORRELATIONS OF  CONTROL  VERBAL  SUCCESS  FAILURE  ACADEMIC  GENERAL  .1036 (p = .254)  MATH  .4569 (p = .001)  .0299 (p = .424)  VERBAL  .3129 (p = .021)  .2896 (p = .030)  .3309 (p = .015)  SUCCESS  .2654 (p = .043)  .4276 (p = .002)  .3250 (p = .017)  1487 = (p .171)  FAILURE  -.0318 (p = .420)  .1901 (p = . l l l )  .1409 (p = .184)  -.0844 (P = .295)  .2980 (P = .026)  CONTROL  .1705 (p = .137)  .4023 (p = .004)  .3039 (p = .024)  0604 (P = .350)  8634 (P = .000)  Note: ACADEMIC: GENERAL: MATH: VERBAL: SUCCESS: FAILURE: CONTROL:  ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT GENERAL SELF-CONCEPT MATHEMATICS SELF-CONCEPT VERBAL SELF-CONCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCCESS RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURE ACADEMIC LOCUS OF CONTROL  Hypothesis and  general  l . a states there is no relationship between  self-concept.  These  (r = .1036, p = .254), therefore Hypothesis  l.b  states  two  variables  these variables there  is  an  were  not  appear to be inverse  academic  significantly  self-concept correlated  unrelated.  relationship  between  academic  55 self-concept was  and  inversely  internal but  responsibility for  not  significantly  academic  correlated  responsibility for academic failure, therefore Hypothesis self-concept  and  self-concept for  l.c  internal  correlates  academic  self-concept  there  locus  (r = .2654,  l.d  and  states  internal  p = .137)  is of  there  found  p = .420)  positive  control  for  is  academic  positive  locus  of  between  these  the  Academic  responsibility  these variables.  No  variables,  internal  academic  success.  relationship  control.  with  between  relatively w e a k l y w i t h  a  self-concept  found.  relationship  be a relationship between  academic  was  (r = -.0318,  Academic  a relationship is not  a  p = .043)  success. There m a y  Hypothesis  (r = . 1 7 0 5 ,  states  failure.  between  significant so  no  academic correlation  relationship  is  suggested. Hypothesis self-concept with  l.e  and  states  internal  academic  locus  Hypothesis  for  r = .2980 academic  at  is  locus  control,  a  positive  relationship  of control. General  (r = .4023,  p = .004),  between  self-concept  therefore  a  l . f states there is a positive relationship between  the  failure  general correlates  relationship  these variables.  of control for academic Since  academic  of  probably exists between  there  failure and p = .026 level and  taking  internal locus of control for  i n t e r n a l locus  academic  success.  is statistically significant, t a k i n g responsibility responsibility  for  academic  success  may  be  related. Hypothesis self-concept  and  l . g states there is an verbal  self-concept.  The  inverse  relationship  positive,  r = . 3 3 0 9 , w h i c h is significant at the  positive  relationship  and  feelings  exists  about their  between  students'  verbal abilities.  relationship between between  p = .015 level. feelings  about  these  Within their  mathematics variables  this math  sample  in a  abilities  56 S i x of the  sample  of  (13%) who had  external  locus  control  positive  academic  success.  T w e n t y - s i x (60%)  academic  success.  and  external  self-concept  locus of control for positive  for  self-concept  an  students  academic and  a negative  had  success.  an  academic self-concept had  No  one  locus  of  a  negative  There  were  eleven  of  control  internal  locus  in  the  sample  control  for  self-concept  and  students for  an  had  a  academic  an  internal  (26%)  with  academic  a  success  experiences. Twenty-six internal  students  academic  probably have  locus  academic  success  success.  The  of control.  of the and  six  results  for  nineteen  subjects  academic failure It  is  external  students  to  note  a  negative  verbal  self-concepts.  There  a negative  Ancillary  Findings includes  had  self-concept  positive  an  external  locus  that  and  Math  with  of  had  internal  general  had  an  self-concept  control an  locus  of control  locus of control for for  failure  external  students (55.8%) had an  self-concepts  part of the  general  locus  academic  showed of  for  less  control  for  i n t e r n a l locus of control  experiences.  interesting  towards  an  (44.2%)  math  3  positive  Students  had  negative  Table  a  (86.0%)  (14.0%)  academic failure and twenty-four for  with  a n i n t e r n a l academic locus of control.  Thirty-seven  discrepancy;  (60%)  math  self-concept  twenty-seven was  a  slight  of  the  (62.8%)  students of  tendency,  the 19  (60.5%)  had  students  had  students  (44%),  self-concept and a negative v e r b a l self-concept.  Pearson  hypotheses  twenty-six  Product-Moment  of the and  Correlation Coefficients  study, but the descriptive data academic  self-concept  appear  are  to be  that  were  not  noteworthy. related,  r = .4569  57 at  the  p = .001. V e r b a l self-concept  appears to be related  to academic  self-concept  (r = .3129,  self-concept  (r = .0299,  self-concept  (r = .2896,  p = .021). Math  self-concept  p = .424); but  does  not  v e r b a l self-concept  correlate  with  does correlate  general  with  general  p = .030). Math (r = .3250,  self-concept  p = 017.),  but  correlates not  with  with  internal  locus  of  internal  locus  of control  control for  for  failure  success  (r = .1409,  p = .184). In the  same w a j , m a t h r  self-concept  of control, (r = .3039, p = .024), but w i t h internal  academic  correlates  verbal self-concept  locus of control, (r = .0604,  with  internal  does not  academic  locus  appear to  correlate  independent  variables  p = .350).  SPECIAL EDUCATION P L A C E M E N T The following results relate to and  the  the  dependent variables,  Self  Description  the  Pearson  following  discussion.  significant  at  in the  table.  or  below  relationships  self-concept  Questionnaire  Responsibility Questionnaire displays  the  are  the  correlation .05  III  correlated  Product-Moment The  and  level.  between  locus of control. and  with  the  each  Correlation coefficients The  the  actual  Subjects'  Intellectual  scores  Achievement  independent variable. Table  Coefficients are  referred  considered  significance  levels  on  to  in  4 the  statistically are  included  58  TABLE PEARSON SPECIAL  PRODUCT-MOMENT  EDUCATION  4  CORRELATION  COEFFICIENTS  PLACEMENT AND AFFECTIVE  AFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENT  VARIABLES  VARIABLES  ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT  ACADEMIC LOCUS OF CONTROL  1. A G E F I R S T P L A C E D IN A L E A R N I N G ASSISTANCE CENTRE  -.0030 (p = .492)  .0309 (p = .423)  2.  NUMBER OF YEARS SPENT WITH LEARNING ASSISTANCE  -.1178 (p = .226)  .0303 (p = .423)  3.  A G E FIRST P L A C E D IN SELF-CONTAINED SPECIAL ED CLASS  -.1409 (p = .184)  -.0044 (p = .489)  4.  NUMBER OF YEARS IN SELF-CONTAINED SPECIAL ED CLASS  -.0027 (p = .493)  -.2773 (p = .036)  The  mean  age  programming in a students first years  when  this  learning assistance  sample centre  received special education  2 months.  first was  7.38  received years  p r o g r a m m i n g ranged  See F i g u r e 3 for a v i s u a l display of the  special  education  (SD = 1.36). The from  5 years  frequency  data.  to  age 11  59  FIGURE  3  HISTOGRAM AGE  A T FIRST P L A C E M E N T I N  LEARNING  n  Value  2 9 14 10 3 3 1  5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 10.00 11.00  MEAN MODE  One symbol equals  first  STD STD  2.a  assistance An learning  states  there  is  ERR DEV  an  inverse  in  Table  4  indicate  significant (r = -.0030, centre  p = .492).  relationship  centre  an  assistance  relationship centre  and  between  inverse  first  internal  age  academic  a  but  placement  the  age  in  it a  a  The  is  not  learning  self-concept.  child  locus  7.000 1.851  self-concept.  relationship,  A g e of  the  I 20  between  and academic  does not appear to influence academic  inverse  . I 16  MEDIAN VARIANCE  .210 1 .361  placed in a l e a r n i n g assistance  displayed  statistically  occurrences  ***** *****************;***** ****************************;****** ************************* ******** ****;*** :** I I I I 0 4 8 12 HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY  Hypothesis  results  CENTRE  approximately .40  7.381 7.000  child is  ASSISTANCE  of  is  first  control  placed is  in  stated  a in  60 Hypothesis  2.b. T h e computation  positive relationship placement academic  in a  is not statistically  learning  assistance  coefficient  significant (r = .0309,  centre  does  indicates  p = .423).  not appear  that  the  A g e of  first  to influence  internal  locus of control.  The 3.65  of the correlation  mean  years  number  (SD = 2.02).  assistance  ranged  from  of y e a r s  the sample  received  learning  of years  students  received  T h e number no time  F i g u r e 4 displays the frequency  to  8  years  i n the learning  assistance w a s some  learning  assistance  centre.  data.  FIGURE  4  HISTOGRAM TOTAL  NUMBER  OF YEARS  IN LEARNING  ASSISTANCE  n  Value  One symbol equals  1 6 6 9 9 2 5 4 1  0.00 1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00  ***** *****************.************ *****************************• • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *• * * * * * * * * * • * * * * * *****************************************•*** ********** • *********************.*** **********.********* ***. * I 0  MEAN 3.651 MODE 3 . 0 0 0  I 2  approximately  .20  occurrences  I I 4 6 HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY STD ERR .308 STD DEV 2 . 0 2 2  I 8 MEDIAN VARIANCE  I 10 3.000 4.090  61 Hypothesis the  number  and  academic  (r = -.1178,  2.c  states that  of years  a  child receives  self-concept.  p = .226).  The  number  inverse  instruction i n the is  predicted indicate  a  the  number  of  of  significant years  of  i n t e r n a l academic  The  of  appear between  subjects  were  2.d. The  not  years  a  learning  has  academic  number  of  internal of the  (r = . 0 3 0 3 ,  assistance  indicated  between  learning assistance  child  to influence the  be  significant relationship  computation  relationship  centre  is  indicated  received  learning  self-concept.  years  a  academic  child  receives  locus of control  correlation coefficient  p = .423).  The  programming  conclusion is  does  not  appear  does that to  locus of control. placed  10.11 y e a r s (SD = 2.39). The  education  but  learning assistance centre and  i n Hypothesis  not  influence  relationship  will  instruction i n the  A n inverse,  assistance p r o g r a m m i n g does not An  a positive relationship  class range between  in self-contained  special classes  ages of first placement 4 years  5 provides a v i s u a l display of the  9 months  frequency  data.  and  in a  at  a  mean  self-contained  15 years  2 months.  age  special Figure  62  FIGURE  5  HISTOGRAM AGE  FIRST P L A C E D I N  SELF-CONTAINED  Value  1 0 2 4 2 7 8 7 6 2 3 1  One symbol equals  SPECIAL  EDUCATION  CLASS  a p p r o x i m a t e l y . 2 0 occurrences  . ****  4. 00 5. 00 6. 00 7. 00 8. 00 9. 00 10. 00 1 1 . 00 12. 00 13. 00 14. 00 15. 00  I 0  I 2  I I 4 6 HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY  MEAN 10.116 MODE 10.000  Refer  I 8  STD ERR .365 STD DEV 2 . 3 9 3  to  Table  4  for  the  findings  I 10  MEDIAN VARIANCE  of  the  Pearson  10.000 5.724  Product-Moment  Correlation Coefficient computations. Hypothesis child  is  significant was  first  3.a states  placed  in  a  there  self-contained  correlation (r = -.1409,  found.  The  conclusion  is a n inverse  is  p = .184) that  class  relationship  between  and  academic  is suggested,  although  the  age  a  child  is  An  inverse  relationship  is predicted  i n Hypothesis  self-concept. a negative  first  self-contained special class does not appear to relate to academic  the age a  placed  No value in  a  self-concept.  3.b between  the age a  63 child of  is first placed  i n a self-contained  control. T h e findings  significant  (r = -.0044,  indicate  p = .489).  that  special  class  the negative  N o relationship  and internal  relationship  academic  locus  is n o t statistically  m a y be assumed  o n the basis of  these findings. The  mean  special education of  program  number  of years  this  class is 2.51 years  ranged  between  display of the frequency  1 year  sample  h a s been  placed i n self-contained  (SD = 1.83). Y e a r s i n attendance i n this a n d 8 years.  Figure  6 provides  a  kind visual  data.  FIGURE 6 HISTOGRAM TOTAL  NUMBER  SELF-CONTAINED  n  Value  14 15 6 2 3 0 1 2  MEAN MODE  O n e symbol equals  OF YEARS IN  SPECIAL  EDUCATION  CLASS  approximately . 4 0 occurrences  1.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4.00 * * * * * 5.00 * * * * * * * * 6.00 7.00 : * * 8.00 * * * * * I I I I 0 4 8 12 HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY 2.512 2.000  STD ERR . 2 7 9 STD DEV 1.831  I 16  MEDIAN VARIANCE  I 20  2.000 3.351  64  Hypotheses of  years  a  self-concept.  class does An  child The  p = .493), the  states there spends  inverse  number  inverse  in  in  is a a  to relate  a child  education  Hypothesis  3.d.  is  not  spends  to academic  relationship between  special  positive relationship between  self-contained  correlation  of years  not appear  self-contained predicted  3.c  class This the  years  self-contained  a  child  spends  in  a  statistically  and  academic  significant  (r = -.0027,  i n a self-contained special education  number  of j'ears  a child  internal  academic  locus  negative  (r = -.2773, p = .036). Therefore  class  number  self-concept.  the and  special  the  correlation  is  conclusion i n this study special  spends of  control  statistically  class  is  significant  is t h a t the  education  in a  number of is  inversely  related to i n t e r n a l academic locus of control. The m e a n months.  Students  3 months a to  mean  to age  17 y e a r s Table  age of the i n the  13 y e a r s  intermediate 2 months.  of 14 years 3  students i n the class  Students  intermediate (n=28) i n the  classes  ranged  in age  secondary  8 months. T h e i r ages ranged  from  was  11 y e a r s  from  classes  10  years  (n=15)  13 years  8  T-Test data referred  had  months  months.  5 displays the  7  to in the following discussion.  65  TABLE  5  T-TEST INTERMEDIATE  LEARNING DISABLED STUDENTS AND LEARNING DISABLED STUDENTS  SECONDARY  Variable  n  Mean  SD  SE  t-test  28  25.8571  11.349  2.145  15  21.3333  8.165  2.108  t=1.36 df=41 (p = .180)  28  44.8214  13.551  2.561  15  45.0667  11.171  2.884  CONTROL 28  20.3214  4.603  0.870  15  18.6667  3.677  0.950  ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT Group l 1  Group  2  GENERAL SELF-CONCEPT Group 1 Group  2  ACADEMIC LOCUS Group 1 Group Group Group  OF  2  t=1.20 df=41 (p = .237)  1 - Intermediate L e v e l Students 2 - Secondary L e v e l Students  Hypothesis  4.a  significantly  different  The  academic  mean  ( S D = 11.34). Since  t=-0.06 df=41 (p = .952)  t(.05)  appears  to  The  that  academic  no  =  2.021  significant  students  in an  self-concept  self-concept  secondary  (41df) be  states  for  students and  t(o)  than  the  intermediate students  intermediate  had  a  mean  =  1.36  the  difference  in  between  score  a  of  two  will  have  secondary  students  hypothesis the  class  21.33 is  was  class. 25.86  (SD = 8.16).  rejected.  groups  a  in  There  academic  self-concept. In  H y p o t h e s i s 4.b the  null  hypothesis  is that  students  in the  intermediate  66 level  class w i l l have  the  secondary  level  intermediate  students  score  the  for  a  significantly class.  equals  different  The  mean  44.82  secondary  significantly  4.c  different  class.  The  20.32  (SD = 4.60); the  two  students  states  is  equals  45.06  in  for  the  score  general  self-concept  ( S D = 11.17).  The  t(.05)  null hypothesis is rejected. N o difference  (16.3%) repeated results  of  had  a  in  an  control mean  students  because  was  had  t(.05)  intermediate than  students  academic a mean  (41df)  =  class  will  in  a  have  secondary  locus of control score of score of 18.66 (SD = 3.67).  2.021  and  t(o)  =1.20.  27  students and  (62.8%)  9 students  repeated (20.9%)  one  did not  Pearson P r o d u c t M o m e n t Correlation  TABLE PRODUCT-MOMENT  REPEATING  7  students  repeat  any  grades.  Coefficients  are displayed  GRADES  6  CORRELATION  AND AFFECTIVE  AFFECTIVE  REPEATING  GRADES  The  grade,  in Table 6.  PEARSON  a  i n academic locus of control.  two grades,  of the  locus  secondary  rejected  sample  students  students  groups do not differ this  that  academic  intermediate  hypothesis  In  The  self-concept  students  between the two groups i n general self-concept.  Hypothesis  The  general  ( S D = 13.55); and the m e a n  (41df) = 2.021 and t(o) = -0.06, so the apparent  general self-concept t h a n  COEFFICIENTS VARIABLES  VARIABLES  ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT  GENERAL SELF-CONCEPT  ACADEMIC LOCUS OF CONTROL  .1140  .1205 (p = .221)  -.2565 (p = .048)  (p = .233)  67  Hypothesis repeated  and  did  indicate  not  relate  5.a  academic  and  is a  The  significance.  self-concept i n this  hypothesis  grades repeated  there  self-concept.  statistical  to academic The  states t h a t  5.b  states  general  negative  positive  relationship between  relationship  Repeating  a  grade  (r = .1140, does  not  grades p = .233)  appear  to  sample.  that  self-concept.  a  negative  relationship  T h e results  exists  indicate that the  between  relationship  is not statistically significant, (r = .1205, p = .221). The grades  final  repeated  hypothesis and  correlation  coefficient  significant,  (r = -.2565,  related  failed any  internal  one  students grade,  grades).  had failed  states  there  is  academic  locus  of control. The  indicates p = .048). I n  to i n t e r n a l academic Nine  5.c  had  this  external had  T h i r t y - f o u r students  one grade,  inverse study  inverse  relationship grades  relationship computation  that  repeated  between  is  of  the  statistically  does appear  to  be  locus of control.  an  2 students  an  an  5 had failed  failed had  academic  locus  2 grades an  internal  two grades and  and  of control 2  (5  students  academic  students had  locus  7 had not failed  not  had failed  of control any  (22  grades).  C H A P T E R V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  DISCUSSION OF RESULTS A  common assumption  children  as  results  i n the  exceptional  literature  and  isolating  i n a diminution of their  control  are  students.  often  the  One of the  on exceptional children is that  affect.  affective  bleakest  them  from  the  larger  Negative self-concept  characteristics  scenarios  ascribed  school  and to  identifying population  external locus of learning  disabled  is this description b y Rosenberg &  Gaier  (1977): "The adolescent  with  academic  failure:  academic  areas,  He  This  stud}' did  characteristics should  be  not  maj'  aware  is  a  child  with  established  forced  to  realize  sense  of  impotence  a  his  leading to feelings of inadequacy, i n the  find  the  a pattern  of  differentness  in  to  eradicate  lack of  his  self-esteem  learning setting."  evidence  be j u s t of  learning disability has  coupled  learning handicap and helplessness  a  as  that  suggests  be  true.  Affective  cognitive characteristics  and  educators  when  planning  students  this  seemingly  diverse  diversity  as  the  above  to  programs  for  with  learning disabilities.  Affective Characteristics Many  educators  readily  agree  with  who experience academic difficulties and  negative  learning  affective characteristics  disabilities.  performance  w i l l have  These  is below the  beliefs  are  anticipated  with  grade  68  argument  -  students  a poor self-concept. Academic failure  often  begin  logical  assumed the  level,  to be the  idea but  that  whose  a  concomitants of student,  assessed  whose  intellectual  69 ability  is  within  result of their  then  as  from  these  such  external  in  the  a  normal  of such  negative factors of  as  the  and  and  who  have  they  encounter  been  indicated scale was did  not  findings postulate  areas.  i n the always of  affective  examined  this  in  was  predict study  seem  to  scores  on  the the  not  pursuits,  only of  negative  where  some of  experience  academic  could  have  different  by  because  of  self-concept.  mean  those  on the  a  the  general  statistically  mean  general  score  Shavelson  et  that  self-concept  self-concept  self-concept  general self-concept are  difficulties  and  had  general  academic theory  No  values. students,  the  self-concept  on  such  on  of learning disabled  study  result  value  influenced  academic  i n this  support  that academic self-concept and  self-concept.  adolescents  was  Their  setting,  high  be  not  feelings  then  programs  N e g a t i v e scores  negative  a  and  between  self-concept.  positive range.  produce  should  would  learning disabled subjects academic  in academic  failures on  also  study  self-concept.  responsibility for their  characteristics  this  level  themselves  place  education  found  they  a  disassociate  they  self-perceptions  the  fail  as  average  a negative  special education  pre-adolescents  i n academic  negative  they  Educators  special  The  but  removed,  in  relationship  self-concept.  are  self-perceptions  school. F a i l u r e experiences  placed i n a  but  their  placed  area  significant  are  success,  investigated  One  w i l l have  results  placing the and  development.  consequently  study  teachers  frustration  affective  This  lower  students achieve below the  negative  by  responsibility  I f students  values,  repeated  experiences  self-concept.  achievement  These  harbour  that learning disabled students frequently  shifting  negative  would  consequently, it is believed they  result  failure  range,  lower performance.  of achievement, It is assumed  the  scale  scale. al.  The  (1976)  separate facets of  70 Although have  negative  noteworthy. broader logical  General  that  will  according  attitudes  be  had  is not  more  to  indirectly For  in  scores  Educators  contribute  example,  especially  should  aware  self-concept.  I n the  the  helping  a  student  also  improve.  other  will  take  improve general or global  be  their  self-worth  comparisons  made  to  in  academic  academic  self-concept.  their  peers  they  who  experiences  of  difficulties  seems  In  this  in  math  self-concept. education,  the  refer  difference  academic  in  a  the  academic  math  concept  self-concept  variety  of  to  between  positive  challenging  his  a  whereas  learning.  more  a  as  Children their  these  children  probably  have  with  school a  peers were  a may  smaller  Beery,  findings.  themselves  pursuits  in  &  present  peers.  difficulty  experiences  the  with  If  would  of  (Covington  compare  are  successful  negative  theory  interpretation is  successes  taps It  scores  is  classroom teachers have  learn and  (1976)  to  may  situations  to  self-concept.  comparison  could  many  of  development  self-concept  It  special  students  factors.  positive  in  be  to  al.  school  than  the  self-concepts  school related  problems  u s u a l l y improve on his m a t h  one  et  by  will  Social  Shavelson  academic  objectives,  for  general  controlled b y  negative  self-concept and general  self-concepts.  positive  than j u s t  affected  educational  self-concept.  to  and  tendency  verbal self-concept, two sub areas of academic  Frequently  skills  self-concepts  self-concept  subjects  self-concept and  not significant the  self-concept  self-concept  improving  were  of feelings and  general  the  academic  results  academic  range  academic study  the  more  1976;  One others;  who  see  as  than  in  areas  a  common not  to  where  as  negative  non-academic  self-concept. choose  as  have  1978)  determine  most  themselves  successful  positive  people  the  probably  unconsciously value  way  with  would  Hamachek,  The weight  as  student those  success  is  experienced. Success m a y be i n areas unrelated If  a person  areas  will  person  places influence  does  self-concept,  not  self-concept related  a high value on academic  place  may  not  a  be  would  value  to  have  be  contrary  Hubner  to  &  the  multifaceted  Stanton  (1976).  who  reference.  evaluates  A  student  performance  average  comparison  will  compare  i n other  of  external  subjects.  comparison  verbal  and  stronger  there  would  external theory  own  was  mathematics be  a  class.  not  in  student better  stronger  there  self-concepts.  comparison  themselves theory  and  with both  their seem  School  self-concept  self-concept  at  first  posited  (1984)  comparison  a  & Parker  who has math  If  small,  the  provide frames  classmates.  be  a  near  zero  English  skills.  correlation  comparison  operation  of  correlation.  T h e y appear  plausible i n light of the  was  internal According  to use  to choose  parallels present  his  above  these students tend  theory  internal  or  positive  internal joint  This  than  and  against  average  by  process,  on  class  an  skills  The  (1984)  operates  particular  would  correlation. to  a  a  success.  & Parker  who  e x t e r n a l comparison w h e n e v a l u a t i n g their performance. compare  achieved.  on general  external  student  who has  lead  outlined by M a r s h  of  If  academic  of i n t e r n a l and external  an  performance  negative  comparison would  on  then  v e r b a l self-concept,  explanation  A  Consider a but  and  self-concept.  success is  i n academic  and E n g l i s h i n comparison to classmates  the  his  self-concept i n m a t h ,  between  to the  difficulties  influence  operation  operates  i n both m a t h  performance  performance  and  less  However, M a r s h  of  the  success  mathematics  simultaneous  If  academic if  even  a n explanation relating the  average  on  greatly  positive correlation between  Shavelson,  the  then  person does not place a high value on academic  A seems  high  success  school achievement.  indirectly influence general  influenced  failure experiences  w h e n the  and  to school and  the  an to  social  findings. The  72 results,  with  self-concept,  the  low  means  in  both  mathematics  self-concept  suggest that l e a r n i n g disabled students m a y  and  verbal  l u m p their feelings  their school ability into one estimation, and i n this study  the  subjects'  about  estimations  were generally low. Another  area  examined  in  control.  More  subjects  i n the  sample  external  one.  The  internal  locus  of control for  academic The locus  failure  belief  that  of  control  academic  majority  over  half  learning  investigation  in  inconsistent  results  and  this  (88%)  to  subjects  study.  can  relationship  with  between  a l . , 1987).  from  al.,  self-concept  and  When self-concept intentions,  and plan  praise  and  et  a l , (1980) learning  et  an  expect external  their  structure  disabled  successful  in  highty  structured  environment.  the  structured  Educators  must  for  by  external  relationship  between  self-concept  Self-concept has  related  it  may  and  been be  to  that  academic constructs.  a  negative  the  accordingly. T h e y  may  for  the  locus  students of how  of  best use  students.  programs control  faired  better  affective  internal  differentiated  have  may,  area of revealed  with  external  aware  has  but differentiated  experiences  Internal be  a major  academic  and  of control. an  achievers  of special educations an  as  locus  possible  programs  success  settings.  of control scale  A  they  with  an  characterized  control,  students  having  be  locus  structure  an  internal  students  guaranteed  investigated  locus  disabled  special education  of control than  classified  learning of  of  normal  1976).  academic locus of control are  teachers  of  that  (Shavelson,  an  locus  locus of control w a s  academic locus of control ( K e i t h , et achievement  had  questionable.  Research  the  academic  locus  were  On  (60%)  academic  internal  academic  success.  students  internal  in the  the  students  be  was  an  academic the  study  had  of  disabled  appears  self-concept  the  of lots  Bendall,  and  found  were  more  in a  less  characteristics  73 influence  learning. The assumptions  related  students i n special education programs positive  affective  characteristics  special education No internal  or  evenly  split between  academic and  74.4%)  found  success.  for  locus of control of  to be examined i f the development of  continually stated  found  academic  internal  as  between  failure.  academic  and  academic  The  was  negative  goals  and  external  tended  academic  Although  self-concepts, locus  self-concept  subjects  inconclusive,  that  academic  success  more  learning  internal  attitudes  promote  objectives  and  to  have  self-concept  the  majority  the  sample  of control. A w e a k internal a  locus  negative  adult  by  a  are  contrary  children tend Boersma, for  function  evaluation  the  1979).  both  of  be In  success  their  provided  to  of  of  and  of  student  was  rather  relationship control  academic  this  and  special  by  of  with  the  academic  age  intermediate self-concept  (Kifer, and  may  secondary  appeared  external academic locus of control.  to  be  for  study  for  self-concept  external  they  experiences  experiences.  Such  Positive  teacher  could  into question academic  dispense  the  locus of  (Lawrence  &  internal locus of control  as  be  another  explanation  level  sample.  Within  more  of  were  experience.  call  that  subjects  education  data  findings  the  failure  special  of greater  1975)  earlier  education  encouragement  developmental trend  increasing this  and  to  external  teachers u n w i t t i n g l y foster  reinforcement  1975). The  function  negative  be  &  external  special education  Winschell,  findings  disabled  results  internal locus of control (White, 1972). These  that  control  these  (Chapman  than  may  self-assuring  than  and  an i n t e r n a l academic locus of control.  indicated  a  had  between  While  idea  relationship  of control  (32/43  was  need  self-concept  programs.  significant  locus  are  to  a  consistent  the  for  the  sample  characteristic  74 A locus  positive  relationship  of control  self-concept  was  appeared  studies  which  control  frequently  implied  that  external  to  found  used  of  control.  Both  tended  to  disabled  have  or  &  who  academic  and  internal  had  locus  a of  internal  self-concept  measures.  tended  Pearl,  to  have  1979;  academic  positive  general  control.  self-concept  global  students  self-concept  Subjects  internal  between  (Bryan  Previous  academic Earlier  negative  Chapman  locus  findings  self-concept  &  of  and  Boersma,  1979;  1985). did not  considered a  general study.  an  general  self-concept  are  this  have  control  & Saklofske, Academic  in  correlations  learning  locus  Rogers  found  between  negative  to  be  correlate related  academic  significantly w i t h  to  achievement.  self-concept  and  an  academic  In  this  internal  locus of  study  students  academic  locus  of control. A  positive  academic  failure  majority  of  Previous  research  situations  tend  Morrison,  1980).  those this  earlier sample  learning  relationship and  subjects  found  The  findings. tend  situations,  detrimental  having  to be  and  internal  to their  was locus an  children  self-blaming present If the  who for  findings  an  of  between control  internal  majority  to have often  found  have  of the  for  of  control  difficulties  to  locus  academic  (Harter,  appear  internal  advocated  for  locus  failure  internal  success, on  in  1974;  of  both  control  for  with  the  subscales.  "traditional" MacMillan;  Meyer  &  results  of  lend  support  to  learning  disabled  population  locus  of control then  learning  diabled  learning (Bendall, Tollefson & F i n e ,  1980).  the  highly  students,  school  is  like  structured may  be  75 Ancillary Math  Findings  self-concept  self-concept.  and  v e r b a l self-concept  Mathematics  and  were  verbal  positively correlated  ability  are  related  to  so it is not  s u r p r i s i n g that a correlation is found between  verbal  self-concept  subscales  self-concept verbal  was  positively correlated  self-concept  discrepancy  at  compensatory students  first  lives.  compensatory  to  in  positive  math  the in  his academic  self-concept m a y  self-concept verbal  does  influences  and  and  not  general  ability.  reverse  not have  using  of  a  control.  This  to  calculator.  less  have  a  use Once  may  may  also  exist,  to  verbal  contribute  math  their  amenable  lower  areas  at  but  i n control of  be  success  and Math  encouraged  feel more  may  academic  Ability  correlate to  have to  with  general  self-concept  communication m a y  math  student  subscale.  locus  may  math  or  to  that  an  is  or science  a and  suffer.  positively related  self-concept  language than  was  did  school  the  academic  locus of control,  frequently  example  in  The  is verbally proficient m a y  are  could  other  self-concept.  academic  they  required  success  self-concept  for  self-concept  academic  students  student who  Math  with  class,  therefore  academic  internal  themselves  skills  but  with  odd, but  help  strategies,  academic  correlate  appears  Verbal  self-concept,  overall  not  strategies  k n o w how  academic  English  did  the  academic  overall  ability,  and  with  use  most aspects of peoples' lives.  a  general  self-concept,  self-concept.  could greater  language  The  indicate impact and  but  correlation  that  one's  on  general  communicate  verbal between  facility  with  self-concept with  others  76  Special Education Placement The  contention  that  failure  in  special  education  by  academic  programs  allow  to  Deshler,  1979). M a t c h i n g is  self-contained or  locus  and  experience  success  in  emphasis  in  programs  placed  ages  at  7 to  years  8 tended  7  and  number placed  of in  students eight the  findings 8  of age  to have  (33/43  children  an  and  more  internal centre  are  disabled identified  the  children early  in  are  often  (Alley  programming.  &  Helping  i n terms  of their  in  or  this  study  older.  It  negative  were  the  a  their  first  placed i n l e a r n i n g  found  opposite,  locus  either  was  sample.  their  in  that  students  self-concepts  than  9 and older.  academic  early  was  or  self-concept  received  academic  general  at  centre  to influence either  positive  "late" placement within  of  many  children's l e a r n i n g  learning assistance  appear  more  self-concept  have  assistance  discrepancy  learning  who  to  individual  type  age  placed i n special education placements  subjects)  of  general  had  learning  were  identifying  tended  subjects a  lack  for  areas  7, only seven children were  students placed at ages 5 to 6, or at age  ages  a  of students  by age  nine  academic  of  a focus i n special education instruction.  is placed i n either  special education assistance  The  this  goals  programs  for their l e a r n i n g disability  become  majority  with  immediately implies  stated  to  has  child  the  education  compensate  control. The  assistance  when  Special  special education class did not  of  at  erroneous  considered.  an  strengths and weaknesses a  l e a r n i n g disabled  instructional strategies  frequently  age  seems  as  are  students  students understand  The  classified  situations  designed  strategies  being  self-concepts. of 7  control or  age  between  and 8.  had  Most  been of  the  impossible to calculate because  of  their  school  district  schooling. It  careers  have  ages  largest  to  school  the  The  at  of six  The in  children placed  appears could more  to be  be that  noticeable  77 difficulties is  i n school related  tasks.  A more  negative  scenario  is t h a t  once a  child  a recipient of special education p r o g r a m m i n g he will probably r e m a i n in special  education p r o g r a m m i n g throughout The learning  number  of years  assistance  difference  centre  i n academic  s m a l l sample  number years  of  years  ago  the  or  students school  had  contributing  may  account  number  been  of  in the for  the  years  in  related  to  internal  student  spends  in a  the  more likely a student w i l l have  internal  academic  students. enough  The  for  an  was  locus  age effect  for  special  special  in  of control  education  these  a  sample  were  class  that  learning scarce. a  adjusting  of time of  which  control.  was  years  likely  fewer  The  inversely  more  more  locus of control; and the  in  is  district students  the  the  the Two  programming  classroom  appears  due  in  programs.  students  locus  no  be  for  long period  a  academic  may  difficulty  academic  in  made  program  education  education  of control. It  academic  found  w i t h i n the  1966). In this  for  internal  class,  self-concept  present  special education  is to have  difference  services  placement  towards  she  No  their  either  to i n t e r n a l  for children who have  class  locus  relate  special  (Towner & J o i n e r ,  self-contained  external  to  academic  the  that  self-contained  academic  an  maybe  tendency a  in  the  placement  special  education  lack of discrepancy  time  placement  i n special education, special  with  implemented  is  s t i m u l a t i n g and comfortable education  spent  it appeared  spent  that  factor  career.  contained  but  the  district  Another  not  self  size or to  children; prior to  have  a  had  lack of relationship  disabled  to regular  child  self-concept  locus of control. The to the  a  his school  years  he  a or  spent  an i n t e r n a l academic locus of control. academic between  difference  between  to be  measurable.  the  self-concept,  general  the  intermediate  two  groups  Students  with  was  and  self-concept secondary  probably  not  learning disabilities  or  level large across  78 age  groups  with  may  having a  people locus  similar  affective  learning disability.  approach of  have  adulthood,  control  than  so  an  characteristics,  Locus  the  could  of control tends to be  finding  external  which  of  locus  of  more  subjects  control  be  more  internal  having  reflects  the  associated  an  as  internal  trend  in  the  general population. No  significant relationship  academic self-concept and the  literature  examines  more  over-estimate  Anecdotal  teacher  The  self-concepts  and be  abilities.  positive  general  difficulties  were  may  have  been  placed  a  and  parents  the  in  learning  Professionals  relationship  information  not m e a n  between  failing  they a  i n light of  et  a l . (1987) self-concepts  "exaggerators" negative  either  exhibit  self-concepts.  demonstrate  fewer  friends  with  generally the  and  more  Subjects  may  exhibit realistic  negative positive  more  academic self-concepts  have  repeated  i n a regular education class,  program  students  and  positive  more  although  ameliorated  knowledgeable  disabled provide  these  positive scores.  not  Kistner  children  had  grade  is puzzling  very  have  disabled  study  special  becoming more  that a l e a r n i n g disability does The  to  words given one more chance  their  a  exaggerators  self-concepts,  extremely  when  are  found  that  this  then  experiencing.  finding  students who had  learning  in  as  She  classroom, seem  than  subjects  classified  i n other  counselling  This  failing  lowered self-concept.  indicate  in the  moods  self-ratings.  a grade,  their  reports  behavior  negative  not  self-concept.  academic deficits than  inappropriate  would  between  idea that l e a r n i n g disabled children w i t h  severe  more  general  found  t h a t equates failure w i t h  the  consistently  was  d u r i n g the  for  learning  about  are  grade  year,  disabilities.  they  Teachers  learning disabilities and  about to  repeated  and  assist  the the  difficulties students  they in  are are  realizing  "dumb". and  internal  academic  locus  of  79 control indicates that children who fail control likely they  for  to blame are  when  they  fail  or bad  luck  (external  be  an  s a m p l i n g procedure.  in  the  self-concept therefore,  form and  grade  more  may  than  have  one  an  i n t e r n a l locus of  grade  locus of control)  they for  are  just  as  t h a t failure  as  responsibility for it (internal locus of control). These  They may  the  not  But  others  to take  puzzling. of  failure.  one  needed  aberration The to  of this  particular data  instrumentation assess  the  locus of control. The  cannot be discussed w i t h  not  influence  results  any  may  are  sample,  be  an  refined  repeating  not  results  are  artifact  enough  grades  has  or on  statistically significant and,  confidence.  SUMMARY One  of  the  construct vast  postulates  self-concept  amount  categories between  of  to  of is  Shavelson  that  information  one  al.  self-concept  (1976)  is  in  their  multifaceted.  they  have  about  In  this  study  there  self-concept  and  another.  academic  et  general  delineation  People  themselves was  no  of  the  categorize  the  and  relate  significant  self-concept  which  these  relationship  supports  their  contention. Another organized in  with  subareas  sample  aspect  then  to  supports  hierarchy,  consequence  theory  less  inferences  states  about  negative mathematics  A c c o r d i n g to those the  the  perception of behavior at  to have  self-concepts  of  that  aspect  researchers,  self-concept stable.  self  self-concept  of  the  is  hierarchically  base m o v i n g to inferences in  general.  The  and v e r b a l self-concepts  general  becomes  the  that  Shavelson  et  situation  self  for  the  tendency  and positive general  al.  self-concept is stable, b u t increasingly  about  (1976) as  specific  argument.  one and  descends as  a  80 Frequently positive the  self-concept."  most  facet  logical  If  place  of self-concept.  academic  or  influenced  The  efficacy  methods  effect  that  with  disabled  affective  results  intermediate  in  specific area.  self-concept  would  be  the  then  a  specific  to  change  Because  last  area,  of a  i f it  is  the result of a teaching intervention aimed self-concept  mathematics may  in  Mathematics,  tests  need  is instrumental  to  (Marsh  be  aid  &  has  1985).  more  closely.  in learning is unanimous,  educators  been  Parker,  scrutinized  are diverse. F u r t h e r research may  in  attempts  subject  on  education  and  of  academic  findings  add credance  locus  school situations Meyers  disabilities  may  this  &  of  tend  that examines  in programming  learning  control  and  a  but  the  questions  for  are  to  learning  It  appears for  evaluation  (Harter,  that  their  of  have  an  MacMillan,  with  scholastic  These  difficulties  1974;  students  poor  sample  self-concept.  that found children who have  responsible  adult  the  students  academic  self-blaming for failure 1980).  within  disabled  negative  have low academic  self-assuring  tendency  level  to be  they  the  grade  Morrison,  think  indicated  to earlier research  because they believe they Positive  study  secondarj'  internal  1971;  successful  is  a  education  positive affect  h i e r a r c h i c a l construct  child's self-concept  most  "more  students.  The  in  be  Improving  affective  multifaceted  begin w i t h  general  of i m p r o v i n g affect  dealing  ma}'  improved grades  of  a  improving a  they  self-concept.  with  Agreement  start  is  a l l , to be " i m p r o v e d " as  improving  correlated  to  when  rippling at  self-concept  Educators  self-concept  filtering  at  instruction time is being used to help students develop a  learning  performance  ability. is  supposed  to  promote  a  sense of  i n t e r n a l locus of control while peer  evaluation inhibits the  development of internal  academic  1972).  in  locus  of control  (White,  The  instruction  a  special  education  81 setting  where  guaranteed  students  tasks  may  are  exposed  contribute  frequently  to the  present  to  finding:  non-competitive the  tendency  success  towards  an  i n t e r n a l academic locus of control. The  determination  structure  of  Tollefson  and  control  an  penalized  recommended  academic  academic  F i n e (1980)  are  that  learning methods. academic  of  locus  program  for  for  in  these  a  highly  students  The tendency  the  control  learning  found that students w i t h  should  of the  learning  be  is  important  to  disabled  students.  Bendall,  an  structured  disabled  and  at  allowed  should  the  internal  learning  present sample  locus of control is noteworthy  programs  of  to  and  they  structure  their  own  having an  considered  intermediate  locus of  situation  towards  be  academic  the  and  internal  when  planning  secondary  grade  levels. This academic  study  success  control  for  finding  where  failure,  but  In  this  academic  students would  experiences.  learning  disabled  This  the  learning  present and  positive  had  an  disabled  internal  probably  also  seems  be  a  an  internal  students  to  had  sample  have  locus  an  internal  contradiction locus  studj'  relationship  did  not  between  T h e majority  negative  self-concept,  took  is  to  which  of of  took  equal  for  locus an  control  responsibility  of  earlier  (Chapman & Boersma,  indicate  a  relationship  between  internal locus of control for failure experiences,  academic  of control  for  for  1979). their  successes.  control for success.  experiences  who  a n external locus of control for success  failures and  self-concept  that  experiences  failure  study  The  weak  found  contrary  academic  self-concept  and  of students i n this sample, responsibility earlier  research  for  their which  but  academic  there w a s  internal  locus  although they successful found  that  had  a of a  academic learning  82 disabled  students  Boersma,  view  successful  positive relationship  was  academic locus of control, but academic  and  and  of  an  self  internal  are  better  of self-concept. may  feel  they  between  tendency  indicators  locus of  control  or  they  academic  believe  they  (Chapman  &  lack  to  control of  may  control  for  ability  in  internal  with  internal  positive  indicate  than  feel good about  self-contained  have  and  are  that  more  themselves what  as  happens  special education  relation  to  the  general global specific a whole  to  them.  classroom  students  in  the  classes. T h e negative  w i t h the with  control  self-concept  sample  responsible  placed i n a  may  of  locus  students m a y  in  general  of this  Because these students were  regular  their  self-concept did not correlate  academic  These are  found  academic  locus of control. T h e  self-concept  facets  beyond  1980).  A  feeling  outcomes  negative  general  self-concept.  mathematics  academic  self-concept,  and  but  self-concept  verbal  language  positive  experiences  that  are  Whereas  poor  facility  with  or  being able  reflected i n negative The number or self-contained academic internal  of years  locus  of  special education  to  Time  control. classes  in  may say  did  contribute  reflected  to  positive  contribute what  one  correlate  better general  to poor wants  to  correlated correlate  with  general  communication self-concept  and  scores.  communication, being say,  which  could  be  self-concept. a student i n the  special education  self-concept.  may  language  general  sample  M a t h e m a t i c s self-concept did not  with  not  of the  self-concepts.  Facility  misunderstood  verbal self-concepts  spent  The  classes in  number  did relate  a  sample  did not learning of  inversefy  years  spent i n learning  relate  to general  assistance a  child  self-concept  centre spent  to internal academic  assistance  did not in  or  affect  self-contained  locus of control.  83 The  less  time  a  child  more  likely he w i l l  child  spends  in  a  spends  have  an  in a  self-contained  i n t e r n a l academic  special education  of  control.  classroom  previous  the  more  locus  therefore  more  of years  in a self-contained special education class has  should be  research  conducted  classroom  locus of control. T h e more  external  research  No  special education  to  likely  examined  investigate  he  will  this  the  the  time have  a an  relationship,  effect  the  number  on i n t e r n a l academic locus  of control. Grades an  inverse  repeated  relationship  control.  There  was  control  i f they  had  necessarily  did not relate  mean  a  between  grades  tendency  for  failed  an  to  only  external  one  any  facet  repeated  the  and  sample  grade.  of self-concept,  to  Failing  locus of control but  internal have  two  but  there  academic  an  internal  grades  or  was  tendency  there  a  more  was  locus of locus  of  did  not  in  that  direction.  LIMITATIONS OF T H E STUDY A  limitation  which  of m u c h  children are  subject  of the  research  labelled l e a r n i n g  to t h a t limitation.  they  individual  reasons  be  a  "spot"  umbrella true. a  for  in the  disabled.  class.  The  need  disabilities is  This  a more  study  was  placed i n a  structured  the  in  some  class  class  process  for l e a r n i n g  setting or  more  than  a learning disability,  and  there  charge  that  a  has  become  a  number  Although  the  school district where designation,  of  the  to districts where different c r i t e r i a are  learning disability  learning the results used.  and  research of the  behavior was study  problems  carried out are  not  by  respects  other  for  c r i t e r i a for  large  may  term  stricter  learning  Occasionally children are  disabled children because assistance,  in  is  may an  often  adheres  to  generalizable  84 There  are  potential  and  different.  Some  much  within  performance,  students have effectively  students  students difficulty  but  are  their  they  had  met  than  expected. The measures not  be  proficient, but  it appeared  p r o g r a m , but  may  the  it is possible that  the  have  of strength  first  particular  which  areas  who  have  best  discrepancy weakness  difficulty  they  are  vastly  writing;  of the  other  group  criteria for entrance  could  have  had  study were paper  indicator of the  between  able to communicate more  that members  same  used i n the  a  and  v e r b a l expression, but are  w h e n they w r i t e . A t  was  sample  verbally  with  i n common because  the  self-perceptions  less  had  into  the  i n common  and pencil  tasks  of l e a r n i n g disabled  students.  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR F U R T H E R R E S E A R C H An  ethnographic  collected  from  study  the  of this  students  and  sample  validly  assess  self-concept  and  locus  longtitudinal  study  the  control  to  be  reveals areas where further Missing and  from  perceptions  the  regarding  the  impact  of  needs  of  of of  students The  learning  to  describe  disabilities.  the  literature  More  cognitive and valid  within  would  their  be  special  in  and  placement  on  the  with  learning  disabilities  snapshot  approach  of  the  locus  field of  are  control  the of  on test results  affective  information  education  this  a  study  undertaken.  learning disabilities. F r e q u e n t l y professionals r e l y responses  interactions  special  should be  self-concept  interview data  d a t a collected.  conducted.  research  diverse  intensive  observations  class placement made would enhance To  where  could  characteristics be  garnered  ideas,  opinions,  individuals and of by  with  questionnaire students  with  listening  people who have, out of necessity, come to cope w i t h their l e a r n i n g disability.  to  85 Further learning  research  disabled  necessary  to  disabilities  needs  students.  advance  have  understanding  on  the  the an  directly b y  towards  their  areas  Their  things  degree  school  experience. towards  has  A  the  in a  to  that  be  and  locus  of  their  placement.  social  students  students  the  with  academic  influence  has  and  they  learning  and  theory  in  related  feelings  self-perceptions  self-worth m a y  relate place  to  suggest  school and their  and  areas,  in  experiences.  in  disabilities  non-academic  learning  on children should be  influence  with  value  and  are  successful academic  identify  mirror  self-perceptions  comparison  experiences  The  from  the  evaluation of their  for less than  examines  For  rather  of the  may  value  directly  educational  their  may  the  attitudes  broaden  our  of the population.  significant.  middle  of  their  understanding  about  person's  offer,  study  Research  placement,  which  school, i n both  understanding  more  to  The  students  w a y s that students compensate The  and  for  special education placement  education  has  information garnered  explanations  individual.  asking  special  include more  knowledge  influence  explored  non-academic  to  example,  than j u s t  academic  age  control  of  variables  questions at  school year;  more highly correlated of  other  related  relating  placement;  to to  the  learning  academic  disabled  age  and  teacher  self-concept,  intermediate  may  appropriate  changing schools often  teaching strategies;  with  school history  grade  and  in  the  temperament  general  and  be  self-concept  secondary  level  students. No grade  level  control common  apparent  difference  students  indicates across  in  that age  between  academic  the  groups.  the  intermediate  self-concept,  feeling related  to  general  having a  A comparison between  the  grade  level  self-concept  and  secondary  and  locus  of  l e a r n i n g disability  may  be  elementary  school children,  86 soon  after  number  they  of  are  classified as  affective  variables  learning disabled, and may  provide  high school subjects on  information  that  beneficial  for  students' self-concept  and  p r o g r a m m i n g at both levels. A longtitudinal study  where  locus  program,  and  of control when  they  on affective been  exit the  development  for  home  control  Results would  measured  on  entry  into  program  would  provide  of  from assist  a  students study  of  educators  and  enrolled that  curriculum  that  extra-curricular areas  may  younger aware  in  a  variety  contribute  investigating  programs;  and  students'  older  that  students  problems  that  the  school goals  with  our  learning  older students have  who are  leaving that p r o g r a m  to determine  a  that compared  study  exit the  program.  stages  information  present study  self-concept  service  has  us  and  delivery  with  most  locus  programs.  information  appropriate  stage of the  the  the  student  knowledge disabilities.  to the  future; It m a y  intermediate  i f affective  program.  students entering  of  aspirations.  encountered.  beginning their  particular  are  the  classes;  and  extends  students who are just  of the  the  structure  and  compare  function  of  provide  children should be devised w i t h a n eye of the  comprehensive  that  for  to learning disabled students'  are:  of the  information  various  the  learning disabled.  size  of  during  from a longitudinal study, w h i c h  examines  would  the  provide  characteristics  that may  need  emphasis;  and  in providing p r o g r a m s S  influences  characteristics  IQ,  nature  diverse population now classified as Other  more  would be gathered  environment  a  a  of learning disabled students than  able to do. Richest data  controls of  are  is  a  Even  program  programs;  the  involvement  Research about  in  the  in  those salient  Programming  for  educators m u s t  be  be  program  informative  to  w i t h students  characteristics more  affective  differ  informative  as  a  would be  w i t h students p r e p a r i n g  to  87 One of the  students involved  a personal essay "I w a n t to  learn four  more  into  to  hard  to  aney  wone  wo reads this  last  scales  few  that  divulge  the  in art  because  because  reinforce  measure  their personal  to get a  I  and  have  a  some  ove  the  sow read  the  affective  feeling and  idea  pen  characteristics ideas  students  following  hard  time  with  it  to  thring  I ' a m doing is  might  don't  alot  and  part of  w r i g h t i n g and l u r n i n g  and  and  as  "good edjacasion".  reaksons  it cafelly  that  the  ...this paper  I think alot diffrent and I m e a n  lines  true  wrote  to w o r k and study  very  ideay because  do  get better  studeing  (think) to put m y m i n d  The  study  on w h y he or she wanted  to  get  i n the  have  get  the  on rong  deffrently."  paper  exercises,  written  like  assignments,  tests,  do  l e a r n i n g disabilities have  not about  situations.  CONCLUSIONS In  developing  programs  for  students  with  learning  consider numerous  cognitive characteristics  group of students.  The assumption that students w i t h  more  homogeneous  that  negative  i n relation to  self-concept  learning  disabilities  academic  self-concept  as  a group  internal control negative  they  academic  is  had  and  not  (74.4%)  affective external  supported  by  appeared  to  a positive general  locus  of  (21%). The tendency  of w h a t  control  appears to be a  of  the be  than  are  of  this  characteristic  self-concept an  i n this sample, although  heterogeneous  is erroneous.  control  findings a  should  l e a r n i n g disabilities are  characteristics locus  (79%)  disabilities educators  external not  academic self-concept and internal locus of control.  The  belief  concomitant  with  study.  of this  (65%). M o r e  any  Negative  sample  subjects  academic  significant, was  but  had  an  locus  of  towards  88 Findings combination  of  this  study  of affective  indicate  that  characteristics.  learning  Research  disabled  students  in cognitive areas  indicates  l e a r n i n g disabled students exhibit a v a r i e t y of learning difficulties, variety  of  teaching  Educators affective  of  strategies  learning  disabled  characteristics  disabled students have program  aimed  at  are  students  within the  the  same  "altering"  required  within  must  a  be  special  aware  of  the  The  assumption  characteristics  and  w i l l respond  negative  affective  a  program.  differences  that  a  that  subsequently  education  population.  assumed  exhibit  all  to one  in  learning particular  characteristics  is  too  simplistic. Learning academic and  disabled  self-concepts  verbal  positive.  as  self-concept  Attempts  concentrate  on  the  influence  a on  self-contained control.  No  education spends  in  first or  was  special education the and  number  self-contained  tended  on the  have  scores  negative  mathematics  were  m i g h t be more  effacious  of self-concept:  mathematics  generallj'  when  teachers  self-concept  self-concept, w h i c h is made  up of  aspects. spent  of  i n a learning assistance  in  a  learning  control.  found  between  class  and  years  academic  special  to  academic,  self-concept  The  assistance  age  classroom did not relate  of  internal  scores  on general  placed  locus  special education  classes a  than  of years  was  self-concept  between  aspects  school related  relationship  self-contained found  rather  number  child  sample  Their general  school related  than just  when  this  to improve self-concept  N e i t h e r the age  in  indicated by their  subscales.  and v e r b a l self-concept, more facets  students  the  child  locus  education  a  child  of  in  had  an  in  the  spent  less  more  in  relationship  self-contained  of control. The classroom  the  placed  years  A n inverse  spent  centre  nor  a  to self-concept or locus of  number  self-concept. a  of  centre  time likely  a  was  special a he  child will  89 have  a n i n t e r n a l locus of control. One  districts child's  of  the  should be academic  major aware  goals  of  of the  locus of control w h e n they  apparent  secondary  grade  academic  locus  control  one  secondary  level of  exercises  grade  Repeating  difference  control.  in  Self  i n one's  life  found  did not  locus of control. N o further  are  foster  independence.  segregated  deciding on the  between  academic  perceptions appear  levels for students w i t h grades  to  class most  School  has  on  a  appropriate  students.  was  students  is  influence being i n a  p r o g r a m m i n g for learning disabled No  education  have  to  intermediate  self-concept, about be  general  ability  constant  grade  and  across  level  self-concept the  amount  and or of  intermediate  and  self-concept  and  l e a r n i n g disabilities. a  interpretation  significant influence of these results  was  on  performed.  REFERENCES  Ackerman,  P.T.,  Dykman,  hyperactive Journal  Ackerman,  D.  &  Howes, of  Disabilities,  G.R.  &  (1977).  learning  with  Teenage  disabled  status  boys.  of  American  577-597.  Sociometric  (1986).  status  and  disabilities.  after-school  Journal  of  motivation  and  social Learning  416-419.  investigation  International,  Deshler,  J.E. learning  47(4),  i n special education  Abstracts  Alley,  C.  children  An  Peters,  nonhyperactive  19(7),  A . E . (1977). control  and  &  of Orthopsychiatry,  activity  Adams,  R.A.,  37,  of and  achievement regular  education  locus  of  students.  Dissertation  disabled  adolescent:  4272A.  D . D . (1979).  Teaching  the  learning  Strategies and methods. D e n v e r , C o : L o v e P u b l i s h i n g Co.  Ames,  C . (1978). of  Children's achievement  self-concept  Psychology,  Battle,  J.  70  on  competitive  (3),  345-355.  (1979).  Self-Esteem  Psychological  Reports,  of 44,  attributions reward  student 212-214.  90  and self-reinforcement:  structure.  in  regular  Journal  and  of  special  Effects  Educational  classes.  91  Baumeister,  A . A . (1967).  Problems  and normals. Anerican  Bendall,  D.,  Tollefson,  N.  orientation and Learning  Black,  F.W.  (1974).  S.  of Mental  Deficiency,  M.  performance 13  Self-concept  (1980).  of  mental 71,  Interaction  of  retardates  869-875.  locus  of  of l e a r n i n g disabled adolescents.  Journal  as  related 45,  to  achievement  and  age  spent  high  J . W . (1982).  among  B.S.  school  Abstracts  International,  Persitent  auditory  (1976).  Human  of  students  38,  LD  deficits  Disabilities,  characteristics  with  reading  and  time  difficulties.  193-194A.  language  of Learning  in  1137-1140.  locus of control, reading achievement,  on-task  control  83-86.  Development  disabilities. Journal  Bloom,  studies  (1977). Internal-external  Dissertation  Blalock,  comparative  Journal  Fine,  Disabilites,  children. Child  Blake,  &  in  and  i n adults  25(10),  school  with  learning  604-609.  learning.  New  York:  McGraw-Hill.  B l o o m , B . S . (1977). Affective 193-198.  outcomes  of school learning. Phi  Delta  Kappan,  Nov.  92  Boersma,  F.J. & of  Chapman,  ability  Perceptual  Boersma,  scale and  F . J . , Chapman, of A b i l i t y elementary 39,  J.W.  (1978).  with  Motor  the  Skills,  C o m p a r i s o n of the  Piers-Harris 47,  Children's  Scale: A n instrument children.  perception  Self-Concept  Scale.  827-832.  J . W . & M a g u i r e , T . O . (1979)  school  student's  for  The  measuring  Educational  and  Student's  academic  Perception  self-concept  Psychological  in  Measurement,  1035-1041.  Brookover, W . B . , E r i c k s o n ,  E . L . & Joiner,  school  achievement.  Office  of  Lansing:  Ill:  Education, Office  L . M . (1967).  Relationship  of self-concept  Cooperative  of  Self-concept  Research  Research  and  of ability  and  in  high  school.  U.S.  Project  No.  2831.  East  Publications,  Michigan  State  University.  Brookover,  W.B.  &  Gotlieb,  D.  (1964).  A m e r i c a n Book C o m p a n y ,  Brookover.  W . B . , LePere, (1965).  Office  of  achievement of  Lansing: University.  Education, Office  of  of  Education.  New  York:  1964.  J . M . , Hamachek,  Self-concept  academic  Sociology  ability through  and  school  student's  Cooperative Research  D . E . , Thomas,  &  Erickson, E . L .  achievement,  self-concept  Research and  S.  Project  Publications,  II:  Improving  enhancement. No.  1636.  Michigan  U.S. East State  93  Bruininks,  V . L . (1978).  Peer  disabled  nondisabled  and  status  and  personality  students.  characteristics  Journal  of  of  Learning  learning Disabilities,  29-34.  Bryan,  T. & B r y a n ,  J . H . (1977).  Behavioral  Bryan,  T.H.  &  Disorders,  Bryan,  learning Education  Bryan,  2(3),  J.H.  disabled  The social-emotional side of learning disabilities.  (1981).  children.  T . H . & P e a r l , R . A . (1979).  B . M . (1984). review 54,  Byrne,  B.M.  The  B.  personal  and  Keogh  (ed.),  social  experiences  Advances  of  in  Special  locus of control of  learning  Press.  Self-concepts of Clinical  and  Child  Psychology,  self-concept  validation research.  Review  Fall,  nomological  223-226.  network:  of Educational  A  Research,  427-456.  &  G.C. & educable 43,  In  general/academic  of construct  Shavelson,  self-concept.  Calhoun,  Some  Greenwich, Conn: J A I  disabled children. Journal  Byrne,  141-145.  Journal  Elliot,  (1986).  of Educational  R . N . (1977).  retarded  379-380.  R.J.  On  the  structure  Psychology,  Self-concept  and  and emotionally disturbed  78(6),  of  adolescent  474-481.  academic  achievement  pupils. Exceptional  of  Children,  94  Carroll,  A . W . (1967). programs  The  effect  on self-concept  retardates. Exceptional  Chalfant,  of  segregated  and  academic  Children,  J . C . & K i n g , K . S . (1976).  34,  J.W.  &  Boersma,  disabilities. Journal  Chapman,  J.W.  &  S.D.  L i s s e : Swets  (1968).  education  F.J.  Some  of  the  Coleman,  J . M . (1983). comparison.  Coopersmith,  S.  (1979).  of  mental  9,  Variables 71,  Affective  definition  34-49.  in  learning  of  Learning  250-258.  Correlates  with  the  characteristics,  minimal  brain  management,  dysfunction.  and  Arkansas:  C h i l d r e n w i t h L e a r n i n g Disabilities.  and  The  of Special  The  Disabilities,  Psychology,  Self-concept  (1967).  of educable  & Zeitlinger B . V .  child  Journal  school  to operationalizing the  Affective  (1980).  aspects  A r k a n s a s Association for  integrated  93-99.  of Learning  of Educational  Boersma,  Disabilities.  Clements,  F.J.  partially  achievement  A n approach  of learning disabilities. Journal  Chapman,  and  the  antecedents  mildly  handicapped:  Education,  of  17,  self-esteem.  the  role of social  37-45.  San  Francisco:  W.H.  Freeman.  Covington, M . C . & B e e r y , R . G . (1976). Self-worth Holt, R i n e h a r t  & Winston.  and  school  learning.  New  York:  95 Crandall,  V . C , Katkovsky, own  control  situations.  Deshler,  D.  of  Child  (1978).  Development,  J.,  36,  related  Learning  D . , Schumaker,  V . J . (1965).  reinforcements  Issues  adolescents.  Deshler,  W . & Crandall,  to  Disability  Alley,  in  intellectual-academic  the  to Tomorrow;  17th  the  education  Quarterly,  G., Warner,  1,  of  achievement  Conference  M. &  Clark,  adolescents  of  learning  disabled  2-10.  the  F.  (1980).  — another  V o l . 2, T h e best of A C L D ,  International  their  91-109.  interaction deficits i n learning disabled Bridges  Children's beliefs i n  selected  ACLD,  Social  myth?  papers  Syracuse,  In  from N.Y.:  S y r a c u s e U n i v e r s i t y Press.  D w e c k , C . S . (1975). The role of expectations learned  helplessness.  Journal  of  and  attributions  Personality  and  i n the  Social  alleviation of  Psychology,  31,  674-685.  Dweck,  Dweck,  C,  &  Goetz,  T.  Harvey,  W.  Research,  (Vol.  C.S.  &  25,  Ickes 2).  Repucci,  responsibility 109-116.  (1978).  in  &  Attributions R.  Kidd  and  (Eds).  learned  New  helplessness.  Directions  in  In  J.  Attribution  Hillsdale, N . J . : E r l b a u m .  N.D.  (1973).  Learned  children. Journal  helplessness  of Personality  and  and Social  reinforcement Psychology,  96  D u d l e y - M a r l i n g & E d m i a s t o n , R. (1985). and  Diesterhaft,  adolescents:  K. & to  A review. Learning  Gerkin,  K . (1983).  achievement  Assessement,  Social status of l e a r n i n g disabled children  Self-concept  of j u n i o r  1,  367-375.  and  Emotion  Disabilities  high  Ellis,  A . 1962. Reason  Ellis,  A . & G r i e g e r , R . (1977). Handbook  and  students.  in Psychotherapy.  Quarterly,  8,  189-204.  locus of control as Journal  of  Psychoeducational  New York: Lyle  of Rational-Emotive  related  Therapy.  Stuart.  New  York:  S p r i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Co.  Finchman,  F.  &  Barling  disabled,  J.  normal  (1978).  Locus of control  achieving, and  gifted  and  generosity  children.  Child  in  learning  Development,  49,  Relations,  2,  P . L . (1977). L o c u s of control and  law  530-533.  Festinger,  L.  (1954).  A  theory  of  social  comparison.  Human  117-140.  Gardner,  Gilmor,  D . C , Warren,  S . A . & Gardner,  knowledge:  A  adolescents.  Adolescence,  T . M . (1978). children and  comparison  Locus  of  of  %  normal,  12(45),  control  adolescents.  retarded  and  learning  disabled  103-109.  as  Canadian  a  mediator Psychological  of  adaptive  Review,  19,  behavior 1-26.  in  97 Gresham,  F.M.  (1982).  Misguided  training with  Griffin,  M.  (1971).  Enigma:  mainstreaming:  handicapped  How the  does  The  children. Exception  he  Adolescent  feel? with  In  E.  case  Children,  Schloss  Learning  for  48(5),  (Ed.),  Disabilities.  social  422-433.  The  San  skills  Educator's  Rafael,  Cal.:  Academic T h e r a p y Publications.  Haarer,  D.S.  (1965).  A  comparative  institutionalized public  schools.  Dissertation  Halechko,  Hallahan,  and  self-concept  of  non-delinquent Michigan  boys  State  disabilities.  1976). Dissertation  (Doctoral Abstracts  enrolled  of control  Learning  D.E.  in  Disabilities,  (1978).  learning 71(4),  Encounters  Rinehart & Winston.  disabled  Dissertation.  and  normal  in  N o . 65-07145.  behavior  International.38,  between  U n i v e r s i t y , 1964).  6410. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s ,  and perception of parental  ability  i n children  University  of  359B.  D . P . , Gajar, A . , Cohen, S. & T a r v e r , S. (1978). Selective attention locus  Hamachek,  25,  Self-esteem  learning  Pittsburgh,  boys  of  (Doctoral dissertation.  Abstracts,  A . D . (1978). with  delinquent  study  children. Journal  and of  47-52.  With  Self.  (2nd  ed.).  New  York:  Holt,  98  Hansford,  B.C.  &  Hattie,  J.A.  (1982).  achievement/performance 52(1),  Harter,  S.  R.  (1974).  Pleasure  (1978).  45,  T.  derived  Review  of  between  self  Educational  and  Research,  (1976). learning  18,  from  cognitive  challenge  and  mastery.  Child  661-669.  Internality:  Psychology,  Hisama,  measures.  relationship  123-142.  Development,  Hill,  The  An  educational  imparative.  Journal  of  Humanistic  43-57.  Achievement motivation  and  and  Journal  behavior  problems.  locus of control of children of  Learning  with  Disabilities,  9(5),  & V i t u l a n o , L . A . (1983). L o n g - t e r m follow-up  studies  58-62.  Horn,  W . F . , O'Donnell, of  learning  J.P.  disabled  persons.  Journal  of  Learning  Disabilities,  16(9),  542-555.  Jones,  R . A . (1977). Self-Fulfilling Effects  Keith,  T.Z.,  of Expectancies.  Pottebaum,  locus  Prophecies:  of  S.M. &  control  a n a l y s i s . Journal  on  Social,  New York:  Eberhart,  Psychological,  and  Physiological  L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m Associates,  S.. (1987).  academic  of Psychoeducational  Effects  achievement: Assessment,  1977.  of self-concept  A  large-sample  4,  61-72.  and path  99  Keogh,  B . K . , Major-Kingsley, System  of Marker  York:  Khan,  S . B . & Weiss, J .  Rand  E.  (Ed.),  (1975).  (1973).  for  The  Second  Relationships  Research  the  Field  &  Reid,  of Learning  teaching  Handbook  of  of affective Research  Disabilities  S.C., Parker,  between  academic  H.  (1982).  Disabilities.  responses. on  In  Teaching.  quasi-longitudinal  12,  achievement study.  A  New  R.W.M. Chicago:  of  LD  and  Quarterly,  10,  37-44.  R.  and  &  and  personality  American  Educational  191-210.  M . , W h i t e , K . & Robbins, F .  self-worth  normal  A  Journal,  J . , Haskett, and  Larsen,  Variables  H.P.  McNally.  characteristics;  Kistner,  Omori-Gordon,  Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  Travers  Kifer,  S.,  Jorjorian,  normally  S.  (1973).  (1987).  Perceived  achieving  students.  Differences  learning disabled children. Perceptual  competence  and  in  Learning  self-concept  Motor  Skills,  locus  of  of 37,  5-10.  Lavoie,  J.C.  &  Adams,  G.R.  measures and I Q as in  Education,  (1976).  A  comparative  test  of  predictors of children's task performance.  control Research  100  L a w r e n c e , E . A . & Winschel, J . F . (1975). L o c u s of control: Implications for special education. Exceptional  Lefcourt,  H . M . (1976).  Locus  Children,  41,  of Control:  483-490.  Current  Trends  in  Theory  and  Research.  H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m Associates.  Levitan  H.  &  Kiraly,  J.  (1975).  children. Academic  Achievement  Therapy,  10,  and  self-concept  disability  children.  young  LD  453-455.  L i n c o l n , A . & C h a z a n , S. (1976). Perceived competence learning  in  Journal  of  and intrinsic m o t i v a t i o n in  Clinical  Child  Psychology,  8  213-216.  MacDonald,  A . P . (1973). (Eds.).  Internal  Measures  of  Locus  Social  of  Control.  Psychological  In  J.  Robinson,  Attitudes.  Ann  U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , Institute for Social Research,  MacMillan,  D . L . , Keogh, on  mildly  Research  MacMillan,  B.K. &  handicacpped on Teaching  Jones,  R . L . (1986).  learners.  retarded  research.  children:  American  Journal  of Mental  for  Shaver Mich.:  169-243.  research  (Ed.). Handbook  of  M a c M i l l a n Publishing Co.  G . M . (1980).  Implications  Arbor,  Special education  M . C . Wittrock  (3rd ed.). N e w Y o r k :  D . L . , Meyers, C E . & Morrison, mildy  In  P.  System  conducting  Deficiency,  85,  identification of and  108-115.  interpreting  101  Markus,  H. &  Wurf,  E . (1986).  perspective. Annual  Marsh,  H.W.  &  O'Neill,  construct  Marsh,  H.W. &  R.  Self  multidimensional  (1984).  Marsh,  to  47(1),  213-231.  H.W. &  swim  well?  R.W. &  Educational  Winne,  P.H.  inventories. American  Massari,  D.J. and  McGhee,  P.E.  Journal  Shavelson, R . J . (1985).  structure.  Marx,  as  &  Rosenblum,  (1978).  &  Crandall,  reinforcement 91-102.  and  20,  Locus  academic  late  if you  Is  it  don't  Social  Psychology,  multifaceted,  hierarchical  validations  D . C . (1972).  Beliefs  by  107-125.  Research  Psychological  The  self-concept:  and  Its  III:  153-174.  of student  Self-concept:  Construct  V . C . (1968).  ratings  21,  Personality  Educational  academic achievement.  Questionnaire  i n a s m a l l pond even of  Psychologist,  social psychological  299-337.  Measurement,  fish  A  self-concept  Determinants  better to be a relatively large learn  38,  Description  of Educational  J.W.  self-concept:  in Psychology,  (1984). of  Journal  Parker,  dynamic  Reviews  validity  adolescents.  The  of  Journal,  of  in  15,  control,  Reports,  31,  internal  performance.  three  Child  self-concept  99-109.  interpersonal  trust  355-360.  locus  of  control  Development,  of 39,  102  McKinney,  J.D.  (1984).  Journal  The  of Learning  M e a d , G . H . (1934). Mind,  Messer,  S.B.  (1972).  performance.  Messick,  S.  Mej'erowitz,  Morgan,  S.  behaviorally Learning  Morrison,  G.M.  Development,  1(1),  Individuality  for  human  of  disordered,  Disabilities  (1985).  and  32-41.  33,  in  and  Differences for  special  learning  Implications  young  to  academic  of  cognitive  styles  retardates  and  special  class  443-451.  children  labeled  learning  disabled/behaviorally  2(1),  10-13.  in  teacher  disabled  education  control  S a n Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  learning  Research,  disability.  43-50.  learning:  in  control  learning  1456-1462.  development.  Development,  specific  internal-external 43  in  of  Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press.  of  Self-derogation  Locus  self-perceptions regular  Society.  Child  Child  (1986).  and  17(1),  relation  (1962).  placement.  subtypes  The  creativity  J.H.  for  Disabilities,  Self  (Ed.). (1976). and  search  and  settings.  perceptions  Learning  disordered.  and  nonhandicapped Disabilities  disabled,  student  learners  in  Research,  103  Morrison,  G . M . , MacMillan, learning Disability  Murray,  Nicholls,  J.  The  18,  the  remedial  Psychology,  Test  Clinical  E.  programs 3,  & Roundtree,  J.  55,  F.  W.,  Adams,  Learning  Scale  Society for Research  Pearl,  R.,  Bryan,  T.  attributions 3-9.  & for  more  personality dyslexic  than  its  Children.  Correlates  sampling.  and  of  Learning  adjustment  children.  name  Journal  Donahue, and  of locus  Psychology,  T.,  children:  in Child  success  research  identification  and  Contemporary  denotes: of  The  Consulting  case and  91-95.  (1971).  in  in  for  P . A . , Forrest,  disorders  Sytem  330-339.  measures  Anxiety  Psychology,  between  school population. Developmental  Owens,  K.(1985).  2-10.  relationship  (1976). W h a t scale of  Nowicki,  Quarterly,  in  Education  Kavale,  disabled children: Implications for  M . E . (1978). success  D.L. &  Stolz, Sibling  4,  of control i n 477-478.  L.M. & studies.  Development,  36,  M.  Learning  (1980).  failure. Learning  secondary  Fisher,  S.  (1971).  Monographs  of  the  (4, S e r i a l N o . 144).  disabled  disability  children's  Quarterly,  3(1),  104  Perlmutter,  B . F . , Crocker, status  and  J.,  related  Corday, personality  disabled adolescents.  Phares,  E.J.  (1976).  Locus  0.  Learning  of  &  Garstecki,  characteristics Disability  Control:  A  D.  (1983).  Sociometric  of m a i n s t r e a m e d  Quarterly,  Personality  6,  learning  20-30.  determinant  of  behavior.  M o r r i s t o n , N . J . : G e n e r a l L e a r n i n g Press.  Purkey,  W . W . (1970). Self-Concept  and  School  Achievement.  Englewood Cliffs, N . J . :  Prentice-Hall.  Ribner,  S.  (1978).  The  effects  of special  class  placement  on  the  exceptional children. J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g Disabilities,  Rogers,  H.  &  Saklofske,  performance Learning  Rosenberg,  B.S. &  D.H.  (1985).  expectations  Disabilities,  Gaier,  of  18(5),  learning  M.  (1973).  E . L . (1977).  Self-esteem  in  11, 319-323.  locus  disabled  of  of  control  children.  Journal  and of  273-278.  The  l e a r n i n g disabilities. Adolescence,  Rosenthal,  Self-concepts,  self-concept  self-concept  12(48),  dyslexic  of  the  adolescent  with  Therapy,  9(1),  489-498.  children.  Academic  learning  disabilities  27-39  Ross,  A.O.  (1976).  disorders.  Psychological New York:  aspects  of  McGraw-Hill.  and  reading  105 R o t h b a u m , F . (1979).  C o p i n g behavior  Personality,  Rotter,  J . B . (1954).  47,  and  locus of control i n children. Journal  of  118-135.  Social  learning  and  clinical  psychology.  Englewood Cliffs, N . J . :  Prentice-Hall.  Rotter,  J . B . (1966).  Generalized expectancies  control of reinforcement.  Schurr,  K . T . , Towne, (Whole class  Serafica,  No.  &  Joiner,  609).  In  self-concept  Journal  learning  disabilities.  versus  Monographs,  L . M . (1972). of  of Special  F . C . & H a r w a y , N . I . (1979). with  internal  Psychological  R.C.  placement.  for  ability  1-28.  Monographs,  over  years  6,  Social relations  and  of  80,  locus of  Trends  Education,  Journal  external  2  of  80,  special  161-166.  self-esteem  Clinical  Child  of children  Psychology,  8,  227-233.  Shavelson,  R.J.  &  Bolus,  methods. Journal  Shavelson,  R . J . , Hubner, interpretations.  Shelton,  M . N . (1977). Journal  R.  (1982).  Self-concept:  of Educational  J.J.  &  Psychology,  Stanton,  G.C.  Review  of Educational  Affective  education  of Learning  Disabilities,  The  10,  74,  (1976).  Research,  and  interplay  the  618-624.  of  theory  and  3-17.  Validation 46,  of  construct  407-441.  learning  disabled  student.  106 Shepherd,  M . J . " L e a r n i n g disabled" Digest,  Schumaker,  5,  J . B . , Hazel,  adolescents.  E . , (1974). Co.  Silverman,  J.S.,  Disability  Exceptional  of Learning  Smith,  children  Sheldon,  Quarterly,  Child  Grows  School  J.  5,  Up.  (1984).  disabled,  Psychology  Social  and  skill  delinquent  388-397.  New  York:  E . P . Dutton  groups  70,  Swanson, B . M . & Parker, others,  Development,  A . (1979). research 208-221.  and  &  the  16(8),  478-481.  G . M . (1978). self-concepts  after  adolescents.  Social of  comparison,  academically  mainstreaming.  Journal  multiple  handicapped  of  Educational  487-499.  H . J . (1971).  of  others,  4,  243-254.  Learned in  Rogers, and  before  Self-concept i n learning disabled  Disabilities,  M.D. &  Psychology,  by  J.A. &  of learning disabled, non-learning Learning  The  reference  Thomas,  Sherman,  R . & Zigmond, N . (1983).  L.,  (1976).  Inc.  Journal  Strang,  "slow learner"?  32-40.  performances  Siegel  or  Parent-child relations:  and  Helplessness  learning  of  self.  and  disabilities.  Child  Psychiatry  expectancy  Review  of  A child's acceptance  factors:  Educational  and  Human  Implications  for  Research,  49,  107 Tognetti,  R.  (1972).  Educationally  academic learning  achievement, disabilhy  (Doctoral Abstracts  Tollefson,  Tolor,  R.  &  32  Disability  grade  Joiner,  (1966). of  day  of  the  patterns  of  5(1),  14-20.  S.S.  (1977).  comparative  of control w i t h classes, Pacific,  grades  study  of  students  in  3  1972).  Reports,  The  learning  as 40,  effects of  the  M . , Farmer,  Self-concept  identified  Psychological  self-concept-of-ability  special  E . P . , Buenning,  children  H.  locus  A  and  4.  Dissertation  5643A.  Quarterly,  Blumin,  children:  and  University  Attribution  programming.  Towner,  and  D . B . , Johnsen,  A . , Tolor, B . & primary  groups  International,  (1982).  Learning  creativity  dissertation,  N . , Tracy, C.R.  handicapped  educable  A.  disabled  and  requiring  locus  &  Barke,  adolescents.  of control  special  in  education  43-49.  special  class  mentally  placement  retarded  on  child.  the East  L a n s i n g : M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y .  Watts,  W.J. & of  Cashion,  learning  Education,  Weiner, B . (1972).  M . B . (1983). disabled  8(2),  Theories  and  A  comparative  normal  psycho-educational  adolescents.  188-201.  of Motivation.  Chicago: M a r k h a m .  Canadian  analysis  Journal  of  108  W e i n e r , B . (1976). A n attributional approach Research  Weiner,  in Education,  B . , F r i e z e , I., Perceiving Learning  White,  K.  (1972) internal  Kukla,  4,  of  179-207.  A . , Reed,  the Causes  for educational psychology. Review  L . , Rest,  of Success  and  S.  &  Failure.  Rosenbaum,  Morristown,  R.  (1971).  N . J . : General  Press.  The  effect  control  of  source  among  of  young  evaluation  boys.  on  Psychology  the in  development the  Schools,  of 9,  56-61.  White,  K . R . (1980).  Socio-economic status  International  Wilgash,  L.  &  Review  Patrick,  D.  evidence. Journal  Winnie,  (1982).  Learning  learning  MacMillan.  Handbook  15(8),  achievement.  Education:  An  79-81.  Delinquency  and  Disabilities,  Wong,  disabled,  Disabilities,  M . C . (1981).  4,  of Learning  P . H . , Woodlands, M . J . & among  Wittrock,  Series,  & academic  15,  B . (1982).  normal  and  learning  disabilities:  More  278-279.  C o m p a r a b i l i t y of gifted  self-concept  students.  Journal  (3rd  New  of  470-475.  of Research  on  Teaching.  Ed.)  York:  109  Wylie,  R.  (1979). 2).  Wu,  W.  Yauman,  The  Self-Concept:  and  Lincoln: U n i v e r s i t y of N e b r a s k a  (1975).  Children's  Bulletin  of Educational  B.E.  (1980).  sex,  Special  elementary-school age  Ysseldyke,  Theory  J . E . , Algozzine, differences  B.  between  disabled. Journal  locus  of  Research  Psychology,  8,  education  placement  children. Learning  low  of Special  Selected  Topics,  (Vol.  Press.  control  Shinn, M . &  on  Education,  academic  achievement.  107-114.  and  Disability  McGue,  achievers  and  and 16,  the  self-concepts  Quarterly,  M . (1982). students 73-85.  3,  of  30-35.  S i m i l a r i t i e s and  classified  learning  APPENDIX A: SELF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE  110  III  Ill  SELF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE III  STUDENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER This questionnaire is made up of a number of statements about the way people feel about themselves. Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right and wrong answers. Please read each statement carefully and circle the number of the response which is closest to how true or how false the statement is for you personally. definitely false 2  1  mostly false 3  mostly true  4  5  6  definitely true 7  8  SAMPLE  a.  I  like  1  1.  I find  summer  2  Overall, 1  3.  I often 1  3  4  many mathematical  1  2.  holidays.  2  5  6  7  8  ^  problems interesting and challenging.  3  4  5  6  7  8  I have a lot of respect for myself. 2  3  4  5  tell s m a l l lies to avoid e m b a r r a s s i n g 2  3  4  6  7  8  situations. 5  6  7  8  112 4.  I get  a lot of attention  1  5.  I have  2  calm  2  I hardly  ever  5  4  sex. 6  7  8  3  saw  5  6  7  8  5  6  7  8  and relaxed. 4  things  the  same  2  3  way  4  I enjoy doing w o r k for most academic 1  I am  opposite  as  my  parents  when  I  was  up.  1  9.  of the  4  3  I a m u s u a l l y pretty  growing  8.  3  2  1  7.  members  trouble expressing m y s e l f w h e n t r y i n g to w r i t e something.  1  6.  from  2  never  able  3  to  5  up  7  8  6  7  8  subjects.  4  think  6  5  answers  to  problems  that  haven't  already  6  7  8  been figured out. 1  10.  I have 1  11.  I have 1  2  3  a p h y s i c a l l y attractive 2  3  3  5  body.  4  few friends of the 2  4  same  5  6  7  8  sex that I c a n r e a l l y count on. 4  5  6  7  8  113  12.  I a m a good 1  13.  2  3  I find  2  3  it difficult  to meet  2  8  mathematics.  4  5  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  3  members  of the opposite sex w h o m I  like.  4  5  6  7  8  3  4  5  6  7  8  3  4  5  6  7  8  I can w r i t e effectively. 2  I w o r r y a lot. 1  19.  7  People can rely on m e .  1  18.  6  courses t h a t involve  3  2  1  17.  5  O v e r a l l , I lack self-confidence.  1  16.  4  to take  2  1  15.  3  I have hesitated 1  14.  athlete.  I  would  2  like  to  parents raised 1  2  bring  up  children  of  my  own  (if I  have  any)  like  me. 3  4  5  6  7  8  my  114  20.  I hate studying for m a n y 1  21.  2  3  I am  2  5  6  7  4  5  2  3  have not tried.  6  4  I a m comfortable t a l k i n g to members  I  8  7  8  ugly.  1  24.  4  3  1  23.  subjects.  I a m good at combining ideas i n w a y s t h a t others 1  22.  academic  am  2  3  awkward  and  4  poorly  5  of the  6  same  5  at  8  sex.  6  coordinated  7  most  7  8  sports  and  physical  activities. 1  25.  2  4  3  O v e r a l l , I a m pretty 1  27.  3  5  6  I have generally done better i n m a t h e m a t i c s 1  26.  2  B e i n g honest 1  4  5  than  6  8  other  courses.  7  8  accepting of myself.  2  3  4  5  is not p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t 2  courses  7  3  4  5  to  6  7  8  me. 6  7  8  115  28.  I have 1  29.  3  2  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  time.  3  2  3  2  I have  4  5  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  3  6  7  8  originality.  4  5  a good body build. 2  3  4  I don't get along v e r y well w i t h other 1  parents.  subjects. 3  2  1  35.  5  I w i s h I had more i m a g i n a t i o n and 1  34.  2  I like most academic 1  33.  4  I still have m a n y unresolved conflicts w i t h m y 1  32.  3  I a m happy most of the 1  31.  2  sex.  R e l a t i v e to most people, m y verbal skills are quite good. 1  30.  lots of friends of the opposite  2  3  4  5  members 5  6  of the 6  7  same 7  8  sex. 8  116 36.  I hate sports 1  37.  2  I have  2  O v e r a l l , I don't 1  39.  I nearty  2  2  I often  I am  2  mathematics.  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  more comfortable w i t h  My  3  3  anxious m u c h of the  1  43.  upon  8  for myself.  4  2  3  4  members  of the  opposite  sex  1  6  7  I understand  8  them.  5  6  7  8  5  6  7  8  time. 4  parents have u s u a l l y been unhappy  have  5  have to read things several times before  1  42.  5  7  truth.  3  are  6  I am. 1  41.  4  3  a l w a y s tell the  5  a n y t h i n g that is based  have m u c h respect  M o s t of m y friends than  4  3  2  1  40.  3  trouble understanding  1  38.  and p h y s i c a l activities.  or disappointed w i t h w h a t I do and  done. 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  117  44.  I have trouble w i t h most academic 1  45.  2  2  There are  2  2  2  I a m quite good at 1  50.  6  7  8  5  3  3  2  3  6  7  w a y I look that I would 4  5  of the  4  same  8  like to change.  6  7  ?  6  7  £  sex.  5  a n d physical activities.  4  5  6  7  £  4  5  6  7  8  6  7  8  mathematics. 3  O v e r a l l , I have a lot of self-confidence. 1  51.  4  I have a high energy level i n sports 1  49.  5  I make friends easily w i t h members 1  48.  3  lots of things about the  1  47.  4  I enjoy w o r k i n g out new w a y s of solving problems. 1  46.  3  subjects.  2  3  4  I sometimes take things that do not belong to me. 1  2  3  4  5  118 52.  I am  comfortable t a l k i n g to members  1  53.  2  2  59.  5  4  5  4  2  '  5  s i m i l a r to those of m y 3  4  I ' m good at most academic 2  6  7  8  M y body weight is about  Other  members  8  3  of the  6  7  8  6  7  8  parents. 5  4  3  2  7  5  6  7  8  5  6  7  8  problem solving.  2  1  6  subjects.  3  I ' m not m u c h good at 1  58.  3  M y values are  1  57.  4  sex.  depressed.  2  1  56.  3  I h a r d l y ever feel 1  55.  opposite  I a m good at expressing myself. 1  54.  3  of the  4  r i g h t (neither 4  too fat 5  nor too s k i n n y ) . 6  same sex find me boring.  7  8  119  60.  I a m poor at most sports 1  61.  I have  2  2  I never  67.  6  7  5  6  7  class.  4  important.  2  3  4  5  6  7  2  3  4  5  6  7  6  7  2  of the opposite  3  4  sex. 5  In school I had more trouble l e a r n i n g to read t h a n 1  66.  3  I ' m quite shy w i t h members 1  65.  5  cheat.  1  64.  4  O v e r a l l , nothing that I do is v e r y 1  63.  3  a l w a y s done well i n mathematics  1  62.  and p h y s i c a l activities.  2  3  4  I tend to be high-strung, tense, 1  2  I like m y  parents.  1  2  and  3  3  students.  5  6  7  5  6  7  restless.  4  4  most other  5  6  7  8  120  68.  I ' m not p a r t i c u l a r l y interested 1  69.  I am  2  2  I dislike the  3  2  I enjoy  sports  3  4  5  I am 1  6  7  6  8  7  8  4  2  2  a v e r y honest 2  4  5  of the  6  7  8  same  sex.  5  6  7  8  5  6  7  8  and p h y s i c a l activities. 3  O v e r a l l , I have pretty 1  74.  5  I share lots of activities w i t h members  1  73.  3  2  1  72.  4  w a y I look.  1  71.  3  subjects.  a n imaginative person.  1  70.  i n most academic  4  negative feelings about 3  myself.  4  5  6  7  8  4  5  6  7  8  person. 3  121  75.  I would feel O K about cheating on a test as long as I did not get 1  76.  2  3  4  5  6  O v e r a l l , I have pretty positive feelings about 1  2  3  4  7  caught.  8  myself. 5  6  7  8  APPENDIX B: I N T E L L E C T U A L A C H I E V E M E N T RESPONSIBILITY  122  QUESTIONNAIRE  123  INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE  STUDENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER This questionnaire describes a number of common experiences most of you have in your daily lives. These statements are presented one at a time, and following each are two possible answers. Read the description of the experience carefully, and then look at the two answers . Choose the one that most often describes what happens to you. Put a circle around the "a" or "b" in front of that answer. Be sure to answer each question according to how you really feel . If, at any time, you are uncertain about the meaning of a question, raise your hand and I will explain it to you. SAMPLE A.  Which  do you like best  a. yogurt,  or  b. chocolate  1.  2.  3.  cake?  I f a teacher passes y o u to the next grade, would i t problably be a.  because she liked y o u , or  b.  because of the work y o u did?  W h e n y o u do well on a test at school, is it more likely to be a.  because y o u studied for it, or  b.  because the test w a s especially  easy?  W h e n y o u have trouble understanding something in school, is it u s u a l l y a.  because the teacher didn't e x p l a i n i t clearly, or  b.  because y o u didn't listen  carefully?  124  4.  5.  W h e n y o u read a story and can't remember a.  because  the  b.  because  y o u w e r e n ' t interested i n the  Suppose  your  story w a s n ' t  parents  say  m u c h of it, is it u s u a l l y  well w r i t t e n , or  you  are  story?  doing well  in  school.  Is  this  likely  to  this  likely  to  happen  6.  a.  because  your school work is good, or  b.  because  thej' are  Suppose  i n a good mood?  y o u did better  than  usual in a  subject  at  school. Is  happen  7.  8.  a.  because  y o u tried harder,  b.  because  someone helped y o u  W h e n y o u lose at  of cards or checkers, does it u s u a l l y happen  a.  because  the other  b.  because  y o u don't p l a y well?  player is good at the game,  Suppose a person doesn't  think you are  can y o u m a k e h i m change his m i n d  b.  are  there  some  people  who  will  i f y o u t r y to, or think  w h a t y o u do?  I f y o u solve a puzzle quickly, is it a.  because  it w a s n ' t  b.  because  y o u w o r k e d on it carefully?  or  v e r y bright or clever.  a.  matter  9.  a game  or  a v e r y h a r d puzzle, or  you're  not  very  bright  no  125  10.  I f a boy or g i r l say  11.  tells y o u that  13.  14.  dumb, is it more  likely  that  they  you  fail.  that  a.  because  they  b.  because  w h a t y o u did really w a s n ' t v e r y bright?  Suppose  are  y o u study  to  m a d at  become  Do y o u think this would  12.  y o u are  y o u , or  a  teacher,  scientist,  or  doctor  and  happen  a.  because  y o u didn't w o r k h a r d enough, or  b.  because  y o u needed  some help, a n d other  people didn't give it to you?  W h e n y o u learn something quickly in school, is it u s u a l l y a.  because  y o u paid  b.  because  the  If a teacher  teacher  says  or  explained it clearly?  to y o u , " Y o u r w o r k is fine," is i t  a.  something teachers  b.  because  When  close attention,  u s u a l l y say to encourage  pupils,  or  y o u did a good job?  y o u find  it h a r d  to  work arithmetic or m a t h  problems  at  school,  it  15.  a.  because  y o u didn't study well enough before y o u tried them, or  b.  because  the teacher  When  gave problems that were too  y o u forget something you heard teacher  didn't explain  in class, is i t  a.  because  the  it v e r y w e l l , or  b.  because  y o u didn't t r y v e r y h a r d to  remember?  hard?  is  126  16.  Suppose  you  weren't  sure  about  asked y o u , but your answer  17.  18.  answer  because  she w a s n ' t  b.  because  y o u gave the best  answer  y o u were interested  i n the  b.  because  the  written?  story w a s well  you  19.  you're  acting silly  20.  21.  a.  because  of something you did, or  b.  because  they  When  and  not  thinking  to feel c r a n k y ?  y o u don't do well on a test at  school, is it  a.  because  the test w a s especially h a r d , or  b.  because  y o u didn't study for it?  W h e n y o u w i n at  teacher happen  story, or  more likely to be  happen  your  most of it, is it u s u a l l y  because  tell  question  y o u could think of?  a.  parents  a  as p a r t i c u l a r as usual, or  y o u read a story and remember  If your  to  turned out to be right. Is i t likely to  a.  When  the  a game of cards or checkers, does it happen  a.  because  y o u p l a y real well, or  b.  because  the other person doesn't  p l a y well?  I f people think you're bright or clever, is it a.  because  they happen  to like y o u , or  b.  because  y o u u s u a l l y act that w a y ?  clearly,  it is  127  22.  23.  I f a teacher  25.  because  she "had it i n for y o u , " or  b.  because  your school w o r k w a s n ' t good enough?  Suppose  y o u don't  do as  as  usual  in a  subject  at  school.  a.  because  you weren't  b.  because  somebody bothered y o u and kept y o u from working?  Would  this  as careful as u s u a l , or  I f a boy or girl tells y o u that y o u are bright, is it u s u a l l y a.  because  you thought  b.  because  they like you?  Suppose  y o u became  a  up a good idea, or  famous  teacher,  scientist,  or  doctor.  Do y o u think  happen  a.  because  other people helped y o u w h e n y o u needed it, or  b.  because  you w o r k e d v e r y  Suppose  your  parents  this likely to happen  27.  well  happen  this would  26.  next grade, would it probably be  a.  probably  24.  didn't pass y o u to the  say  hard?  your  aren't  doing well  because  your w o r k isn't v e r y good, or  b.  because  they are  Is  feeling c r a n k y ?  s h o w i n g a friend  w i t h it. W o u l d that  school work.  more  a.  Suppose y o u are  i n your  how to p l a y a game  and he has  happen  a.  because  he w a s n ' t  able to understand  b.  because  you couldn't explain it well?  how to play, or  trouble  128 28.  When it  29.  30.  31.  32.  you  find  to work  arithmetic or m a t h  problems at  school,  is  usually,  a.  because the teacher  b.  because y o u studied y o u r book well before y o u tried  W h e n y o u remember  gave y o u especially easy problems, or  because  y o u tried h a r d to remember, or  b.  because  the teacher  I f y o u can't work  explained i t well?  a puzzle, is it more likely to happen  a.  because you are  b.  because  not expecially good at w o r k i n g puzzles, or  the instructions weren't w r i t t e n clearly  I f your parents because  they  b.  because  of something y o u did?  a game  to a friend  and he  learns  that happen more often  a.  because y o u explained it well, or  b.  because he was able to understand  Suppose you're not the  likely  are feeling good, or  Suppose y o u are explaining how to p l a y  and  enough?  tell y o u that you are b r i g h t or clever, is it more  a.  you  them?  something y o u heard i n class, is it u s u a l l y  a.  quickly. Would  33.  it easy  sure  answer  about the  you  give  it?  answer  turns  out  to a question y o u r teacher to  be  happen a.  because  she was more particular t h a n usual, or  b.  because y o u answered too quickly?  wrong.  Is  it  likely  asks to  129 34.  If a teacher a.  because  sa}'s to y o u , " T r y to do better," this is  something she  m i g h t say  would it be to get  or b.  because  your work  w a s n ' t as good as  usual?  pupils to  try  harder,  APPENDIX  C:  P E R S O N A L STUDENT R E C O R D INFORMATION  130  131 CHARACTERISTICS  OF STUDENTS IN SPECIAL  FOR SPECIFIC L E A R N I N G  PERSONAL  STUDENT  CLASS  DISABILITIES  RECORD  INFORMATION  Student Identification Number  School  A.  Sex:  B.  Age  male  female  Birthdate year  C. W I S C - R  month  day  Scores  Verbal  Performance  Full  D.  Scale  Placement 1. Present  placement  A m o u n t of time i n special class A m o u n t of time i n regular  class  Regular class/es participated i n C u r r i c u l u m covered i n special class  2. G r a d e at first referral.  3. A g e at first referral.  PLACEMENTS  132  4. A g e at  first  5. G r a d e at  placement  first  i n special ed.  placement  4. N u m b e r of years,  i n special ed.  grades and k i n d of previous  PROGRAMMING  #  OF YEARS/MONTHS  Regular E d .  LAC  DTC  Special  class  Other  E.  Achievement  Reading Achievement  Math  Achievement  Report C a r d F.  Grades  Repeated  Grade  Scores  Scores  Averages  / Classes  programming:  Repeated  GRADES  G.  Medical  Information  vision  hearing  medication  H.  Other  Support  I. Referrals  J.  Services  to Other  Attendance  Agencies  / Absenteeism  N u m b e r of School D a y s Absent/ N u m b e r Grade  1  Grade  2  Grade  3  Grade  4  Grade  5  Grade  6  Grade  7  Grade  8  Grade  9  Grade  10  Grade  11  Grade  12  K.  Parental  Father  Mother  Comments:  Occupations  of School D a y s  (%)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097254/manifest

Comment

Related Items